The Office for Students has lost a Court of Appeal case over its decision to refuse a provider admission to its register of English higher education providers. 

The decision to refuse Bloomsbury Institute meant it was denied access to HE public grant and student support funding, could not recruit international students, nor apply for degree awarding powers. 

The Office for Students (OfS) justified its original decision to refuse admission as it argued Bloomsbury had not performed well enough in its continuation rates, meaning how many students progress from year one to year two of their course, or the rate of students’ progression into professional employment or post-graduate study. 

Yet last month the Court of Appeal quashed that decision, and today the three judges’ full judgement has been published, saying the OfS staff who set the thresholds for continuation and progression rates did not have the delegated authority to do so. 

Furthermore, that methodology should have been published and consulted upon. 

An OfS spokesperson said: “The judgement raises important public interest issues for the OfS and other regulators and public bodies.  

“We are considering the implications of the judgement and our next steps.” 

John Fairhurst, academic principal and managing director of the Bloomsbury Institute, said the judgment “is a validation of the professionalism and expertise of our staff and allows us to continue our mission to support students from diverse backgrounds who might otherwise not have the opportunity to enter higher education. 

“Over 90 per cent of our students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our goal is to make higher education an inclusive and open space, offering all people, from all backgrounds, the opportunity to define and pursue success through education. 

“We are delighted on behalf of our hard-working students and staff and thank them for their support during a difficult period.” 

New rules on funding 19 to 24 year-olds completing traineeships have been released by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, after the government announced a £111 million boost for the ‘proven’ programme. 

Guidance around initiatives announced by the ESFA last month, such as cutting the hours for the programme’s mandatory work placement from 100 to 70 and allowing level 3 learners to take traineeships were included in the latest version of the adult education budget funding and performance management rules for 2020/21 published today. 

According to the new rules, the ESFA will fully fund 16 to 24-year-olds with level 3 qualifications to complete traineeships using the same criteria it did for when the programme capped admission at learners with qualifications up to level 2: if they are unemployed; have little to no work experience and are focused on employment, an apprenticeship or prospects of either; or if they have been assessed as having the potential to be ready for employment or an apprenticeship in 12 months. 

These new rules also introduce a requirement for providers to support trainees aged over 19 to improve their digital skills if they are assessed as being below level 1. 

As well as supporting learners who have not achieved English and maths grade 4 at GCSE or level 2 functional skills qualification, providers should also support learners to develop any digital skills which are part of an occupational standard published by the Institute for Apprenticeships & Technical Education, which is being linked to in the vocational learning element. 

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief policy officer Simon Ashworth said: “We firmly believe that the digital skills element adds further value to an already successful programme and along with maths and English should form the golden triangle of essential skills for everyone.  

“As 19-24 traineeships are part of the AEB, there is joined-up synergy with the new digital legal entitlement which started this month.”

After it was announced trainees could split work placements across two employers, the ESFA has now said each placement must last at least two weeks with each employer, “with each placement supporting progression linked to their learning plan”. 

Providers have been given up to 60 days of the traineeship start date to record the employers’ details in individualised learner records and the placement does not need to start within 60 days and can be recorded as a future start date. Previously, providers had to record the employer’s details within four weeks. 

Traineeships, established in 2013, are eligible for 16 to 24-year-olds and providers are funded by the ESFA to deliver both pre-employment training – including writing CVs, preparing for interviews and searching for jobs – and arranging the work placement. 

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak announced in his summer statement in July the £111 million to triple participation in the ‘proven’ programme, after starts declined from a high of 24,100 in 2015/16 down to just 14,900 last year. 

Sunak also unveiled a new incentive payment of £1,000 per learner, for up to 10 learners, for every employer who gives a trainee a work placement. The ESFA has said guidance on this will be published separate to these rules. 

The Education and Skills Funding Agency announced last month it would launch a tender to “quickly” widen the provider base for adult traineeships.  

Ashworth said: “Traditionally the traineeship programme has been about supporting those learners below level 3 and that core purpose should not change. 

“However, the relaxation to include those with a prior level 3  is also a pragmatic move in the current economic climate with the uncertainty that young people currently face and AELP hopes that it is a rule that remains in place for the longer term.

“At the core of the traineeship is the work placement and the best programmes have been where they are employer-led and high quality work placements have been a key factor behind the success rates being so high. However, with employers facing so much uncertainty, allowing learners several shorter placement adds a helpful flexible dimension – a minimum of two weeks on each placement is therefore entirely appropriate.

“The ESFA have been careful to consult regularly with the traineeship providers with a proven track-record and this gives us confidence that providers won’t have any difficulty in using up the £111m boost to the programme, offered by the chancellor, and placing more young people into an apprenticeship or a job.”

You can see the new adult education budget funding and performance management rules for 2020/21 HERE.

The government may face legal action on behalf of students affected by this year’s A-levels debacle.

At least two legal challenges are in the early stages of being mounted, following upset across England in response to grades issued yesterday.

It comes after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission warned it may intervene following a day of misery which saw 39.1 per cent of grades downgraded via the standardisation process.

Exam centres reported their students have missed out on university offers and other opportunities because results issued by exam boards were much lower than those given by schools.

Yesterday, law firm Foxglove said the A-level algorithm was “unfair and possible unlawful”, and that it was gathering evidence ahead of a potential judicial review.

The firm is supporting student Curtis Parfitt-Ford, whose petition calling for a fairer system has amassed over 135,000 signatures as of this morning.

And Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, has announced this morning that his organisation was mounting a legal challenge to “compliment” the one brought by Foxglove.

Maugham said the challenge “will focus on the unfairness, and in particular the limited and flawed appeal rights”.

It comes as pressure mounts on ministers to address unfairness in the system for awarding grades this year.

Following the cancellation of exams, schools and colleges were asked to provide centre-assessment grades for their students, which were then standardised by exam boards.

Ofqual and the government have defended the standardisation process, insisting it was necessary to prevent grade inflation. They also pointed to a 2.4 percentage point rise in the proportion of top grades this year as evidence that the system had worked.

But exam centres have warned that the overall results mask volatility and inconsistency in the grades at a pupil level, and are expected to appeal against large numbers of grades issued through the process.

Although most of the grades downgraded were only lowered by one grade, 3.3 per cent, well over 20,000 grades, were adjusted down by two and 0.2 per cent – hundreds of grades – fell by three.

Maugham said today that his firm was “looking for students downgraded by at least two grades, especially the cases of students whose academic achievements have been downgraded”, adding that he knew of “one case from a C to a U”.

The system has also come under fire after it emerged poorer students were more likely to be downgraded, and that private schools had seen the biggest boost in top grades.

But the government continued to insist today that there was no bias in the system.

“Ofqual have been clear that the standardisation model does not distinguish between different types of schools and colleges, and therefore contains no bias, either in favour or against, types of schools or institutions,” a Department for Education spokesperson said.

The Association of Colleges has written to education secretary Gavin Williamson and Ofqual chief regulator Sally Collier calling for an “urgent” review into the standardisation process used for A-level results from larger centres.

David Hughes, the association’s chief executive, writes in the letter it appears some colleges with larger numbers of A-level students have been “biased” against by the process, which was rolled out after exams were cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic.

While the majority of students will achieve the grades they need and want, the association has heard from a number of colleges that over 50 per cent of their grades have been adjusted downwards.

Certain colleges have said their higher grade passes (meaning A to C) are much lower than their results from the last three years, whereas others have said the rate of A to C grades has increased compared to historical data, in what Hughes calls a “worrying inconsistency”.

“We cannot stand by when the evidence suggests that many thousands of students may have missed out on their grades because of a systemic bias.”

After A-level exams were cancelled this year, colleges were required to submit centre-assessed grades of what results pupils were most likely to achieve, which were then standardised nationally.

The inconsistency, Hughes suggests, could be due to a “quirk” in the process in which smaller centres with lower student numbers had their centre-assessed grades confirmed, so larger centres took a hit to minimise overall grade inflation. The algorithm has also “potentially” missed strong increases in performance in the last one or two years by “a number of colleges”, the letter continues.

Hughes added that colleges’ overall pass rates are in line and do not seem to be such an issue, so the problem is not “overoptimistic” assessed grades, but actual performance.

A technical review, he told Williamson and Collier, could now “avert hundreds of colleges from having to make individual appeals”.

“It would show that you are being transparent and taking the concerns seriously. It would allow the majority of students to focus on their next steps and move forward in confirming their HE places, apprenticeships or jobs, but also offer a robust backstop.”

Read David Hughes’ full letter to Gavin Williamson and Sally Collier HERE

Ofqual has found the number of top grades awarded for certain vocational qualifications has had a “small” increase on last year, but say there has been no “sudden slip of standards or introduction of bias” due to measures introduced for assessments during the coronavirus pandemic.

The exams watchdog, in an analysis of grades awarded for level 3 and 4 vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) in spring and summer of this year, reported the increase may mean some cohorts of learners may have actually been afforded a “slight” advantage this year over previous cohorts.

Ofqual said the rise: “Might also be explained by centres in some cases not entering students for whom there was insufficient evidence to support a calculated grade or a pass.”

But there was also a small number of cases in VTQs where the proportion of top grades being awarded had decreased.

As the Coronavirus pandemic led to a number of vocational qualification exams being cancelled, Ofqual announced teachers would have to calculate grades for the majority of the exams, as well as provide a rank order for learners, as was the case with A-levels and GCSEs.

Due to the diversity and complexity of certain VTQs, however, alternative measures had to be taken to decide their results, including calculated results, moving paper-based assessments online, and in some instances, delaying the assessment.

The analysis also revealed grade distributions for VTQs appear generally similar to grade distributions observed for previous years and attainment gaps have not increased over time between different demographic groups in most cases.

The report said its analysis shows: “There has not been a sudden slip of standards nor a sudden introduction of bias in 2020 due to the measures adopted in response to the coronavirus pandemic. 

“A small degree of change is expected in any given year, and the majority of changes reported here are in line with those expectations. We shall continue to monitor the system as response measures change in the months to come.”

This comes after it was revealed this morning there had been a 2.4 per cent increase in the number of top grades being awarded in this year’s round of A-level results.

The proportion of top A-level grades handed to students in England has increased by 2.4 per cent this year.

But sector leaders have already warned of “volatility” among results at exam centre and student level, after teenagers began to receive their results today.

The exams regulator Ofqual has reported that 27.6 per cent of grades issued to students in England were As and A*s this year, up from 25.2 per cent in 2019. The proportion of A* grades, the highest available, also increased from 7.7 per cent to 8.9 per cent.

The Joint Council for Qualifications, which represents exam boards, today claimed that standards “have been maintained” despite disruption.

But Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said he was “very concerned” the overall rise in top grades “disguises a great deal of volatility among the results” at centre and student level, and has called for a government review.

“We have received heartbreaking feedback from leaders about grades being pulled down in a way that they feel to be utterly unfair and unfathomable,” he said. “They are extremely concerned about the detrimental impact on their students.”

The Sixth Form Colleges Association has also flagged concerns, after almost half of principals reported that their calculated grades were “much lower” than what they had submitted to exam boards, and more than a third reported that calculated grades bear “little or no resemblance” to performance in previous years.

Today’s data shows a substantial proportion of grades – 39.1 per cent – were adjusted down by exam boards during the standardisation of centre-assessment grades provided by centres.

Following the cancellation of exams due to the coronavirus outbreak, colleges were asked to provide centre-assessment grades to exam boards, which then standardised them to prevent grade inflation.

According to Ofqual, 35.6 per cent of grades were adjusted down by one grade, 3.3 per cent were adjusted down by two grades and 0.2 per cent were adjusted down by three grades.

Some grades were also raised during the standardisation process: 2.2 per cent were increased by one grade, 0.05 per cent by two grades and 0.01 per cent by three. But the majority of calculated grades, 58.7 per cent, remained the same as centre-assessment grades.

Centres are preparing for a spike in requests for appeals from students, especially those whose grades have been marked down via standardisation. Students can also sit alternative exams in the autumn.

Ofqual said today that had the standardisation process not gone ahead, the proportion of A and A* grades this year would have risen to 37.7 per cent.

The regulator said today that centre-assessment grades had been “optimistic”, and without moderation would have “likely” led to overall national results that were “implausibly high”.

Ofqual will today publish a technical report with further details of the standardisation model, along with interactive analysis of A-level outcomes in England.

Dr Philip Wright, director general of the JCQ, said: “Students across the UK receiving their A-level results today should be proud of their grades, which reflect their hard work and commitment over the previous two years.”