A leading commercial training provider for the legal profession has been reprimanded by Ofsted for being too “inexperienced” to deliver high-quality apprenticeships.

Datalaw Limited, which has provided professional development for law firms for more than 20 years, made “insufficient progress” in two areas of a new provider monitoring visit conducted last month.

The company moved into the apprenticeships market two years ago and trains about 100 apprentices on standards in leadership and management at levels 3 and 5, as well as the level 3 paralegal and technical salesperson apprenticeships.

Under Education and Skills Funding Agency rules, any new training provider that receives at least one “insufficient” score is suspended from recruiting new apprentices.

 

Coaches not trained in ‘craft’ of delivering apprenticeships

Ofsted praised the provider’s coaches for their experience in the legal sector, but warned they were “inexperienced in teaching apprenticeships”.

Inspectors found Datalaw’s leaders “do not provide training for coaches on the craft of teaching or the delivery of apprenticeships”.

As such, the coaches “do not understand the requirements of an apprenticeships”.

Datalaw is based in Liverpool but operates across multiple regions.

Ofsted found that leaders have not ensured its apprentices receive enough training.

Rather, the apprentices were “left to learn independently with very little teaching”.

Coaches carry out monthly coaching calls to apprentices which, inspectors reported, often last less than half an hour. Between these calls,  apprentices are left with little or no support from their coach to complete questions and research.

The watchdog did highlight that the provider had a “clear rationale” for delivering apprenticeships, by focusing on upskilling law firms’ administrative staff through the level 3 paralegal curriculum.

But its leaders did not ensure they met the principles of an apprenticeship: not coordinating what apprentices learnt on and off the job, and making them complete units in the same order, regardless of their job.

Due to their lack of knowledge, leaders were not able to challenge the consultants on whom they relied “too much” to set up and run apprenticeships.

 

Apprentices had ‘limited’ knowledge of final exams

Provider bosses had also been slow to identify and engage with assessment organisations, and apprentices were found to have “limited” knowledge of the requirements for their final exams.

Level 3 team leader learners “have not received adequate training and support to prepare them for their final assessment”, inspectors warned, despite them nearing the end of their course.

Furthermore, leaders had “no plans” to complete functional skills examinations.

Apprentices were left to do their own research into how to become a solicitor or court advocate, as Datalaw does not provide them with careers advice or guidance.

Inspectors did find that the provider had made “reasonable progress” with its safeguarding measures, with apprentices reporting they feel safe.

Datalaw did not respond to requests for comment.

Education giant City and Guilds is facing a £50,000 penalty from Ofqual after it was found an assignment for multiple level 3 qualifications from 2018 was “unfit for purpose”.

A notice of regulatory action against the awarding body was published by the regulator this morning. It states that City & Guilds must also pay all legal costs.

It reported that one of the tasks for the awarding organisation’s level 3 animal management qualifications was “written in a way that potentially made the requirements unclear and ambiguous to candidates.

“This caused some candidates to struggle to access higher mark bands.”

300 learners did not receive marks reflecting their attainment

The compulsory task was the same across three other qualifications and contributed to the overall grade – but the weighting differed.

The qualifications were held at 27 centres in England and three in Wales and summer 2018 was the first year these qualifications had been awarded by City & Guilds.

In total, 300 of the 2,316 learners who received results for the qualifications in August 2018 did not get marks which reflected their level of attainment, Ofqual found.

Results for 174 candidates changed from a fail to a pass, one changed from a fail to a merit, 104 from pass to merit, 20 from merit to distinction.

There were no other errors on the synoptic assignment, so the regulator deemed that overall, the qualifications remain robust.

While it was found City & Guilds did not notify Ofqual at the time the issues were discovered, it did so within six days.

The notice highlights the “significant steps” the organisation took “to rectify the issue and issued upward grade changes to all affected learners within a month to ensure that no learners were disadvantaged”.

The mistake was acknowledged and “no attempt was made to conceal the incident”.

Qualifications body offers to pay legal costs

Ofqual’s enforcement committee intends to accept a settlement from City & Guilds, which includes the awarding body admitting to breaching eight of the General Conditions of Recognition – the rules for all the qualifications and organisations the watchdog regulates.

City & Guilds’ settlement also includes an offer to pay a £50,000 monetary penalty and to pay Ofqual’s “reasonable” legal costs for this matter.

It comes after the organisation received a £38,000 fine in August 2016 for failing to issue results in a “timely” manner for qualifications, including paper-based Functional Skills assessments, to for 22,229 learners.

The committee will meet again on or after June 25 to consider any representations which have been made, and if to accept the settlement from City & Guilds or whether another order should be made.

Managing director ‘takes Ofqual’s findings very seriously’

City and Guilds’ managing director David Phillips apologised again “to all of our learners and customers who were impacted by the issues flagged by Ofqual regarding four of our Animal Management Technical Qualifications in 2018.

“We dealt with the matter swiftly at the time to ensure that no learner was disadvantaged. However, we accept the findings of Ofqual and have since reached an agreement regarding a resolution to their investigation.

“We have taken the findings from the Ofqual investigation very seriously and, as a result, have implemented further quality assurance measures and controls that ensure the qualifications remain high quality and fit for purpose.

“Since the launch of our suite of Technical qualifications in 2017/18, City & Guilds has continuously reviewed and refined their development, delivery and awarding to ensure they provide learners with the relevant technical skills needed to succeed in their chosen career path – be that a job, university or an apprenticeship.

“We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards in all of our products and services and will ensure this is a top priority moving forwards.”

The government has temporarily upped the cash incentives for employers running T Level industry placements to £1,000.

It comes as the Department for Education has become increasingly concerned with convincing businesses to host students for the 315-hour or 45-day placements.

Employers running placements in 2020/21, the first year of the flagship qualifications’ roll-out, were gifted £750 for every student they placed, up to a maximum of ten students.

The new incentives, today’s announcement reads, are “designed to offer support to employers impacted by the pandemic, to ensure they can continue to host placements”.

Firms will be able to claim for a new maximum of 20 students on T Level programmes from 27 May 2021 until July 2022.

Three T Levels were rolled out last September, and a further seven are due to start this autumn.

Apprenticeships and skills minister Gillian Keegan said employers “are already recognising the value of hosting a T Level industry placement,” as it helps “build the skilled workforce they need for the future”.

This “temporary cash boost,” she continued, “will help even more employers to experience the benefits, while also providing young people with invaluable first-hand experience in the workplace”.

Cash incentives are not the only measure the DfE has pulled out to try and persuade employers to host placements.

A new employer guide is also being published today to help businesses understand what is expected of them from an industry placement.

Today’s announcement comes on top of an existing Employer Support Package to help firms deliver placements.

The package includes online guidance, case studies and workshops and is set to continue into 2021/22.

The DfE has said an invitation to tender will be published this summer to extend the package.

An early engagement notice was already published last week, which revealed the package is meant for employers who are “less certain” about industry placements than they are about apprenticeships or work experience.

The notice says employers are particularly unsure about what the placements entail and “how to work with students and providers to structure an appropriate placement”.

The pandemic has heightened the difficulty in finding sufficient placements for students, with the results of a National Foundation for Educational Research survey published in July 2020 reporting employers were “cancelling or not committing to placements”.

The report went on to say providers were “most worried” about placements, as existing partnerships with employers had been “seriously damaged by Covid”.

Some placements have since been delayed. Providers of the early years educator T Level told FE Week last January they had postponed placements to keep students and the workplaces safe.

The DfE also cut the minimum hours for placements for level 3 early educator qualifications, including the T Level, from 750 hours to 415 because of the pandemic.

Last weeks’ notice states that the DfE’s latest programme of support will include measures to raise awareness among employers, including “targeting specific routes that are proving particularly problematic”.

Suppliers of the support will also be expected to provide the DfE with intelligence on employer behaviour and employer patterns.

A dedicated response team, and online webinars which can be accessed at any time, will also be expected.

The highest paid college principals and chief executives in 2019/20 have been revealed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency today.

Sitting at the top of the list, published within the agency’s annual college accounts spreadsheet, is New City College boss Gerry McDonald who earned a basic salary of £235,000 in 2019/20.

Following in second was Weston College principal Paul Phillips who took home £222,000, and in third was LTE Group chief executive John Thornhill who wasd paid £214,000.

There were six college leaders in total who were paid a basic salary of £200,000 or more last year.

FE Week has excluded colleges that were led by multiple principals or chief executives in either year.

England’s top 10 highest paid college leaders in 2019/20 were as follows:

[CORRECTION: Since this article was published a number of colleges have contacted FE Week to say that the ESFA’s data for basic salary has included pension contributions in some cases. FE Week has amended the table to reflect this.]

UCAS has pledged to act as a “digital Baker Clause” and reform its service to be “as strong for would-be apprentices as it is for prospective undergraduates”.

In a report published today, the universities admissions service warns that one-third of students are not told about apprenticeships despite this being a legal requirement for schools.

And it claimed that only around half of those currently studying in FE colleges receive their entitlement to information from apprenticeship providers.

A survey by the admissions service also found that three-quarters of students said it was easy to find information about higher education, compared to a quarter who said the same about apprenticeships.

Its report states that while “most people appreciate that apprenticeships are there as an option, they are not sure either how to get information on them or indeed where they can lead”.

UCAS says it is “working hard to improve our apprenticeships offer” and will undertake further work, starting with a deep dive on apprenticeships this autumn.

Its ambition is to “act as a ‘digital Baker Clause’, providing comprehensive information, advice, and content tools to help students make informed and aspirational choices about the full range of post-secondary options in a single location”.

Named after former education secretary Lord Baker, the Baker clause was introduced in January 2018 and requires secondary schools and colleges in England, by law, to allow other training providers access to their learners to inform them of technical qualifications or apprenticeships.

But non-compliance with the rule has been rife and a lack of government action has led to sector leaders labelling it as the “clause law without teeth”.

UCAS’ report comes after the service’s director of strategy, policy, and public affairs, John Cope, told FE Week in November that the organisation was working on plan of action that could level the playing field for HE, FE and apprenticeships.

He said this could in part be achieved through a new post-qualifications admissions system that has been put forward by government and is currently under consultation.

Currently, applicants to college or university are given predicted grades by their education provider, from universities can decide whether to offer them “conditional” or “unconditional” offers, and the applicants can then rank their offers in order of preference.

Cope said this creates an “unhelpful split” between academic and technical results and offers, and so “life-changing decisions” on whether to pursue a place at college, university or elsewhere can be made on “imperfect information”.

He argued a post-qualification model could “significantly” level up the playing field for further education and skills providers and create an “offer window” where they and universities could attract applicants at the same time.

‘We are working hard to improve our apprenticeships offer’

Today’s report says UCAS is “not starting from scratch” when it comes to making its service easier to find apprenticeships as the programmes are listed on the “career finder” section of its website which have been viewed more than a million times in the past year.

UCAS said over half of school-leavers interested in applying for entry in 2022 have registered an interest in apprenticeships, with engineering, computer sciences, and architecture, building, and planning the most popular.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Jane Hickie said the government appeared to recognise the flaws with the Baker Clause when it published a three-point plan in its FE white paper to address the matter.

However, the “absence of specific measures in the recently published Skills Bill would suggest we have a plan that’s a bark but no bite”.

“AELP will be urging Parliamentarians to use the Bill to fix this once and for all,” Hickie added.

The Commons’ education select committee heard from expert witnesses and two sector leaders today as part of its ongoing inquiry into prison education.

The inquiry is intended to review current arrangements for learners in custody, including what barriers exist to delivering apprenticeships.

In the first of two sessions, MPs heard from NACRO’s director of education and skills Lisa Capper, St Giles Trust’s peer advisor network coordination manager Shereen Lawrence, and the chief executive of the Bounce Back project Julian Stanley.

The second session heard from Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes and Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief policy officer Simon Ashworth.

Here are five key things we learned…

 

Prison education ‘hasn’t gotten better in 15 years’

Hughes, who formerly worked as a provider services director for what became the Education and Skills Funding Agency, said when he was managing offender learning contracts almost two decades ago and “the funding looked about the same” as it does now.

On top of the low funding, he said prison education relies on “pitiful” learning facilities and a digital estate which is “completely underinvested in”.

“Ironically, because of lockdown, prisoners who’ve been able to get digital access in in their cells have been able to access learning more effectively than when they were expected to go to classrooms or workshop,” he highlighted.

Hughes’ solution was: “Let’s put the funding in properly, let’s give individual learning plans, let’s get the settlement plans to include the educational outcome, let’s fund them in the community as well as give them access to the learning loans when they come on stream, let’s give them access to the level three entitlement when that kicks in.”

 

Legislative needed to allow prisoner apprenticeships

This morning’s witnesses confirmed legislation would need to be changed to allow prisoners to take apprenticeships.

Currently, prisoners cannot start apprenticeships as they are forbidden from contracts of employment.

So the legislative changes, Lisa Capper said, would be needed so “apprenticeships could be fully started within the prison environment”.

Yet there was not a swell of support for such a change among the witnesses.

Capper said there were issues with funding, as “if a lot of the upfront learning is done in prison, it leaves very little funding for the community education providers to complete with that prisoner on release, in terms of placing them in the workplace.

“Apprenticeship pay is not necessarily as much as they need on release, as well. It’s not always the most attractive option.”

She said apprenticeships were not “necessarily the panacea” and there are “other pathways that prisoners can take” to be work-ready when they are released.

Hughes said “a lot of stability” was needed for prisoner apprenticeships, including allowing those with up to six months on their term to be in a prison near to the community they live in, with a learning plan, work experience, and preparations in place for an apprenticeship so employers will commit to them.

 

Should levy funding be used to upskill prisoners?

Hughes and Ashworth appeared to diverge during the session on whether unspent apprenticeship levy funds ought to be used to fund prisoners through training.

Hughes argued inmates’ apprenticeships “should just be funded,” as “I don’t think we should get tangled up with the levy – it’s too complex”.

Yet Ashworth said employers are handing back millions in levy funds to the Treasury every year and have an “appetite” to transfer funds, possibly to “use it as a feeder to help potentially train up prisoners”.

 

‘No idea of the scale’ of SEND needs in prison

Committee member Tom Hunt quizzed the first session’s witnesses after Dame Sally Coates, author of a landmark review of prison education in 2016, told the committee in an earlier session that prisoners do not have an assessment for special educational needs when they arrive.

This, he worried, meant “we’ve got no idea of the scale of a problem”.

Lawrence said in her experience, “there isn’t an assessment,” just a classroom which is not “geared” to support those with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND).

“However, if that was done very early on with everybody, we will have accurate numbers and we’ll know what resources we need to buy.”

Stanley said a SEND strategy implemented once an inmate arrives in prison, perhaps backed up with technology to speed up assessment, would be “fantastic”.

 

Warnings of ‘barriers’ to career opportunities in women’s prisons

Lawrence told the committee female prisons “tend to focus around a lot of what would, many years ago, have been women’s jobs”. Including sewing and hair and beauty tuition.

This was instead of “more practical” workshops, such as in construction.

Stanley objected to this exclusion, as: “Women in construction is a key thing.”

His organisation, Bounce Back, finds training and employment for ex-offenders and specialises in the construction industry, so Stanley said there is a “massive range of opportunities for women in construction are all different levels”.

Capper said women do face “barriers,” not just in terms of the curriculum, but also “cultural issues on the outside” of prison.