Training providers have been left livid and refusing to sign contracts after the Department for Education revealed their researchers would randomly reject half of all eligible bootcamp applicants.

“Ludicrous” is how one described the delivery requirement, first revealed in a DfE presentation (see image) to the successful bidders to the £18 million digital, technical and construction skills bootcamp tender.

Announced by the prime minister Boris Johnson in September 2020, skills bootcamps are typically three-month courses at level 3 and above and form part of a number of new flagship adult education policies.

During the presentation, the DfE explained the planned randomised control trial (RCT) meant they would need to recruit twice as many candidates and then submit all their details to the DfE.

A research contractor to the DfE, the Institute for Employment Studies, would then take at least four weeks to “randomly select candidates for you from your qualifying candidates list and inform you of who is receiving training and who is in the control group”.

Several providers voiced similar ethical concerns about the DfE researchers spending weeks to randomly separate the unemployed applicants into this “treatment group” and a “control group”.

The lucky “treatment group” would benefit from the training, whilst the “control group” would be refused access for at least a year so that they could be monitored and compared.

One training provider described it as being “like half the patients given a trial drug and rest given a placebo”.

The DfE presentation spelt out that they must “not offer bootcamp training to any candidates in the control group for at least a year after they have been assigned to the control group, even if they ask/get referred again”.

The DfE also told providers not to speak to the media and that the research findings would be shared with the Treasury to “help determine if further bootcamps will be funded”.

FE Week has spoken to many of the successful providers that were present during the DfE briefing, all of whom have refused to sign the contract after the “goalposts had been moved”.

“It would be a challenge in the time available to hit our contact target, let alone double it,” said one.

Another objected to the “bureaucracy” of having to wait to be told who they can enrol, “by which time, they may no longer be interested”.

And they all expressed concern about the unfunded costs of recruiting twice as many applicants, only for the DfE to then reject half that would become “guinea pigs” for research purposes.

With the flagship programme in jeopardy before launching and the results of a second £18 million bootcamp tender facing ongoing delays, the DfE has now been forced to revisit the RCT requirements.

The DfE told FE Week that conversations were ongoing with the 18 bootcamp providers and a meeting had been arranged for next Tuesday to try to break the deadlock.

A spokesperson said: “We are continuing to engage with suppliers on the proposed evaluation approaches. Due to ongoing contract discussions, this is commercially sensitive, so it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”

Winning bidders also voiced ethical concerns where there were no alternative courses available for the rejected applicants, to which the DfE said they would be “signposted to information on other provision”.

On seeing the RCT plan, Fiona Aldridge, director for policy and research at the Learning and Work Institute, told FE Week this research technique in post-16 education was “extremely rare”.

“It’s important that we have a strong evidence base for future investment decisions in education. I welcome the use of RCTs in assessing the effectiveness of bootcamps.

“There is, however, a set of ethical issues that need to be thought through. In particular, decisions about who gets to take part should be communicated in a timely way that doesn’t discourage potential learners from engaging in wider opportunities.”

The DfE refused to comment on, or defend, the ethics of the research approach.

Government guidance on randomised controlled trials, published by Public Health England, states that if there is an “existing intervention that works, it would be unethical not to give it to participants”.

Two governors have resigned and union tension has flared at one of England’s largest college groups after it announced plans to invest in an unconventional tech venture.

Capital City College Group (CCCG) is spending half a million pounds kitting out its currently empty Regent’s Park campus for a course run with a new firm called 01 Founders, which involves a “sink or swim” admissions model and no teachers.

FE Week understands the true cost runs into the millions when accounting for the exclusive use of the campus in central London, which at one stage was being considered for sale.

The college revealed that a split within the board led to two resignations, one of which was the Association of Colleges’ area director for the Midlands Shane Chowen.

After being approached by FE Week, Chowen said he “didn’t feel this was the right thing for the group. It does not look to me like it will have an impact on the communities I believe the college should be focusing on.”

Fellow governor Sarah Ebanja has decided not to seek another term on CCCG’s board over the decision on the course, FE Week understands.

Applicants will have to ‘sink or swim’ to make it onto the course

The news comes as the college plans to make lecturers redundant in other parts of its group.

The coding course is free for learners to take and offers participants a guaranteed job after they graduate. Learners can be of any age, have no academic qualifications and will be taught through software from coding platform 01 Edu.

To get a return on investment, FE Week understands 01 Founders will take a cut from the programme’s graduates’ salaries, or a stake in any companies they set up – as it has done with a similar project called ‘42’ in France and America.

A controversial aspect of the intensive two-year programme is that it starts with a one-month selection process, based on a “swimming pool” model where applicants “sink or swim”.

Where this has been used for similar programmes overseas, 1,000 applicants have been slashed down to a cohort of 250. Hopefuls have to work every day, including at weekends, to complete, file and evaluate tasks.

CCCG’s chief executive Roy O’Shaughnessy told FE Week he “really didn’t like” the model, and the approach for CCCG’s programme has been described as “a swimming pool with armbands”.

Applicants will be able to access pastoral services and if they do not make it, candidates will be signposted to similar courses.

CCCG’s project will also involve around 1,000 applicants, who will be whittled down to 250. The successful learners will then work independently or in groups to complete 50 projects over two years, while studying multiple programming languages.

A target has been set of making half of course participants women, 30 per cent ethnic minorities, and half from underrepresented backgrounds in tech, such as the long-term unemployed.

O’Shaughnessy hopes it will attract a “whole group of individuals who wouldn’t necessarily look at an FE college specific before this”. He also hopes they will “get an ‘in’ to every major employer in London that will be participating in this going forward”.

Union call tech venture’s teacherless model ‘disgusting’

But union officials have been enraged to learn the course does not use teachers, as CCCG is looking to make 30 staff members redundant.

The job cuts will be made on courses where “fewer students are enrolling, and class sizes have become untenable”, according to a college spokesperson.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady branded it “frankly disgusting CCCG wants to throw staff on the scrap heap whilst wasting the equivalent of millions of pounds on a project that advertises itself as offering ‘teacherless’ training”.

Staff, she added, are voting on taking industrial action.

The college’s spokesperson said they had been “open” with the UCU about proposals to reduce full-time equivalent staff and will look to make voluntary rather than compulsory redundancies.

Greatest risk to college is to its reputation

Asked what its return from the tech venture would be, CCCG said it will see returns on an equity stake in 01 Founders, a company that was incorporated in January.

The CCCG spokesperson refused to disclose how much the stake was worth.

Although it is kitting out and lending its whole building to the programme, the group intends to eventually start charging rent on the premises.

The 42 project started in 2013 in France before expanding to America, and was founded by computer engineer Nicolas Sadirac. 01 Founders was co-founded by Sadirac and entrepreneur Brent Hoberman.

Former culture minister Ed Vaizey and former schools minister Jim Knight are listed as advisers to 01 Founders.

While applicants are guaranteed a job at the end of the course, the syllabus reveals this could be with the 01 Founders Talent Agency, where the company may profit from hiring out graduates to outside companies.

CCCG has only recently exited early intervention with the Education and Skills Funding Agency. That came after a surprise £10 million deficit in 2018/19, following unplanned, multi-million-pound losses in previous years. Another £10 million deficit was recorded in 2019/20.

Chair Alastair Da Costa said the greatest risk from the coding school was not financial, but reputational: “In terms of how the public will perceive it, how the swimming-pool model would be perceived, that it’s too different for FE, and that we’re entering into a relationship with two international organisations.”

01 Founders did not respond to requests for comment at the time of going to press.

Independent training providers can rest assured they will be eligible for the government’s latest catch-up funding, it has been confirmed.

The Department for Education last week announced £1.4 billion for extra tuition, teacher training and additional years in education to help students whose learning has suffered due to Covid-19.

This included £222 million to expand the 16-to-19 Tuition Fund, which will deliver extra tuition for students, specifically focusing on English and maths as well as vocational courses.

Additionally, providers will also be funded to offer students in year 13 the option to repeat the year “if they have been particularly badly affected by the pandemic”.

When the support measures were announced last week, there was initially concern as to whether independent providers would be in-scope to benefit alongside schools and colleges.

The press release sent out by the DfE said the funding would only apply to “schools, colleges and early-years providers in England”.

FE Week has now had it confirmed by the DfE that independent training providers will also be eligible.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Jane Hickie said her organisation was “very pleased” with the clarification.

The AELP had recommended to the education recovery commissioner Sir Kevan Collins that “no young person should be excluded from any form of government catch-up support based on where they chose to access their educational entitlement,” she said.

Over 100 independent providers have direct 16-to-19 contracts and were already utilising the £96 million the government committed to the 16-to-19 Tuition Fund last July.

Allowing them to access this second tranche, Hickie said, “will enable continuity and support young people who most need it”.

The extra tuition can be delivered one-to-one or in small groups for disadvantaged students on 16-to-19 study programmes if their learning has been disrupted because of coronavirus.

Providers in the first wave of the 16-to-19 Tuition Fund spent their allocations on hiring extra tutoring and pastoral staff, as well as mental health support for students.

While ITPs have welcomed the funding, the Covid catch-up announcement caused Sir Kevan Collins to resign. He told prime minister Boris Johnson in his resignation letter the amount of money “falls far short of what is needed”.

Collins was reported to have called for spending of around £15 billion.

Colleges and universities are being invited to bid for a slice of a new £18 million fund to expand their higher technical qualifications (HTQs) offering.

The Growth Fund has been set up to help providers invest in equipment and develop the business links they need to offer training at levels 4 and 5 in sectors with growing employer demand, such as digital, construction, health and science.

Applications can be made from today and will need to be submitted within four weeks, by July 9.

It is being funded from the National Skills Fund, of which £50 million was earmarked for “capital investment to drive up higher technical provision” in the November spending review.

Colleges must have a rating of ‘outstanding’ or ‘good’ to be eligible for the cash, and have a financial health rating of at least ‘satisfactory’.

The Growth Fund follows a review of higher technical education concluded by the government in July 2020.

Ministers have since pledged to introduce newly approved HTQs from September 2022, supported by a government-backed brand and quality mark.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education will shortly announce the first successful digital HTQs. Awarding bodies will be invited to submit HTQs for approval against employer-led occupational standards in construction, and health and science on July 5.

This will be followed in 2022 by business and administration; education and childcare; engineering and manufacturing; and legal, finance and accounting. The year after will involve agriculture, environmental and animal care; catering and hospitality; creative and design; and hair and beauty.

 

‘We want to counter the myth that a degree is the only way to a good job’

As well as the Growth Fund, the DfE has today announced £10 million for Institutes of Technology to develop and deliver higher technical short and modular courses in STEM disciplines like engineering, manufacturing, construction and digital.

Aimed at working adults, these courses, which will be available from autumn 2021, will be “free to access and will support people to rapidly reskill or upskill to meet local economic needs”.

Another £2 million has been set aside for a project led by The High Value Manufacturing Catapult, an organisation that “supports businesses to harness innovation”.

Working with IoTs, the company will “support the development and delivery of modular training focused on upskilling employees to help address future skills gaps in high-value manufacturing”.

The new suite of HTQs is planned to be a natural progression route for young people taking new T Levels or A-levels.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson said: “Investment in higher technical skills will support more people to secure exciting and rewarding careers, fill skills gaps in our economy and help us build back better from the pandemic.

“We also want to counter the myth that a degree is the only way to a good job. This funding will help open up more high-quality training alternatives for people, empowering them to get the skills they need to build the life they want, wherever they live.”

Tens of thousands of students faced more stress this morning as a glitch in UCAS’s system automatically rejected their university offers.

Around 100,000 learners have until midnight today (June 10) to make their decisions through the admissions service’s portal.

But as many as one in five received emails from UCAS in the early hours of this morning telling them that their offers were lost.

UCAS tweeted at 8.36am to assure students the issue was an “error” and that their IT team was working “urgently” to fix the issue.

We’re sorry some offers have been automatically declined in error before the deadline. We’re working to fix this urgently and your offers will be available for you to make your replies shortly. Please be assured you will not be disadvantaged by this error.

— UCAS (@ucas_online) June 10, 2021

But it was met by a barrage of complaints from anxious learners and parents. A-level grades are being awarded through teacher-assessed grades this year, rather than normal exams, owing to multiple lockdowns caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Richard Hiding tweeted: “One very stressed daughter, email received at 1am telling her that all her offers were lost. The icing on a very difficult 18 months.”

Another user called Laila said: “This has caused so much stress. It is very unprofessional to post on Twitter without sending an email at least. What if other undergraduate/postgraduate students do not have a Twitter account. My daughter has been unbelievably stressed and is not doing okay since the morning!!!”

While another, Atif, added: “This gave us a near heart attack this morning as we were shocked to seeing all our offers getting auto declined whereas the deadline is midnight of 10th June.”

Chief operations officer for UCAS, Sander Kristel, initially told FE Week that only a “small percentage” of the 100,000 university-hopefuls had been affected, before clarifying this amounted to around 20,000.

He said the issue was fixed by 9.30am and apologised to those affected, insisting that no student will be disadvantaged by the error.

“Unfortunately, a small percentage of those due to make their decisions today were automatically declined earlier this morning due to a systems error,” he said.

“We have apologised to all affected students and reiterated that our teams are available on the telephone lines and social media to provide support and advice as students make their decisions today.”

Provider-level qualification achievement rates (QARs) will include only some courses in 2020/21, the Education and Skills Funding Agency has announced.

Only those that are subject to normal assessment will be included, but qualifications that receive teacher-assessed grades will be left out.

The QARs will then be shared with individual providers as well as Ofsted for inspection purposes and deciding which colleges and training providers to visit.

QAR data, which is used to measure providers’ performance and hold them to account, was not produced for the 2019/20 academic year following the Covid-19 outbreak. Providers were not sent the data nor was it shared with the inspectorate.

The ESFA had said earlier this academic year that the data would again not be published in 2020/21, but that it would be shared with providers and Ofsted.

Announcing the decision to exclude teacher-assessed qualifications again, the agency said: “Recognising the ongoing impact of the pandemic and published guidance on the awarding of qualifications for summer 2021, those qualifications confirmed as subject to normal assessment (category A) will be included in institution level QARs and shared with Ofsted and providers.

“Those qualifications confirmed as teacher-assessed (category B1) and those which may be subject to a teacher-assessed grade if they cannot safely access an assessment (category B2 and Access to HE courses regulated by QAA) will not be included in institution level QARs or shared with Ofsted or providers for 2020 to 2021.”

Ofqual has split the awarding of vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) for this year into three broad groups.

Those that are most like GCSEs and A-levels, such as most BTECs, will receive teacher-assessed grades. VTQs that are used for direct entry into employment and demonstrate occupational or professional competence will see their assessments go ahead as planned.

And assessments for VTQs that are unlike GCSEs and A-levels but are still used for progression, such as functional skills and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), should still go ahead. But if this is not possible, they can receive teacher-assessed grades.

The QARs are the percentage of enrolments that are successfully completed and passed in each academic year by providers.

They are produced for apprenticeships, adult education and 16 to 18 programmes.

The government should pay apprentice wages and fund their full cost of training “for at least a year” if they work for a small or medium-sized employer (SME), an influential MP has said.

Robert Halfon, chair of the education select committee and a former skills minister, believes the chancellor’s extra investment for apprentice incentives and kickstart programmes should not have “been given so much to the bigger companies”.

Speaking at today’s Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference, Halfon said it would have been better targeted at smaller firms and went as far as to call for their apprentices’ wages to be funded.

It echoes a policy proposed by Labour, which wants unspent apprenticeship levy funding to subsidise apprentice wages.

Halfon said: “The number of apprenticeship starts has fallen steadily among all age groups since 2015/16, from 509,000 to 323,000 in 2019/20. That’s an overall decline of 37 per cent. This fall was particularly acute for the most disadvantaged young people aged under 25 who fell by 52 per cent.

“So to support SMEs, we should fund 100 per cent of training costs and salary, at least for the first year of an apprenticeship.”

He added that government should “try and ensure” that every person is given an “apprenticeship guarantee” and “strategically weigh the levy in favour of young people, especially those disadvantaged backgrounds to address the rising unemployment figures in this age group”.

Under chancellor Rishi Sunak’s plan for jobs, the government has offered apprentice incentive payments to all employers since August. The cash bonuses for starting new apprentices currently amount to £3,000 for any age at any employer.

And Sunak is also investing £2 billion in kickstart – a wage-subsidy scheme that allows people aged 16 to 24 who are claiming Universal Credit to take newly created six-month work placements with employers, who will also have their overheads covered.

Kickstart grants for employers can total £6,500.

 

‘Proposals from Halfon and others can make a difference’

Expanding on his call for apprentice wage subsidy for SMEs in a Q&A after his speech, Halfon said: “The money that government has given towards apprenticeships and kickstarter is going to every company whether they’re big or small.

“And I think, they perhaps should not have given so much to the bigger companies and given that money to smaller companies. You’ll be able to give those companies more money than the existing schemes and I think that would have been a bigger incentive for those smaller companies to employ young people and employ apprentices.

“I talked about an apprenticeship guarantee and I think if you gave that incentive to small businesses to do this I think it would make a huge difference. Huge difference. And I suspect that it would be very successful, and they would be able to employ a lot more apprentices than they otherwise might do.”

AELP chief executive Jane Hickie said: “AELP called for wage subsidies early in the pandemic and so we are pleased that the opposition and the education committee chair share similar views.

“We are concerned that young people on kickstart, for example, are not necessarily going to progress on to an apprenticeship and so proposals from Robert Halfon and others can make a difference in giving young people a proper career path instead of a welcome but short-term respite off benefits.”