University picked as preferred bidder to take over HS2 college at risk of insolvency

The national college for High Speed 2 looks set to be taken over by a university as part of a government review initiated after the FE commissioner warned it faced potential insolvency.

The University of Birmingham has been announced as the preferred bidder to take on the National College for Advanced Transport and Infrastructure (NCATI), as part of a structure and prospects appraisal (SPA) of the college.

The university has said it wishes to turn it into a “successful and financially sustainable educational institution to support local, regional and national economic growth”.

Its bid, which includes partner organisations the National Skills Academy for Rail, Network Rail and City & Guilds, will now be scrutinised by the government, the commissioner and both the college and university.

NCATI’s interim chief executive Sue Dare said the college was “delighted” to have gained “strong support from an internationally-renowned university”, and “looks forward to securing a bright future for the college through this exciting partnership”.

The University of Birmingham has added that all parties need to be assured NCATI’s “significant financial and educational difficulties” can be “overcome” before the transfer can go ahead.

NCATI, known as the National College for High Speed Rail (NCHSR) until October, took £4.55 million from the DfE to sign off its 2017-18 accounts.

FE Week reported last month that the college was seeking partner providers after being placed in supervised status, an Ofsted grade four and a report from FE commissioner Richard Atkins which said the board had to be instructed on how to operate while facing “potential insolvency”.

The national college, which opened in 2017, is not the first to seek out partner providers. The National College Creative Industries created partnerships with two local providers and then dissolved itself earlier this year, after having required a £600,000 Department for Education bailout to sign off its 2017/18 financial statements.

Atkins found NCATI had also based its 2019-20 budget on having 761 apprentices and 263 full-time learners, whereas in December 2019 it only had 216 apprentices and 94 other full-time students.

A DfE-commissioned report on the national college programme found NCATI had struggled with learner numbers due to delays in announcing HS2 contractors, which meant employers were unable to commit to the apprentice volumes they had originally anticipated.

Following the commissioner’s report, NCATI was placed in supervised status and has been undertaking the appraisal with the commissioner. As part of this, the college agreed not to file completed 2018-19 financial statements until after the appraisal’s completion.

The college was engulfed in controversy at the start of this year when it was revealed it had hired lawyers to stop the publication of its grade four Ofsted report.

NCATI later dropped the High Court challenge, after it cost them £73,000, and the report was published, revealing employers were having to teach apprentices skills which were not covered by the college.

Exams 2020: Ofqual confirms final appeals process for GCSEs and A-levels

Schools and colleges will be able to appeal against GCSE and A-level results if they feel data used to standardise grades was not a “reliable basis” for predicting 2020 results, Ofqual has confirmed.

The exams regulator has set out the full arrangements for appeals this year, confirming that centres will be able to appeal if they were expecting results this year to “show a very different pattern of grades to results in previous years”.

All summer exams were cancelled this year following the Covid-19 outbreak. Instead, settings were asked to submit the grades they thought pupils would have received had they taken exams, and to rank pupils within those grades.

Exam boards have then used historical data to standardise grades, but this has prompted concerns that pupils at certain institutions – such as those on an improvement journey or that have gone through recent big changes – could be adversely affected.

As set out earlier this year, Ofqual has confirmed that students will not be able to appeal themselves, but they will be able to ask their centres whether they have made an administrative error in submitting their grade or position in the rank order. If centres agree, they can submit an appeal to the exam board on pupils’ behalf.

Centres will be able to appeal if they believe something has gone wrong in processing the results, such as an error in their own submission, or if they believe an exam board has made a mistake “when calculating, assigning or communicating a grade”.

They will also be able to appeal if they can “evidence grades are lower than expected because previous cohorts are not sufficiently representative of this year’s students”.

This could include where a single-sex school has become co-educational, where there has been “significant change” in leadership or governance, where settings have experienced “monumental events” such as fire or flood.

Centres will also be able to appeal if they were “expecting results this year to show a very different pattern of grades to results in previous years”, Ofqual said.

“That could include where the grades of unusually high or low ability students been affected by the model because they fall outside the pattern of results in that centre in recent years,” said Ofqual.

“In most cases, this will only be apparent by reviewing centre-wide data. Therefore centres, rather than individual students, will be best placed to consider whether this has occurred.”

Ofqual has also published information to help students understand whether they might have reason to complain about bias or discrimination. Although they won’t be able to appeal on these grounds, pupils can make a complaint.

If they suspect bias or discrimination, students have been told to first speak to their centre and raise a complaint through its complaints policy. If they feel their concerns are not addressed by their centre, students can then consider raising concerns with the issuing exam board.

But Ofqual’s guidance states that this “would not be an appeal, but rather an allegation that malpractice or maladministration occurred in relation to your centre assessment grade(s) or rank order position(s)”.

The regulator said such allegations “would be serious, and taken seriously”, and that they would not be subject to the same deadlines as appeals.

The guidance also states that in cases where students have a concern about raising allegations with centres, it “may be appropriate for you to discuss this directly with the exam board instead”.

Students “can also contact the Equality Advisory Support Service for advice if they think they have evidence of discrimination”, Ofqual said.

Apprenticeship assessment oversight change was needed as Ofqual has the regulatory levers to enforce changes

End-point assessment is a key aspect of the government’s apprenticeship reforms, providing an independent test that an apprentice has achieved occupational competence at the end of their apprenticeship.

It only succeeds where it is seen to provide a fair, reliable and consistent test of whether  different apprentices have reached competence and that includes assessing their knowledge, skill and behaviours in ways, which are relevant to the occupation in the real world. If this is not the case, end point assessment (EPA) will lose credibility and the overall quality of apprenticeships will be compromised.

For that reason, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (the Institute) has a responsibility to ensure that evaluations of the quality of end-point assessment are undertaken on all apprenticeship standards. We meet this responsibility through external quality assurance (EQA).

This week we have published our response to the consultation we ran this spring on a proposal to move to a simplified and strengthened model of EQA. In the new model, all EQA would be undertaken by either Ofqual or, for integrated degree apprenticeships, the Office for Students. Both organisations will work to a framework set by the Institute. In addition, for a very small number of standards where a statutory regulator already has a role regulating access to the profession, we expect that these organisations will provide EQA, rather than Ofqual or the OfS.

The consultation response sets out our plans to transition to this new delivery model of the next two years. We will work closely with existing EQA providers and end-point assessment organisations to ensure that this transition is managed as smoothly as possible. The existing EQA regime will remain in place for each individual standard until it transitions to Ofqual’s remit.

I am grateful to all those who took the time to respond to the consultation, particularly at what has clearly been a challenging time for every organisation, with many competing priorities. The views expressed in the consultation were diverse, but the majority of respondents saw clear benefit in the proposed approach and we will therefore be proceeding with it.

This represents a significant development of the existing system of EQA, where the service is provided by a range of employer-led and professional bodies, as well as Ofqual and the Institute itself.

The current system has been effective in monitoring the quality of end-point assessment delivery. Many EQA providers have built strong and productive relationships with the end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) in their sectors, combining both occupational expertise and links to employers, with understanding of assessment. This has been particularly important in recent months as we have dealt with the unprecedented challenges facing the end-point assessment system as a result of COVID-19. EQA providers have played a crucial role in our response, sign-off on flexibilities and participating in taskforces to agree more significant changes to assessment. I know, and it is further reiterated by the responses to the consultation, that this role has been welcomed across the end-point assessment sector.

I am grateful for the work that existing EQA providers have undertaken in the current system and for their continuing support over the next few years to provide a robust EQA service and supporting an orderly transition.

However, the current system is not as simple to understand or engage with as it could be. Nor is it as strong as it might be given that few of the current EQA providers possess the regulatory levers to enforce changes. This has meant that even where poor practice has been identified we have relied on the goodwill of end-point assessment organisations to ensure improvements are made. Finally, the current way of funding for the EQA system is inefficient, which has meant that EQA providers have had to charge end-point assessment organisations directly in order to cover their costs.

The proposal we are now taking forward strengthens the system by addressing those shortcomings: as EQA will be delivered by two organisations, both with established regulatory powers and both funded directly by government. The current EQA providers will work alongside Ofqual to ensure a well-managed and orderly transition.

Responses to the consultation highlighted, more than anything else, how crucial it is to make sure that the employer voice is still heard in EQA work. Respondents were concerned that without the employer voice EPA and apprenticeships will lose credibility and the link through to industry best practice.

In fact, I believe that the new system has the potential to strengthen the use of the employer voice in EQA. We will be creating a new directory of employer organisations on which Ofqual and the OfS will be able to draw occupational expertise which will supplement the assessment expertise of the education regulators, enhancing EQA. In the current system around 30% of apprenticeship standards have an employer-led approach to EQA. The use of the employer directory allows us to involve a greater number of employer bodies across a greater number of standards. It also allows us to use them more strategically so that they can add more value.

By focusing more specifically on whether the EPA is providing relevant assessment of the occupation and whether it works in industry, I hope that we will be using employer organisations and professional bodies both more effectively and more efficiently.

Rule change restricting use of 16-19 tuition fund branded ‘bureaucratic madness’

An “unwelcome” change to the rules for the government’s 16 to 19 tuition fund which restricts the learners the money can be spent on has been branded “bureaucratic madness”.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has updated its guidance on the fund to add a new stipulation that it can only be spent on learners who failed to achieve a grade 4 in English or maths at the age of 16.

This is an unwelcome change to a welcome initiative

Ministers unveiled plans for the £96 million one-off fund for 2020-21 last month, following a U-turn on their unpopular decision to exclude 16 to 19 providers from the £1 billion Covid catch-up fund. The £96 million comes from a £350 million pot originally allocated for the government’s National Tutoring Programme.

At the time, the government said the fund was to “provide small group tutoring activity for disadvantaged 16 to 19 students whose studies have been disrupted”.

Although Education and Skills Funding Agency guidance released last month stated that funding would be allocated on the basis of the number of learners without an English or maths pass, there was no stipulation that the money be spent only on those pupils.

But updated guidance issued by the ESFA this week states that “although the actual tuition does not need to be for GCSE English or maths, the students supported all need to be those who had not achieved grade 4 or above in at least one of those subjects at this level by age 16”.

The ESFA said this week that the guidance was reissued to “correct an omission”, but the Sixth Form Colleges Association described it as an “unwelcome change to a welcome initiative”.

“Disadvantage takes many forms – it is not just students with lower levels of English and maths attainment that have fallen behind at a result of the Covid crisis,” said deputy chief executive James Kewin.

“GCSE performance is only one proxy for disadvantage – targeting the funding in such a narrow way will mean many students that live in deprived areas, have no access to IT or have caring responsibilities for example will be overlooked.”

Kewin said college leaders were “best placed to target funding at the students that need it most”.

“In general we’d like to see fewer regulations and more trust put in the professionals. That’s one reason why raising the rate of core funding remains the best way to ensure that all students get the education and support they need”.

The guidance has also been updated to include an “expectation” that tuition is “delivered to small groups of up to three students”, and that the government “would not expect groups supported from the fund to exceed five students”.

Steve Hewitt, an FE funding consultant, described the change on Twitter as “absolute bureaucratic madness”.

But the Association of Colleges said the criteria “will cover most of the students on courses below level 3 and concentrates the funding for interventions where they are most needed”.

“It doesn’t prevent colleges continuing to target other students with learning needs,” a spokesperson said.

Confirmed: Exams watchdog to takeover apprenticeship assessment quality checks

Exams watchdog Ofqual is to take the lead in a  “new simplified external quality assurance (EQA) system” for apprenticeships it has been confirmed this afternoon.

The Institute for Apprenticeship and Technical Education (IfATE) had been consulting on ending the current complex arrangements in which employer bodies and even the IfATE themselves are responsible for oversight of the end-point-assessment organisations (EPAOs) for apprenticeship standards.

The IfATE will however “retain oversight of the system, and EQA will still be delivered within the Institute’s framework. The Institute will continue to have a statutory responsibility to evaluate the quality of end-point assessments.”

Chief executive at the IfATE, Jennifer Coupland, said: “We believe that the new system will be stronger and much simpler for end-point assessment organisations. Most importantly it will ensure quality for apprentices. I’d like to thank all those who took the time to respond to our consultation and we now look forward to taking the next steps.”

Sally Collier, chief regulator of Ofqual, welcomed the decision and said: “we hope that the new arrangements will increase confidence in the apprenticeship system and provide clarity and consistency for employers and end point assessment organisations.”

Read the IfATE statement in full here.

Read the Ofqual statement in full here.

The Skills Network’s Free LMS To Accelerate Providers’ Online Delivery

Leading online learning provider, The Skills Network (TSN), has today announced that it will permanently offer its learning platform for free, in order to help accelerate a quality benchmark within the education and corporate industry.

TSN’s learning management system and course authoring tool, EQUAL, will now be available to any provider or organisation across the globe as a free solution, providing organisations with the ability to create their own blended or online learning content at no charge.

TSN was one of the 20 volunteer providers involved in Ofsted’s recent online education review. The organisation is keen for other providers to benefit from use of its learning technology.

EQUAL is now available to any provider at no cost and will enable organisations to:

  • Create blended or fully online courses
  • Publish online learning content for remote study, blended sessions or training programmes
  • Engage students with videos, gamification, quizzes and interactive learning features
  • Track, manage and report on students’ every interaction
  • Use pre-built modules for multiple different assessment types
  • Create online certifications for any of the online courses developed.

TSN currently has 300 customers across 30 countries and one million users on its system. The company believes that this strategic move will help to create an even larger community of organisations utilising online learning.

Executive Director, James Earl, said: “The last few months has been a major challenge for any organisation, in many cases doing what they have to in order to transfer their learning online quickly to stay operational. What has taken years for us to perfect, others have had to do in days. I think that the world of e-learning has transformed, and the sector has jumped ahead years in its adoption of online systems in a matter of months.

That is why by giving our system and authoring tool away, we feel we can create a new benchmark of quality in the industry, creating a truly collaborative environment for everyone to benefit from and ultimately improve online learning experiences for students which can be robustly monitored and assessed.”

Find Out More

For more information on TSN’s offer, go to www.theskillsnetwork.com/free-lms.

Colleges in administration miss third transfer date as accountants continue to rack up fees

The only FE colleges in administration, Hadlow College and West Kent College, continue to be owned and run by accountants at BDO after failing to transfer to North Kent College this weekend.

FE Week reported in May that the Education and Skills Funding Agency had been unsuccessful in agreeing a financial deal to incentivise North Kent College to take over the two colleges.

Administrators were originally due to hand over the keys on March 31, which was then pushed back to May 31 and then rescheduled for July 31.

On July 31 a spokesperson for Hadlow College said the transfer was on track but this morning rowed back, saying it had not taken place over the weekend and would not say why nor when it might.

BDO has come under increasing pressure from the ESFA to keep their costs down as they continue to run the college for far longer than had originally been planned.

The most recent administrator report lodged with Companies House showed that senior BDO staff were charging up to £310 per hour, as agreed with the Department for Education, and the costs to the public purse were already in the millions.

A joint statement from Hadlow College, West Kent College and North Kent College said: “The transfer has been delayed by agreement for a short period due to certain administrative matters, which are taking longer than expected to complete. The aim of all parties remains the completion of the transfer at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, the Education Administrators continue to work in partnership with North Kent College to further refine the transition plan and, where possible, commence its implementation.”

A spokesperson for Hadlow College subsequently added: “The transaction will take place no later than the 15th August.”

The Department for Education said they are working closely with the Joint Education Administrators and North Kent College to ensure that the transaction is completed as soon as possible.

DfE launches new matching and redundancy support service for apprentices

A new service that allows employers to share their vacancies with redundant apprentices has been launched by the Department for Education.

The “vacancy sharing service” has been set up alongside a new online and telephone support service for apprentices who have lost their jobs during Covid-19 outbreak.

Apprenticeship vacancies can already be viewed via the government’s Find An Apprenticeship website, but the new service, which can be accessed by clicking here, will see the DfE “share your [employer] details with [redundant] apprentices who are interested in your opportunity, so they can contact you directly”.

Separately, a new ‘Redundancy Support Service for Apprentices’ is available for apprentices by calling 0800 015 0400.

Out-of-work apprentices are being advised to call that line to “get free advice, find new opportunities, and access local and national support services offering financial, health and wellbeing, legal and careers advice”.

“You can also read our guidance for apprentices affected by redundancy. There’s advice for finding alternative employment, plus information about financial support and talking to someone about how you’re coping,” the service adds.

The government has set an aim of helping apprentices to find alternative employment within 12 weeks of being made redundant.

Apprenticeships and skills minister Gillian Keegan said: “Covid-19 has had a big impact on business and the jobs market, and we know that some apprentices have lost their jobs or are facing redundancy as a result.

“We are taking unprecedented steps through our Plan for Jobs to protect, support and create jobs, with a clear focus on ensuring people have the right skills to get into work and progress. This includes creating more high quality apprenticeship opportunities to help get our economy moving.

“Our new Redundancy Support Service for Apprentices will make sure apprentices who have lost their jobs can get the help and support they need to get back on track and on the path to a new career.”

The new service also advise employers that they could be eligible for incentive payments for hiring a new apprentice from tomorrow, as announced by chancellor Rishi Sunak in his summer statement.

From August 2020 until the 31 January 2021, businesses taking on new apprentices will be rewarded with £2,000 for a 16 to 24-year-old and £1,500 for a 25 year-old or over. Further detail of the incentives can be found here.

The incentives are hoped to go some way to reversing the substantial drop in apprenticeship start caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Data published by the DfE yesterday showed that apprenticeship starts for the month of May 2020 fell 60 per cent on the previous year.

And starts recorded from March 23 – when lockdown started – to the end of June showed a 52 per cent drop compared to the same period in 2019.

ESFA scraps minimum duration repeat rule for returning apprentices

A minimum duration rule that was preventing some people from returning to and finishing an apprenticeship will be scrapped from tomorrow, the Education and Skills Funding Agency has announced.

Rules for funding apprenticeships in 2020/21 were updated yesterday and for the first time included a new exception to the 12 month minimum duration policy.

Paragraph P46.2 says that if a training provider recruits someone that had previously been withdrawn from an apprenticeship they would not need to repeat a minimum of 365 days of learning.

The document calls the paragraph a “clarification”, but a Department for Education spokesperson has since confirmed this was a mistake and it should have been described as a new rule.

Until now a training provider was not allowed to use prior learning on an apprenticeship to avoid the 12-month minimum duration or the 20 per cent of the job requirement, unless they were on a break in learning or their gap between employment was 30 days or less.

This meant some were blocked from re-joining and completing their apprenticeship as it was not possible to justify a further 12 months on the programme.

The new rule means, for example, that if an apprentice was on a one year apprenticeship but withdrew two years ago after eight months on the course, they can now return at any time in 2020/21 to complete the remaining four months of their training.

An ESFA spokesperson said: “Paragraph P46.2 means that if an apprentice has been on a break in learning, or they have been withdrawn completely, they can restart the same programme to finish what they started.

“There are no time limits on restarting learning aims, other than the certification end date, which the provider is able to check. We accept that it should have been identified as a new rule rather than a clarification.”

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief policy officer Simon Ashworth welcomed the new rule.

“This is helpful, particularly on shorter apprenticeship programmes, such as level 2, as it enables apprentices who have previously dropped off the programme to engage at a later date and resume their apprenticeship, rather than having to navigate the challenges of undertaking another minimum period of training and ensuring that includes a further minimum 20 per cent of off the job training,” he said.

“It’s important to recognise that that the total training time across both employment periods needs to be at least 365 days, one of the government’s key requirements for what constitutes an apprenticeship.”