I have worked remotely with a number of providers since lockdown, carrying out activities that would normally be part of a full Ofsted inspection – although, I should stress, they have not been “mock inspections” per se.
I also worked before lockdown with the provider featured last week and empathise with the financial concerns of new providers over not being able to recruit new learners beyond the six to 12-month window in which the follow-up full inspection should take place. I also recognise the uncertainty this causes for staff who, in most cases, will have been working hard to get their provision up to that magical “requires improvement” grade they need at their next inspection. This gives them the green light to start recruiting apprentices again.
Let’s look at this objectively. Is it possible to do a full inspection remotely? In my view it is. There will be challenges, but no more so than for providers since the lockdown. They have had to adapt their practice, so why shouldn’t Ofsted – a valid point made by the managing director of one of the providers affected.
The biggest sticking point undoubtedly will be the inspection of off-the-job training. However, with good planning, it is perfectly possible to observe this remotely, particularly if it is one-to-one in the workplace.
And now that learners are allowed back into training centres, albeit with a number of caveats, this could easily be set up for group workshop sessions. Judgments about online learning, now so prevalent, can easily be made by talking to learners, viewing it and talking to managers about the content and sequencing (curriculum intent). And, lest we forget, inspectors often see no off-the job training at all on a full inspection anyway, as its delivery doesn’t coincide with the dates of the inspection, but still have to make judgments about its quality.
Progress reviews can be observed remotely – many providers record them for their own evidence-gathering. This can be backed up, or “triangulated” to use Ofsted parlance, by looking at online copies of completed reviews. Again, Ofsted inspectors often don’t get the chance to see any live reviews during an inspection if they don’t take place on the days they are there.
Telephone interviews with learners and employers are easy to set up: many inspections already feature inspectors telephoning around both parties, having preselected who they would like to talk to to avoid any cherry-picking by the provider. Indeed, on many inspections, Ofsted inspectors do this ringing around from the comfort of their own homes. It’s quiet, they can concentrate, it’s time-efficient and saves on travel and accommodation. A good example of Ofsted already having changed its inspection practice for good reasons.
Inspectors can look at assessed work online with members of staff remotely to judge assessment practice – what is known as “joint work scrutiny” – and can easily interview senior leaders, governors and staff about various aspects of leadership and management, including governance and safeguarding, as well as about curriculum intent. Other paperwork can be viewed online as required.
And if, at the end of all that, Ofsted wants any additional reassurance that inspectors have “got it right”, it could always instigate a one-day follow-up onsite visit, say, six months after the remote inspection. This could involve one inspector evaluating some key lines of enquiry, either specific to that provider or generic to all as per the three themes for the original short monitoring visit that led to the “paused inspection” in the first place.
Martin Gray, Board member, Education Training Collective
Start date: May 2020
Concurrent job: Director of Children’s Services, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Interesting fact: Martin has done both a skydive and bungee jump.
Carol Thomas, Principal, Coventry College
Start date: August 2020
Previous job: Group Director of Curriculum and Performance, Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group
Interesting fact: Carol was awarded the ‘most hilarious moment’ on a trek to climb Mount Kilimanjaro after the camp was woken up one night by screams of ‘get it off me’ when a giant furry caterpillar decided to take a nap stretched across her face.
The government is facing fierce criticism for snubbing colleges from its £1 billion Covid-19 “catch-up” package after appearing to include them and other 16 to 19 providers in their initial plans.
Prime minister Boris Johnson and education secretary Gavin Williamson have today launched the funding in a bid to help school pupils catch-up on the teaching time they have lost because of the coronavirus pandemic.
But it has been announced under a cloud of confusion and frustration.
Last night the Department for Education initially won praise from the likes of the Association of Colleges after telling the press that £700 million of the funding would be “shared across early years, schools and 16 to 19 providers over the 2020/21 academic” to “lift educational outcomes”.
But two hours later the DfE sent out a correction which removed the inclusion of early years and 16 to 19 providers and reduced this part of the fund down to £650 million.
The other part of the package is a £350 million national tutoring scheme “specifically for the most disadvantaged” – which was originally set at £300 million.
David Hughes, chief executive of the AoC, said the government is “right to take action to help school pupils catch up for lost time” but it is “indefensible to overlook the needs of the 700,000 in colleges”.
“I expect their exclusion from this announcement to be followed rapidly by clarification on the funding and support for college students,” he added.
Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said the last-minute exclusion of FE providers was “unjustifiable”.
“Our understanding was that 16 to 19 providers would be able to access at least some of the proposed Covid catch up support.
“However, today’s announcement specifically excludes 16 to 19 providers so we await further clarification on what elements of the package and related funding our members will be able to access.”
He added: “Young people of all ages have shown great resilience in response to the Covid crisis; it would be entirely unjustifiable to exclude sixth form students from the package announced today.”
Toby Perkins, Labour’s shadow apprenticeships and lifelong learning minister, told FE Week the “very fact” that FE was included and has now been excluded is “very revealing about the governments entire attitude towards post-16 vocational education”.
“If this means that there is a plan for schools but not for FE then that would be an unforgivable disgrace,” he added.
“But if in fact what it shows us is that colleges are simply an afterthought and whilst having time for a plan for schools they have not got around to one for the FE sector then that would expose exactly the extent to which FE is not a priority under this government.”
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, welcomed the package of support for schools but said that he was “also concerned to see that there is now apparently no funding for early years or 16 to 19 provision, when these sectors are absolutely vital to the future of children and young people”.
He added: “It remains frustrating that we haven’t had the opportunity to discuss any of this with the government ahead of this announcement and that we once again find ourselves having to piece together the detail.”
Pressure has been mounting on the government in recent weeks to produce a proper plan for helping students catch up with the teaching time they have lost after 12 weeks of lockdown.
Meg Hillier, chair of the influential public accounts committee of MPs, accused Williamson of being “asleep on the job” while Johnson has faced repeated questions on the issue during his coronavirus briefings.
Johnson said today that the £1 billion package will help “headteachers to provide extra support to children who have fallen behind while out of school”, adding that he is “determined to do everything I can to get all children back in school from September”.
Williamson claimed the package will “make sure that every young person, no matter their age or where they live, gets the education, opportunities and outcomes they deserve, by spending it on measures proven to be effective, particularly for those who are most disadvantaged”.
The DfE said further guidance will be published “shortly”.
Two colleges have announced they will offer free meals over the summer holidays to their most vulnerable 16-to-18-year-old students.
Cornwall College Group and Yeovil College both made the commitment in the same week the government U-turned on its decision not to provide free lunch vouchers to school pupils during August. The change of mind followed mounting pressure led by footballer Marcus Rashford.
Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson announced the creation of a £120 million “Covid summer food fund” on Tuesday, but the scheme is expected to benefit only students up to the age of 16.
Principal of Cornwall College Group John Evans said: “With the impact coronavirus has had, the pressure on many households has never been greater… Feeding our most vulnerable learners throughout the summer is a vital way we can serve the communities in which we operate.”
He added that the college had “certainly been inspired” by Rashford’s campaign to run its own free meals scheme, which normally ends at the end of the academic year, during the summer.
The Manchester United striker penned an open letter on Monday to MPs about his experience of relying on free school meals, and the Labour party had called an opposition day debate on the issue in parliament on Tuesday, before Downing Street reversed its decision and approved the extension.
Evans said his college was “ensuring the same applies for 16-to-18-year-old learners”.
Cornwall College Group, which has seven sites across the south-west, said it has 192 eligible students. This includes those staying at the group next year as well as those who are finishing their studies this academic year.
It expects the scheme to cost around £26,000, which will be funded from the existing discretionary budget it receives from the Department for Education for offering free meals.
Students will either receive the free meals through payments into an approved personal or guardian’s bank account, or through vouchers for a supermarket they have access to.
Cornwall College Group’s summer food scheme will run from July 6 until September 4.
Yeovil College’s free meals will continue for all eligible current and progressing students aged 16 to 18 who “remain actively engaged in their college learning” during the summer period.
The Somerset-based college said it has ring-fenced money within its own college budget to ensure it is not dependent upon additional government funding to make this commitment.
Principal Mark Bolton said: “I feel strongly that all students are entitled to nutritious food, which encourages and supports positive mental health as a basis for positive academic learning.
“It is key that students feel both empowered and capable of continuing their education during the holiday period, enabling them to maintain strong learning habits and to catch up with practical assessment where necessary to move forwards with their learning.”
FE Week has asked Yeovil College how many students will be eligible for their summer food scheme as well as how the meals will be provided but they did not respond at the time of going to press.
The government extended its national school food voucher scheme, which has replaced school lunches for many disadvantaged children during partial closures, to colleges that were having “practical difficulties” delivering free meals to students during the coronavirus pandemic in term-time at the end of April.
However, colleges had to exhaust their 2018- 19 and 2019-20 free meals in FE and 16-to-19 discretionary bursary allocations and submit a business case to the Education and Skills Funding Agency for access to it.
At the time of going to press the DfE could not confirm the age range that the government’s summer food fund would apply to. A spokesperson would only say that full details will be announced in “due course”.
On March 20 colleges closed their doors to most students as the country entered lockdown following the outbreak of Covid-19. But this month one of the biggest steps was taken to ease restrictions: the phased return of schools and other education providers. Billy Camden visits FE Week’s local college in south-east London to see first-hand how they have adapted
“Excited but nervous” was how 19-year-old Samir Ibrahim felt when he was asked by his lecturer at Lewisham College to return for face-to-face contact after 12 weeks of learning from home owing to a global pandemic.
But the first-year BTEC level 3 IT student says he was quickly put at ease as he walked through the campus doors on Tuesday and saw the lengths staff have gone to in order to keep him and his classmates safe.
Entrances are now covered with two-metre social distancing signs and arrows directing visitors through a new one-way system. Hand sanitisers are on almost every corner, plastic see-through shields protect the reception area, social spaces, including the canteen, are closed, contactless payment has been fixed on items such as vending machines, while communal water fountains have been removed.
Staff and student entrances have been separated to reduce pinch points, while learners now leave campus from a new exit that will be monitored by a security cabin which also keeps track of who is on site through contactless IDs.
And when it comes to the classroom, each one has a new capacity number based on floor space which tells students and staff how many people are allowed in at one time. Computers and work stations have been separated to the required social distance length, and wipes are provided to clean equipment before and after each use.
Lecturers are also asked to arrive early to open the door to allow students in straight away without them all having to touch the handle and to prevent queuing.
The people largely behind this transformation are the college’s head of estates, Michael Gayle, director of health and safety Wesley Mason, and facilities site manager Dean Enever.
Their team has been on site around twice a week since lockdown to carry out deep cleans and to ensure the college would be ready to reopen at any time.
After greeting me and before we tour the campus they talk me through their comprehensive 30-point risk assessment that every visitor has to read and sign before coming on site.
They are planning to create Covid-19 induction videos for life on campus come September.
Student and staff safety are of paramount importance to principal Asfa Sohail (pictured above), who has spearheaded the college through the coronavirus outbreak after joining just over a year ago from Havering College, where she was a vice principal.
But returning to campus is a “scary” and “worrying” prospect for many staff and students, a fear that was heightened after three Lewisham College staff members died in recent months after the outbreak of the virus.
“It is very tragic, and we had that as a knock-on impact on people. So we have to be very careful and cautious,” Sohail tells me, adding that 40 per cent of her staff and 82 per cent of her students respectively are black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) – the group of people for whom Covid-19 death rates are highest in England.
“Considering a large chunk of our staff are BAME, reopening is really a concern for us as an organisation and for our unions as well.
“The risk assessment at an individual staff and student level is a time-consuming job, but we are doing it because it’s absolutely essential.”
The college has around 6,000 learners in total, around 1,175 of whom are aged 16 to 19.
While government guidelines state that colleges can welcome back a quarter of their younger students for face-to-fact contact from June 15, Sohail says she will not go “anywhere near” that number.
The college expects fewer than 20 students each day from now until the summer break.
On the day I visit, seven are being taught in one classroom from 09.30am to midday, while a second group of seven will replace them on campus in the afternoon slot, leaving by 3.30pm to avoid using public transport in the rush hour. A small group of plumbing apprentices are also on site to complete practical assessments. Just five teachers will return for teaching this week.
“Gradually numbers will increase but we’re focusing only on those learners who need extra help or to complete their practical assessments to progress next year,” Sohail explains.
Those who are coming back are pleased with the decision to return.
Samir Ibrahim
Samir Ibrahim tells me: “I’m enjoying seeing my classmates again and catching up with our practical work, which is what we have all missed during lockdown.”
His peer, Jinsorp Rios Selinas, also aged 19 and on the first year of a BTEC level 3 course in IT, adds: “I was feeling worried because it is risky to come here, but the measures the college has put in place have made me feel a lot more comfortable.
“We’re doing the practical side of the course here which we can’t do at home as we do not have the software.
“It is much better to come here than being at home with online classes. It is easier to interact with our lecturer and ask questions. It is good to be back.”
As Sohail puts it: “You can never replace the human touch.”
According to the government’s English Indices of Deprivation 2019 statistics, Lewisham is the 63rd most deprived local authority in England (out of 343).
This is a challenge the college faced pre-Covid, but has been heightened this year as 40 per cent of Sohail’s students are in what she describes as “digital poverty”.
These students have not been able to engage with online lessons through the pandemic as they do not own laptops and other equipment.
Jinsorp Rios Selinas
While the college has been “innovative” in its attempts to overcome these barriers, by, for example, using WhatsApp and printing out copies of textbooks and mailing them to students at home, it is an issue that is of highest concern to Sohail as she looks forward to a potentially bigger reopening in September.
“There’s no way all learners can be on college campuses next year because we know social distancing will have to be maintained,” she says.
“One of the models we’re looking at is that we run the timetable as normal for 50 per cent of our learners who will come into college, and the other 50 per cent will be dialling in more.
“Now, for those 50 per cent to be dialling in remotely, they will need to have access to devices and digital connectivity, which many do not have.
“I’m asking every single forum, the Association of Colleges, our local authority, we’re knocking at the doors of businesses to say ‘if you are recycling laptops and computers, could you please donate to us so that we can reconfigure and give to our students?’
“That is my biggest worry for next term.”
The wider cost of reopening, including paying for signage, cleaning materials and implementing social distancing measures, was described by head of estates Michael Gayle as “astronomical”.
To date the college has spent £8,500 on hand sanitiser stations and two different types of gel refill stocks (one with alcohol and one without), £9,500 on signage, £4,500 on protective screens, £900 on the external security booth hired to manage the campus one-way exit system, and £4,800 on PPE.
These costs, particularly for security, additional cleaning staff and consumables, will only increase come September.
And all of this unforeseen expenditure must come from the college’s existing budget, as the Department for Education has said it will not provide any financial help in this area.
Sohail said if the college had still been a standalone (in August 2017 it joined NCG, one of the biggest college group’s in the country) it would have found it “really difficult” to survive, because of Covid’s “significant” costs.
Looking ahead to September, Lewisham College is planning for every possibility but hopes to be in a position to reopen its social spaces, including the canteen (with all of the required social distancing measures in place), as well as the hair and beauty facilities – provision which requires students to be in close contact.
But one thing is for sure, according to Sohail, campus will be a “very different place”.
Ofqual has today published the findings of their initial “technical evaluations” of apprentice end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs).
It covers the first wave of 50 EPAs that the exams regulator was the external quality assurance provider for over the past two years.
The aim of the evaluations is to provide EPAOs with guidance “as to how to make sure their assessment materials meet the criteria”.
Eight “issues” that Ofqual said are “a threat to assessment validity” were found, ranging from there being more than one correct answer in multiple choice questions to contradiction between apprentice and assessor versions of materials.
Ofqual said that two thirds of evaluated EPA materials had issues with the “clarity of the task requirements” in the guidance provided to assessors.
These types of issues “pose a risk that assessment requirements are left too open to interpretation, and that judgements, and ultimately grading decisions, are not comparable between different apprentices”.
Often they did not consider whether the apprentice showcase should or should not involve a discussion, whether extra time should be allowed if the assessment isn’t completed in the allocated time and how the assessor chooses which practical tasks to assess the apprentice on.
2. Little or no exemplification of grading criteria
Two thirds of EPA materials had issues with a “lack of exemplification of the grade criteria or performance requirements, by which assessors judge proficiency”.
Ofqual said a lack of “necessary detail” might result in variations of interpretation by assessors, inconsistent approaches to criteria and “incomparability” of results.
In some cases during the technical evaluations it was “unclear” from the material how assessors should differentiate between grades for timed assessments and what the evidence requirements were.
3. General errors, contradictions and inaccuracies
Half of the EPAs Ofqual reviewed had a “wide range” of different errors, from spelling and grammar mistakes to contradictions between apprentice and assessor versions of materials.
The regulator said such errors “affect the expectations of both apprentices and assessors of the assessment experience and may result in unfair practices for apprentices”.
In some materials they found that titles of assessor guidance documents were “unspecific” and the wording was difficult to follow, and there were “discrepancies” about how and when the EPA should be booked – for example, in one case there was guidance stating the EPA should be booked 10 days in advance and opposing guidance which said it should be booked 20 days in advance
Inconsistencies in approach included one set of guidance stating that invigilators should mark the test, whilst another stated that this is not permitted.
4. Assessment requirements differ from the grading criteria
Examples of this issue found in EPA materials included the grading descriptors for merit and distinction “didn’t match the criteria in the assessment plan”, as well as that a list of knowledge and behaviours for an assessment method that didn’t match the requirements of the assessment plan.
5. ‘Lack of clarity’ around the task requirements for the apprentice
In some apprentice guidance Ofqual said it “wasn’t clear” that assessors may use the reflective journal as part of the assessment if they don’t observe elements naturally during the observation itself.
Arrangements for the preparation and submission of the portfolio were also “not sufficiently clear” and included “conflicting information”. For example, the regulator found in one part of a document it stated that the portfolio should be submitted when an apprentice reaches gateway, and later on it stated that it should be completed during the three months leading up to the EPA.
6. Not all knowledge, skills and behaviours are covered
In some assessment guidance Ofqual found that “not all” elements of the standard were covered, which could “result in an apprentice passing a specific assessment without having demonstrated all of the requirements set out in the assessment plan”.
The criteria provided was also “not specific enough”, and the language used was “different from that used in the assessment plan, so it was not clear that all criteria from the plan were covered”.
7. More than one correct answer in multiple choice questions
On a “number of occasions”, Ofqual’s technical evaluation “identified that some multiple-choice tests had items where more than one of the possible options could be considered correct, but only one of the responses was rewarded in the mark scheme”.
The regulator said in such a circumstance an apprentice might provide a legitimate answer to a question, but may not be rewarded with a mark.
8. EPA not meeting the requirements of the assessment plan
In “some” materials, Ofqual found that the assessment plan stated that the assessor should “use a range of questions devised by the EPAO” for the professional discussion, but the assessor guidance stated that assessors should review log books to identify areas to explore during the assessment.
In another example, the plan stated there should be 20 questions in an assessment that lasts one hour but there were 15 questions in the assessment which lasted 90 minutes.
Ofqual said such “anomalies” might lead to a variety of issues, including “different assessment methods being used to assess the same things within a standard, incomparable experiences for apprentices and unfair practices, leading to inconsistent and unreliable results”.
The mayor of Tees Valley has earmarked £1 million to pay the wages of more than 100 young apprentices in an effort to reverse the decline of starts as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
Mayor Ben Houchen (pictured) announced the fund for his region today after a recent survey by his combined authority found 69 per cent of businesses who responded had furloughed apprentices while more than third said they could no longer commit to employing an apprentice.
The money will be used to fund “100 per cent” of the apprentices’ wages in their first six months of employment, and 50 per cent for the remainder of the apprenticeship, up to a maximum of two years.
The announcement said businesses who sign up to the scheme will be asked to pay the national minimum wage, rather than the national apprenticeship wage, where applicable, and the apprentices will also be employed for a minimum of 30 hours a week.
The fund will be made available to those aged 16 to 20.
It comes just weeks after prime minister Boris Johnson told the nation during a coronavirus briefing that young people “should be guaranteed an apprenticeship” after warning of “many, many job losses” expected from the fallout of Covid-19. Details of how this would work or whether it is even an actual policy are yet to emerge.
The Association of Employment and Learning Providers has since called on the government to set aside £3.6 billion, as part of an £8.6 billion post-pandemic skills package, to spend on subsidising wages for half a million young apprentices to protect them from redundancy.
At the end of May, the Department for Education published statistics that showed from March 23, when lockdown started, to the end of April, a total of 13,020 apprenticeship starts had been reported so far – half of the 26,330 reported for the same period at the same point last year.
Mayor Houchen said: “The coronavirus pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for businesses and local workers. As part of my plan for jobs, we need to make sure that our young people who are part way through an apprenticeship can continue with the qualifications, which will help them for the rest of their lives.
“Unfortunately, many businesses are now reluctant to commit to offering apprenticeships to young people because of the uncertainty they are currently experiencing and as part of my plan to create local jobs for local people, I’m going to change this.”
💰 £1 MILLION TO FUND WAGES OF MORE THAN 100 APPRENTICES 🔧
Unfortunately businesses are reluctant to offer apprenticeships to young people because of the current uncertainty
As part of my plan to create local jobs, I’m going to change this 👇
He added: “By offering almost £1 million and funding the salaries of more than 100 apprenticeships, we can make sure that our talented young people across Teesside, Darlington and Hartlepool are getting the good highly skilled, good quality jobs they deserve and are starting off on the road to a successful career.
“This has been a difficult time for everybody, but we need to make sure our young people are equipped to fill the skills gap which many businesses are crying out for.
“They do not deserve to be disadvantaged because of the coronavirus – they are the workers of the future and we need to do all we can to support them.”
A college rocked by an expenses scandal has been saved by a £1.5 million government bailout after its new leaders found it had almost run out of cash just weeks after the former principal left.
The emergency funding was granted to Highbury College this month after its bank refused to supply an additional loan.
It followed a “reprofiling” of the college’s Education and Skills Funding Agency allocations, which meant £800,000 was received quicker than planned, at the beginning of the year when its interim leaders first became aware it could soon go bust.
The bailout should enable the college to “continue to operate for at least a further year”.
The details were revealed in the college’s delayed 2018/19 accounts which were published yesterday following a “thorough independent audit of historical finance practices”.
While Highbury achieved a surplus of £1.6 million last year, this was largely because of a £5.7 million building sale that was completed in August 2018.
The college is predicting a deficit of £1.3 million by the end of 2019/20 and to remain in ‘inadequate’ financial health, but this could worsen as the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated their problems and has lost “significant income” from its commercial activities.
The 2018/19 accounts state that the total net impact of the pandemic to date on the college’s cash flow is “estimated to be £124,000 negative”, although the full effects of the virus are still unknown.
Highbury College has gone through a turbulent period in recent years. It axed its sixth form last year owing to financial pressures and made a number of staff redundant, and is still in the midst of a long-running legal battle in Nigeria to recover funds.
The government intervened at the college in September 2019 after an FE Week investigation revealed how its long-standing principal, Stella Mbubaegbu, had spent £150,000 on expenses in four years, which included one-off lavish items such as a £434 pair of designer headphones and a lobster dinner.
The college has been in FE Commissioner intervention since November. A report on commissioner Richard Atkins’ findings has been held up by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The newly published accounts reveal “significant accounting failings over a number of years”, which were discovered by new external auditor’s from Mazars who were appointed in July 2019.
The auditors found, for example, that “no books or records were maintained” for the college’s subsidiary Highbury College Nigeria Limited.
They also gave their opinion on Mbubaegbu’s expenses (click here for full story).
The accounts were signed off on a going concern basis but with “material uncertainty” going forward.
Doel said the college has “already made significant steps to secure the college’s finances”.
“Between the period of time these accounts review and now, the college has become, in many ways, unrecognisable,” he added.
“The introduction of an experienced interim governance and leadership team has not only stabilised the finances and significantly improved staff morale but the college’s success and retention rates look to remain well above national average, meaning our students are able to thrive in a supportive and productive environment.
“On top of the day-to-day challenges of the FE sector, our staff and students have also adapted fantastically to the current Covid-19 pandemic and shown true strength of spirit to think innovatively, overcome hurdles and continue to succeed.”
The college hopes to move its financial health to ‘requires improvement’ by 31 July 2021.
A Highbury College spokesperson said the £1.5 million bailout is repayable and the details of the repayment are currently being finalised.
A spokesperson for the DfE said: “We can confirm that Highbury Portsmouth College requested Emergency Funding in May 2020 due to cash flow issues.
“In line with the arrangements set out in the College Oversight: Support and Intervention all such requests are considered on a case by case basis. Funding has been approved and arrangements for paying these funds are currently being finalised.”
They added that the FE Commissioner’s report publication has been suspended during Covid-19 and that Highbury’s will be released in “due course”.
The skills minister has rejected all plans for PhD-level apprenticeships after concluding that funding them from the levy would not provide “value for money”.
In a letter to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education published and laid in Parliament today, Gillian Keegan said the level 8 programmes are “not in the spirit of our reformed apprenticeships system”.
Two PhD-level apprenticeships – for a clinical academic professional and nuclear technical specialist – have been in the works for a number of years after being developed by employers.
But the institute itself previously questioned whether the programmes would be in the “spirit” of the government’s new apprenticeships system.
The decision to never fund these level 8 programmes comes after the education secretary Gavin Williamson ordered a review of the level 7 senior leader standard that allows apprentices to gain an MBA. The MBA is now set for the chop later this year.
In Keegan’s letter, she said higher and degree level apprenticeships “continue to form an important part of our skills and education system, providing people of all backgrounds with a choice of high-value vocational training alongside traditional academic routes”.
However, it is “important that levy funds are supporting those that can benefit most from an apprenticeship, such as those starting out in their careers or helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get ahead”.
“While we do not yet know the full impact of the Coronavirus, our priority is ensuring that apprentices and employers can continue to access high quality training, both now and in the future,” she continued.
“I do not believe that using levy funds for level 8 apprenticeships, which could result in a PhD, provides value for money, nor are they in the spirit of our reformed apprenticeships system.
“Therefore, I am writing to inform you that after careful consideration the department will not fund apprenticeships at level 8. As the powers to take decisions on standards development and approval reside with the institute you will wish to consider whether you continue to invest resources in the development of apprenticeships at this level.”
Keegan said she was aware “aware” that the employers involved have worked “hard developing not only these level 8 apprenticeships, but also a range of apprenticeships at lower levels that have contributed to the success of our reforms”.
“I want to thank them for their continued commitment to this vital programme.”
A spokesperson for the IfATE said: “We accept the decision and will not support the development of level 8 standards at this time.
“We would like to thank the trailblazers for their hard work on the proposals. The institute has been as upfront and informative as possible with them on the funding issue. We requested policy guidance from the DfE and it is appropriate that this has now been issued.”
Joanne Cooper, chair of the clinical academic professional trailblazer group, said the news “is disappointing” but added “we were aware at the outset that funding was not guaranteed and progressed on the basis of developing a national framework which have given us greater clarity and agreement regarding the knowledge, skills and behaviours of clinical academic roles”.
“I am grateful for the support from Skills for Health colleagues and the openness that the IfATE has had along this journey.”
