The government’s single-year extension to the public sector apprenticeship target has received mixed reaction from in-scope bodies.

It was announced last Friday that the target of having apprentices make up 2.3 per cent of new public sector employees would be restated from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022.

Most sectors of the public workforce have struggled to meet the target in its original timeframe, of April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2021, with an overall average of just 1.7 per cent by the end of March 2020.

The police have performed worst so far, with official Department for Education statistics from earlier this year showing England’s forces managed just 0.7 per cent.

Schools, which only came in-scope for the target in March 2019, performed second-worst with one per cent.

After facing high financial and time costs recruiting and training apprentice teachers, school leaders have reacted strongly to extending the target, set under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

Sara Ford, deputy director of policy for the Association of School and College Leaders, called it an “unwelcome and unnecessary distraction” when schools are “trying to resume in-school education for all pupils after a year of unprecedented disruption” caused by Covid-19.

She said the bureaucracy behind the target, which applies to schools but not FE colleges, “is enough to make one’s head spin”.

“Managing the off-the-job training and support elements mean taking on new apprentices is a tricky proposition for many schools, where time is precious.”

Instead of an “unrealistic and complicated” target, she suggested the government “get the nuts and bolts of a properly resourced and funded apprenticeship programme, which works for all schools and colleges, in place”.

Existing staff being developed through apprenticeship funding could also be counted towards the target, Ford proposed.

NHS welcomes new target 

Despite it achieving just 1.5 per cent over the past three years, extending the target has been welcomed by the NHS, according to Laura Roberts, director of skills development and participation for the service’s training overseers, Health Education England.

This is because their apprentices “make a huge contribution to the delivery of essential services across the NHS in frontline clinical and non-clinical roles”.

The College of Policing, which sets standards for professional development in law enforcement, said it was “very supportive of apprenticeships” and was working on entry routes for new officers to start on the police constable degree apprenticeship.

After local councils achieved just 1.3 per cent towards the target, their representative body the Local Government Association said it “remains committed to supporting councils to provide these opportunities to people in their communities”.

They are also “keen” to work with the government on “how more local flexibilities in using the levy could open up even more opportunities”.

The best-performing sector – the armed forces – was the only one to meet the 2.3 per cent target, managing 7.9 per cent.

Public bodies must still publish progress

The guidance from the DfE which revealed the target extension also confirmed relevant public bodies would be still expected to publish their progress towards the target to the department.

The bodies will also have to publish their progress publicly, to “enable the government, the public and wider stakeholders to understand each body’s headcount and the number of apprentices they employ”.

This information must be “easily accessible to the public, for example, on the internal and external facing website of a public sector body in scope,” the guidance reads, as previous guidance on the target has said.

FE Week uncovered last October how scores of multi-academy trusts, councils and hospital trusts had failed to publicise what percentage of their staff had started an apprenticeship in 2019/20 on their websites by the September deadline.

At the time, the DfE appeared to be letting off mandating bodies to publish their guidance, saying it was simply “good practice” to do so.

Under this new guidance, public bodies have six months after the end of the target period to send their data to the DfE and make it public.

The Treasury has demanded that the Department for Education claw back millions in adult education funding from colleges, FE Week has learned.

College leaders were riled this week when the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) announced it would apply a 90 per cent tolerance threshold for adult education allocations in 2020/21.

Colleges have told FE Week that they now face handing back millions of pounds as they expect to miss that target by some way because of the disruption and lockdowns following Covid-19.

Decision surprised ESFA officials

The ESFA claimed this new threshold, much higher than the 68 per cent set for last year, is a “fair representation of grant funded providers’ average delivery” in 2020/21.

But FE Week understands it was the Treasury that successfully lobbied for the higher threshold by arguing that colleges have had enough time to reorientate provision and run courses online where needed.

FE Week also understands the decision surprised senior ESFA officials. The agency has so far stayed silent on whether colleges will be able to submit business cases if they do not reach the 90 per cent target.

The Treasury declined to comment.

Clawback ‘tremendously disappointing’

Leicester College, which has been in lockdown with the rest of the city since March, forecasts it will only be able to spend 53 per cent of its allocation this year. 

This would mean having to hand back more than £4 million. It will be “unlikely to be able to make up the remaining allocation in the final term of the year,” a spokesperson says, as many adult learners are “unwilling” to sign-up until the vaccine programme is completed.

While it is “not clear” what the full implications of this year’s clawback would be, it is “clear” there will be consequences for its capital programmes.

Derby College Group has forecast it will only be able to make it to 65 per cent of its £7.1 million allocation – meaning it will be handing back nearly £1.8 million.

“Not only is this announcement later than expected, it is tremendously disappointing,” a spokesperson said.

The group believes the clawback could hurt its ESOL and basic skills programmes, but is unable to detail how as FE Week went to press.

“We would appeal to DfE to reconsider this position in light of the financial impact this will have on our sector,” the spokesperson added.

The Association of Colleges has predicted most of its members will deliver between 75 to 85 per cent of their allocations, which would mean a total clawback of between £22 million and £62 million.

The decision is also troubling councils with AEB allocations, with Leicestershire County Council – which has a £4.1 million allocation – saying the 90 per cent threshold will “certainly be challenging”.

Kent County Council, which has the largest allocation of any council this year with £8.7 million, said it expects to spend the full amount, but it is “difficult to understand why” the threshold has been set at 90 per cent.

London providers receiving 10 per cent adult education uplift

While the DfE has called the 90 per cent a “fair representation” of grant-funded providers’ average delivery, other adult education commissioners have moved to comfort providers.

For instance, the Greater London Authority has applied a 10 per cent “London Factor” funding uplift for its AEB providers, affecting the base rate of all AEB-fundable qualifications up to and including level 2.

The authority also previously announced it would apply a 90 per cent threshold this year.

But even colleges who expect to hit the threshold have complained it is unfair.

Luminate Education Group, formerly Leeds City College, says it can reach the 90 per cent, but that is dependent on whether it can recruit enough learners in the summer term.

The Yorkshire group’s vice-principal for curriculum and adults Ann-Marie Spry says the threshold is “quite a stretch for us and there is no wriggle room”.

She believes an 85 per cent threshold would have been “better” as it would encourage innovation while “recognising the mood among the adult population”.

College group NCG expects to use in excess of 90 per cent of its allocation, but has also seen “some” reduction in enrolment to new provision.

Chris Payne, its deputy chief executive, says that “given the uncertainty around recruitment at the moment, we would have welcomed a lower target”.

The DfE is planning on publishing further details by the end of March.

In his final interview as FE Commissioner, Richard Atkins speaks candidly about his time in office and why he makes “no apology” for his intervention approach.

Atkins spent 21 years as a college principal before taking on the lead intervention role in 2016, during which time his team visited and publicly reported on dozens of colleges in financial peril, with two becoming the first to be taken through the new insolvency regime.

 

Q: Your college visits, which have often been swiftly followed by the departure of principals and chairs, have divided the sector’s opinion over your no-nonsense approach. While some have welcomed your intervention, others have been critical of the public focus on leadership failures. How do you respond to that criticism?

A: It is good preparation being a principal for 21 years because you can’t be universally popular all the time, so I had some general preparation for needing to have a thick skin. I always try and put the interest of learners and employers and their parents at the forefront whenever there is very difficult work to do.

In an ideal world there wouldn’t be a need for an intervention regime but I haven’t heard from anyone in the sector that in the cases we have intervened that those cases didn’t need to happen.

If we hadn’t put in the appropriate support and challenge, what would have happened to those learners in those colleges? In my view, the quality of teaching and learning would have deteriorated and the sustainability of the college would have got worse.

For those communities and those learners, I make no apology for what we have done. I and my team make mistakes, nobody is infallible, but if you ask me of the 59 intervention assessments, 95 diagnostic assessments and more than 60 mergers during these four years, do I think we’ve got most of it right, most of the time? The answer from my judgment is yes.

At the end of the day, if an institution is failing and the governance and leadership does not have the capacity and capability to ensure its sustainability and improve its quality, then it isn’t fair on the learners that there isn’t intervention.

I believe that where public taxpayer money is spent, there has to be a high level of scrutiny and accountability.

I think our judgment calls are far more often right than wrong. The ones that attract the most interest are the very serious failures of governance and leadership ̶ we haven’t had that very many of those, but where there have been, I have recommended prompt and direct intervention because that is what employers and parents expect and that is what those are funding the sector expect.

 

Q: Where do you stand on the issue of “naming and shaming” colleges in difficulty? Some in the sector believe your detailed FE Commissioner reports on individual colleges should be kept confidential instead of being placed in the public domain. Do you agree or disagree?

A: One of the things I introduced when I took on the role was diagnostic assessments. They’re unpublished and private and I think they can be very effective. That is my favoured approach to every intervention.

However, when a college is seriously failing and there has been a serious failure in governance and leadership and/or they become financially insolvent, I do believe that the level of accountability should lead to some form of report. Not just to be published for the sake of feeding the media, but they are also a useful learning point.

There are over 100 FE Commissioner reports now on the DfE website and I have numerous chair and governors saying to me they have looked at a few and find them very helpful. A number of the issues colleges need to address are the same issues and therefore they do provide a really helpful resource. Therefore, do I think there should be a “let’s keep it all private and push it in a corner” approach? No, I do not. But do I think there should be excessive publication of reports, or any attempt whatsoever to name and shame individual people? I do not.

I find that the colleges most concerned about the issues you raise are the ones that have never had any interaction with the FE Commissioner. I often find the college leaders and governors that have gone through our intervention are complimentary.

I don’t produce reports that are salacious or that are meant to entertain.

Ofsted does a great job, and I think it would be extraordinary if we could publish their reports but not FE Commissioner reports ̶ that would be very strange. Why shouldn’t the local community be able to see whether the governance and leadership has the necessary capacity and capability to improve when they’re having difficulties?”

 

Q: What was your lowest point as commissioner?

A: My lowest moment was at about 10.55am at Hadlow and West Kent and Ashford College on day one when we started to begin to put the jigsaw together that led to their insolvency. That was a very dispiriting moment.

The complex network of governance and leadership arrangements between these two colleges, which were legally independent FE corporations, were incredibly complex and dysfunctional. They had failed to hold any of the right people to account and, as a result, the colleges had failed to keep their eyes close enough to quality across the board, and in particular, had engaged in a range of initiatives and other developments that were inappropriate and led ultimately to their financial collapse. Buying a mining museum, a long way away, and the transfer of assets between the two colleges, were inappropriate.

I was saddened that insolvency needed to happen, but I was incredibly grateful to the interim board and principal, who strengthened the focus on teaching and learning throughout the process.

 

Q: We have reported on numerous colleges selling off campuses to balance the books in recent years, which has often been controversial with the local community and MPs. Many of the sales have been recommended in FE Commissioner reports. From your perspective, why has this become a common theme for colleges?

A: Being on top of your costs as a college is good practice. It is right and proper that any college knows the costs of running each site and campus and what contribution the site makes to overheads. When a college finds that a particular site is a loss maker and is draining the mothership, then difficult decisions have to be taken.

At the end of the day, are you going to close the small, possibly distant, campus to sustain the large college, or are you going to allow the small one to drain you?

I regret that colleges are faced with that decision, but the reason they are is the core funding will not always enable them to sustain the number of campuses they had two or three years ago.

Good, well-run colleges regularly assess the viability of their sites and all of their provision and take the necessary steps to make sure the college is sustainable and successful for the highest number of learners possible.

We have advised a number of colleges on doing this and each situation is very difficult for the local community and MPs, but I believe they have been well handled by the college in an appropriate way.

The only thing that would make a difference would be a further significant improvement in core funding. It is the contribution level that is key, and to do that you have got to have a good average class size, a good number of learners and apprentices that you can run efficiently. When those are not evident in a site it is very difficult, and good governing bodies and management teams make sure of this year-on-year.

Clearly they shouldn’t make hasty judgments, clearly they should judge these things over a period of years and not rush in and vacate. Sometimes they do have to make very difficult decisions in the face of considerable public noise and upset about what is going on, but I’m not going to sit here and say colleges should keep open unviable sites.

I have not been involved in a case where a college is closing a site in a frivolous or short-sighted way, I have seen it based on real evidence and a real desire to protect the current and future learners as far as possible. I don’t underestimate the impact on students and staff. It is a last resort.

 

Q: During your time in post FE Week has reported on a number of ESFA investigations into independent training providers (ITPs). Do you wish you could have also intervened in ITPs, which also receive millions of pounds in public funding? Should they be subject to the same scrutiny as colleges?  

A: I think to have a role similar to the FE Commissioner for ITPs might well be a good idea. With my college background, it would have been inappropriate for me to do it. A conversation was had with me four years ago about that, but we do not have the skillset or capacity to do that work.

It is not a decision for me, but if the ESFA deemed it helpful to have a team of ITP experts doing this sort of work, I would understand.

 

Q: What are you planning to do next? Full retirement or other work, perhaps still in the FE sector?

A: Apart from continuing at Exeter University as a board member and being on the government’s Higher Education Advisory Group, I’m hoping to watch a bit more sport and take a bit more exercise.

I don’t see myself as ever being an interim principal. I was jumping on trains and planes three or four days a week in this role. I don’t want to go back to a four- or five-days-a-week job.

The Department for Education has today revealed how colleges and training providers will be expected to operate over the summer term as England comes out of lockdown measures.

In an update to its ‘Further education coronavirus (Covid-19) operational guidance’, the department has laid out four steps for opening up different activities and centres.

It follows the “successful” return to on-site education from 8 March.

The next steps out of lockdown will be “guided by data, not dates, so that we do not risk a surge in infections that would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS” – so changes are likely.

Four steps for fully reopening

Step one, set to come into place on Monday 29 March, will allow providers’ outdoor sports and leisure facilities such as tennis courts and open air swimming pools to reopen.

All students will be able to take part in organised outdoor sports, and wraparound provision can take place outdoors for under-18 students.

Clinically extremely vulnerable staff and students can return to work and education from 1 April, and the mandate on face coverings in classrooms and workshops is also set to be reviewed next week.

Step two, taking place not before 12 April, will mean students can return to industry placements where working from home is “not reasonably possible”.

Commercial activity within colleges and providers can reopen, as it will in wider society.

Indoor leisure facilities such as gyms can reopen for public or individual household use; and on-site hospitality facilities can reopen to the public for table service if they can serve outside.

Step three, taking place not before 17 May, will allow indoor adult group sport to resume on FE premises.

Indoor hospitality can reopen to the public under this phase, and more students are expected to return to part-time work outside of their college, along with the rest of society.

Step four will coincide with the completion of a government review of social distancing and other long-term measures meant to mitigate against coronavirus.

“This will inform decisions on the timing and circumstances under which the advice on one metre plus, the wearing of face coverings and other measures may be lifted,” the update reads.

So far, the only other restriction being lifted for colleges for step four, and not before 21 June, is that open days can be planned.

Colleges should plan content for ‘less secure’ students

Alongside these steps, the update also sets out expectations for the summer term, with several tasks for providers to consider.

These include designing and planning content for students to embed curriculum content “in which they are less secure”.

Colleges have also been advised to liaise with their local schools to support students transitioning to A-levels or other vocational and technical qualifications. Schools should be helped to identify and prioritise content deemed “essential” for the course, to deliver in the classroom, remotely, or independently.

Providers should seek access to all year 11 students ahead of summer to “inform their options and choices” through taster sessions and induction activities. Guidance to schools will set out that providers should be given access, and the Baker Clause already mandates schools allow colleges to discuss options with their students.

Intensive support for those at risk of being not in employment, education or training should also be discussed with local authorities and schools, the guidance states.

Providers should also support study skills, other enrichment activity, careers guidance, and support for students’ mental health for students going into further study or employment.

And they should support application and preparation for work with employers, for instance by providing work experience, Covid-19 restrictions permitting.

Exam boards have today published guidance for how schools and colleges are expected to award grades this summer. The guidance includes key dates setting out the process.

Here’s what you need to know:

 

22 March to 22 April:

Entry amendments window open for centres

 

 

31 March:

Additional assessment materials (sets of questions, mark schemes and mapping)

 

 

26 April:

Entry deadline for private candidates

 

 

12 April:

Additional support materials (marking exemplification)

 

12 April to 30 April:

Window for centre policy submission

 

19 April:

Additional support materials (grading exemplification) and additional sets of questions publicly available

 

19 April to 11 June:

Awarding organisations review centre policies and conduct virtual visits where needed

 

26 April:

Entry deadline for private candidates

 

26 May to 18 June:

Window for teacher assessed grades submission opens via awarding organisations’ respective portals

 

18 June to 16 July:

Exam boards conduct sample checks of evidence. In
exceptional circumstances, sample checks may take place until July 23.

 

10 August:

A/AS levels and relevant otherlLevel 3 results day

 

12 August:

GCSE and relevant other level 2 results day

 

10 August to 7 September:

Priority appeals window:

• 10 August to 16 August: student requests centre review
• 10 August to 20 August: centre conducts centre review
• 11 August to 23 August: centre submits appeal to awarding organisation

 

10 August to end October:

Majority of non-priority appeals take place

• 10 August to 3 September: student requests centre review
• 10 August to 10 September: centre conducts centre review
• 11 August to 17 September: centre submits appeal to awarding organisation

Ministers have been warned over a “Wild West” grading system this summer with MPs demanding concessions to ensure a “level playing field” for students.

The education select committee has warned Gavin Williamson his exams replacement plan risks being “too inconsistent”.

Robert Halfon, the committee’s chair, said this was down to a lack of standardised assessments and “impartial assessors to provide the checks and balances to guarantee fairness”.

The eight-page letter also demands the Department for Education sets out any reductions in cash that schools and colleges should expect on their exam fees.

FE Week’s sister title FE Week revealed earlier this year that boards had increased entry prices, despite exams not going ahead.

The intervention from the committee comes after schools minister Nick Gibb and Ofqual officials were grilled by MPs earlier this month.

Williamson has been asked to respond by April 12 so MPs can consider the response “once we return from the Easter recess”.

DfE and Ofqual have been approached for comment.

 

Here is what MPs are demanding…

1. Exam boards should provide a “clear” minimum requirement to schools and colleges relating to the coverage of the syllabus in each subject to address lost learning concerns. MPs have asked for clarity on what would happen to pupils that don’t meet this requirement, but suggested repeating the course could be a solution. This would ensure a grade “stands on its merit”.

2. Officials must explain how it will be possible for leaders to make clear judgements on whether a student has been taught “sufficient content”. MPs also want assurances on how these grades will be consistent across the country given the different levels of lost learning.

3. Ofqual needs to reveal the scale of the sampling it expects exam boards to do during the external quality assurance process.

4. Publishing external test papers after Easter will “devalue their worth” and be a distraction to students.

5. Clarity on what past performance data schools and colleges will have to submit to exam boards to verify teacher assessments.

6. DfE should set out what, if any, work it undertook to look at how grades might be moderated at a subject level by sending “external assessors” in.

7. Ofqual and exam boards put measures in place to guard against conscious or unconscious bias “creeping into teacher assessments”. MPs also want “checks and balances” to ensure no teachers “feels obliged or … pressured to downplay grades owing to a fear their judgment could call into question their students’ overall results”.

8. DfE must “remain ready” to step in with support for private candidates where they have difficulties, if they do not have an “established relationship with an exam centre”.

9. “Full confirmation” that exam board papers will be offered to students on request, if they wish to do them.

10. DfE should indicate what it thinks would be a “reasonable” reduction in fees charged by exam boards. FE Week revealed boards had increased entry prices, despite exams not going ahead. But boards have since backed down – saying schools and colleges can delay making payments.

11. Plans should be in place in case of a high volume of appeals this year “as parents and pupils seek speculatively to challenge grades”.

12. DfE needs to reveal its “route map” back to “normal” grades, with Halfon warning of “ever-increasing grade inflation” that would be “absolutely no benefit or value to anyone”.