Williamson announces plan to scrap 5,000 qualifications – but will anybody notice?

A consultation on plans to remove funding for more than 5,000 legacy qualifications at level three and below has been launched by the Department for Education.

Those at risk are courses that are currently not being studied by any learners or have cohorts of fewer than 100, and are coming to the end of their three-year operation.

More than 200 BTECs are among the list. The plan is to switch their funding off by August 2021.

Reviewing and removing funding for qualifications with few or no enrolments used to be an annual task undertaken by the Skills Funding Agency, but the last full review of this sort was conducted in 2015.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson believes today’s announcement will help “make sure students have a clearer choice” of what is on offer as there is currently a “confusing” market of 12,000 qualifications at level three and below.

But Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said his members will have few concerns with a “genuine housekeeping exercise” that removes qualifications which are “obviously no longer needed by learners and employers”.

“The vocational training marketplace evolves all the time, so there are bound to be obsolete qualifications on the register that will discontinue in future,” he added.

The DfE claimed that today’s announcement is part of the government’s two-stage review that aims to crackdown on “poor quality post-16 qualifications”, which has been quietly delayed.

The first ‘review of post-16 level 3 and below qualifications’ consultation ran from March to June 2019 and was supposed to be released before the turn of 2020, along with the launch of a second stage.

But the DfE has now told FE Week it will not be forthcoming until at least the spring.

The department wants to make A-levels, T-levels and apprenticeships the “gold standard” option for young people after they take their GCSEs from 2020/21.

It will only continue to fund alternative qualifications at level 3 and below – such as applied generals, BTECs and Tech Levels – that do not overlap with them and are “high quality, are necessary, have a clear purpose, and lead to good outcomes”.

James Kewin, deputy chief executive at the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said he agrees that funding for qualifications with low or no enrolments should have their funding reviewed.

But, he told FE Week, colleges and schools are “much more concerned about an issue that involves a very high number of students – and that is the future of applied general qualifications”.

“Removing funding for unpopular qualifications is one thing, but removing funding for popular and highly effective qualifications like AGQs is quite another, and we will continue to make the case for these qualifications playing a vital role in the future,” Kewin added.

A spokesperson for Pearson, the organisation that offers BTECs, said: “It’s important that the 16 to 19 phase continues to offer young people a range of options to support access for a diverse cohort of learners with differing starting points and requirements – an academic pathway, a career-focused pathway and more specialised occupational routes.”

Tom Bewick

On today’s announcement, Williamson said: “Trying to decide what course will put you on the path to a great career is hard enough, but with over 12,000 qualifications available and many in the same subject – it can feel like a needle in a haystack.

“Removing funding for qualifications that have no or low numbers of enrolments will help make sure students have a clearer choice of the qualifications on offer, and ensure they get the skills they need to progress.”

But Bewick warned: “We know from past experience, that some really adverse effects can arise where a top-down exercise in Whitehall leads to learners being cut off from valuable and relevant opportunities in their local communities.

“There are hundreds of niche qualifications with low enrolments or they serve those with special educational needs, that could be axed by this exercise if government does not proceed with some caution.”

The deadline for submissions to the consultation relating to the 5,000 qualifications (click here to see the full list) is 27 March.

Ministerial ‘gap’ at the DfE needs to be resolved soon, says Tory MP

A Conservative MP has called for the “gap” at the Department of Education for a dedicated apprenticeships and skills minister to be filled ahead of an expected reshuffle this week.

Gloucester MP Richard Graham requested prime minister Boris Johnson “resolve” the vacancy “soon” during a Commons debate on the effectiveness of the apprenticeship levy.

His call was echoed by shadow skills minister Emma Hardy, who represented the opposition during the debate, when she stated her belief the government “could show their commitment to FE and skills by appointing a separate FE and skills minister”.

The sector has been without a dedicated minister since the resignation of Anne Milton in July.

Since Boris Johnson’s election as prime minister, the FE and skills portfolio has been split between education secretary Gavin Williamson and junior ministers Lord Agnew, who serves as minister for the FE market, and Michelle Donelan, who is covering for Kemi Badenoch while the latter is on maternity leave.

This situation persevered through the Conservative election victory last December, and since then sector leaders have called for the issue to be addressed.

Federation of Awarding Bodies chair Paul Eeles wrote to Johnson in January to say while they have been “impressed” with Williamson’s engagement with improving FE, losing a minister has meant the sector “has lost a daily champion and reformer with whom we could effectively engage”.

This is in “stark contrast,” Eeles says, to schools and universities, who have dedicated ministers in Nick Gibb and Chris Skidmore, respectively.

Eeles encouraged the prime minister to appoint a dedicated minister “with a laser like brief, who is ruthlessly focussed on improving productivity, apprenticeships, skills and FE”.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Mark Dawe, who was at today’s debate, said while they are pleased Williamson seems to have skills and apprenticeships at “the top of his agenda”, the level of partnership between the sector and government “necessitates the return of a dedicated minister”.

This is because the task ahead with the sector is “too big to rest” with Williamson when he also has other “major challenges” in education to address.

Johnson’s ministerial reshuffle is expected to take place on Thursday.

This afternoon’s debate was held just under three years on from the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. MPs from a number of different parties spoke about how their constituents perceived the policy and what problems they had faced with it.

MPs hoping the debate would give them advanced notice of any levy reforms in the upcoming budget left disappointed, though.

Education select committee chair Robert Halfon asked education minister Michelle Donelan, who was representing the government in the debate, whether she had any figures about apprenticeships from the Budget, which is due to be held on 11 March.

Donelan said Halfon gave her “more credit than my position owes,” as she does not set the Budget; but assured him they are keeping “everything under review” and the levy is worked on by both the DfE and the Treasury.

She added they will be looking at the impact the levy has on businesses, social mobility and “opening up apprenticeships in the long run so we can make sure it is not only sustainable, but it opens door after door for young people and older people”.

Sixth form college staff to strike against 16-19 funding cuts in lead up to the budget

“Angry” sixth form college staff will hit the picket line tomorrow as they step up their protest against government funding cuts in the build up to next month’s budget.

National Education Union members from 34 sixth form colleges will be taking strike action.

Two further strikes will take place 27 February and 10 March. The action later this month will include a rally in central London.

The NEU says it is in dispute with the education secretary Gavin Williamson, rather than the colleges themselves, and is calling on the government to invest an extra £700 million into the sector.

It believes this is needed on top of the £400 million in additional funding promised for 16 to 19 education in August 2019, which the union has labelled as “grossly inadequate”.

Staff want to secure the funding to reverse job losses, class size increases, and cuts to teaching time and curriculum provision.

A survey by the Sixth Form Colleges Association last March found that nearly half of all colleges and schools with sixth forms have had to reduce student mental health and careers support in 2019.

It also found that over three quarters of respondents do not believe the amount of funding they will receive in 2020 will be sufficient to provide the support required by disadvantaged students.

The NEU has said if the “crisis” of 16 to 19 funding continues to go unaddressed, the future of the sector is “at threat and it is students’ education that will continue to suffer”. 

Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the NEU, said: “The Conservatives have neglected 16 to 19 education and sixth form colleges in particular. No wonder our members are angry and determined to secure a properly funded post-16 sector for both students and staff.

“Gavin Williamson must take heed of this very real concern from a long-suffering sector and make the case to the chancellor and the prime minister that the budget on 11 March must include at the very least a £700 million injection of new money to close the gap with schools. Otherwise the crisis in 16 to 19 funding will continue.”

The NEU held sixth form college strikes in October, which included marching on the Department for Education and handing officials an invoice for £700 million (see picture).

The 34 sixth form colleges taking action are:

Bilborough College, Nottingham

Brighton Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College

Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College, Stockport

City & Islington Sixth Form College

Esher College

Hereford Sixth Form College

Hills Road Sixth Form College, Cambridge

King Edward VI College Stourbridge

Long Road Sixth Form College, Cambridge

Longley Park Sixth Form College, Sheffield

Newham Sixth Form College

Notre Dame Catholic Sixth Form College, Leeds

Priestley College, Warrington

Reigate College

Richard Huish College, Taunton

Shrewsbury Colleges Group

Sir George Monoux College, Waltham Forest, London

St Brendan’s Sixth Form College, Bristol

St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College, Clapham, London

St John Rigby RC Sixth Form College, Wigan

The Brooke House Sixth Form College, Hackney, London

The Sixth Form College Solihull

Varndean College, Brighton

Gateway Sixth Form College, Leicester

WQE and Regent College Group, Leicester

Ashton Sixth Form College, Ashton-Under-Lyne

Coulsdon Sixth Form College

Havering Sixth Form College

King Edward VI College, Nuneaton

Peter Symonds College, Winchester

Queen Elizabeth Sixth Form College, Darlington

The Blackpool Sixth Form College

Thomas Rotherham College, Rotherham

Xaverian College, Manchester

Ofsted grade 3 forces mega-college to appeal not to be kicked off the T-levels roll-out

A college is bidding to stay on the T-level programme and prevent another cold spot from opening up after it received a grade three from Ofsted.

Nottingham College was inspected last month, its first since being created from a merger of New College Nottingham and Central College Nottingham in 2017.

It is scheduled to deliver the digital, education and health routes from next year, but the Department for Education has previously stated that providers must be either ‘outstanding’ or ‘good’ to run the qualifications.

A spokesperson for Nottingham College said they had already raised the issue with the Education and Skills Funding Agency and they will “submit an application to continue to be a provider of T-levels so these important new qualifications can be offered in the East Midlands from September 2021”.

“The college hopes this is supported by both the ESFA and the Department for Education,” he added.

There are no other colleges or providers scheduled to run T-levels in Nottingham yet.

However, there are some others in the East Midlands – Loughborough College, Leicester College and Derby College.

Derby is the closest from Nottingham College’s Adams Building campus, and would take students over an hour to get there by car and over three-quarters of an hour by public transport during the morning rush hour.

A DfE spokesperson said they will work “closely” with Nottingham College to look at the issues the Ofsted report raised, and make a decision in “due course”.

The department promised to consider each case individually and reach a mutual decision with a provider before a decision is made; and the time invested by institutions and the work done to prepare students may impact on the decision of whether or not the provider is able to continue.

When United Colleges Group in London received a grade three from Ofsted last month ahead of it delivering the construction and digital routes from 2021, the DfE also said it would make a decision about whether United can stay on the programme “in due course”.

London Design and Engineering UTC was dropped from T-levels last year after it received a ‘requires improvement’ rating from Ofsted.

Removing Nottingham College could open up another cold spot in T-level provision in England, when FE Week analysis has already identified one in Greater Lincolnshire, where only two providers are scheduled to deliver T-levels: DN Colleges Group and Grimsby Institute.

There is also a shortage of construction T-level providers in London, as no-one in the capital is running the qualification from September 2020 and no-one south of the river Thames will be from 2021.

Last month, it was announced the only London-based construction T-level provider south of the river Thames, Richmond-upon-Thames College, had pulled out of T-levels in order to prioritise the development of its campus.

Ofsted gave Nottingham College a grade three after inspectors found that “too often managers and staff aim to meet the minimum requirements of qualifications” and teachers often do not make learners “work hard enough,” so they do not develop the knowledge to reach the highest grades.

Leaders were also criticised for not using quality assurance arrangements well enough to monitor provision on subcontracted programmes.

College governors, meanwhile, were pulled up for not having “enough impact on the quality of education” as they were too focused on resolving the challenges presented by the 2017 merger between New College Nottingham and Central College Nottingham which created Nottingham College.

The college’s spokesperson said inspectors had provided them “with a very clear picture of where the college needs to continue to focus its attention” and they are developing an action plan address the inconsistencies Ofsted found in the quality of teaching and in the student experience.

But they were pleased inspectors “acknowledged our strengths,” including skilled teachers and a safe learning environment.

Could free travel drive the sector to new heights?

As the Manchester mayor’s flagship policy for students enters its second term, JL Dutaut asks if it’s one worth following – and if so, who should drive?

It’s boom time for Manchester’s colleges.

“We are seeing a significant increase in the number of students entering further education,” says The Manchester College principal and Greater Manchester College Group chair Lisa O’Loughlin. “Manchester College alone has seen more than 300 additional 16-to-18-year-olds enrol this September compared with last year, with many of the other colleges reporting similar increases.”

That represents an extra £1.5 million in extra per-pupil funding – a real boon whilst colleges await the 2019 general election’s promised increases in capital investment.

But to understand why Manchester is bucking the trend, we have to look to two other elections, both in 2017.

The first was the Greater Manchester mayoral election, won by Labour’s Andy Burnham. The second, the 2017 general election, narrowly won by Theresa May.

37,000 Our Pass cards have been issued, with cardholders making 5 million journeys

It was on the campaign trail that Burnham visited Bury college and heard from Olivia, a student working with charity Reclaim Project. “Do something to help young people with the cost of transport,” she told him, and it became part of his manifesto. By July 2019, mayor Burnham had announced the upcoming launch of a two-year pilot of Our Pass – giving 16-to-18-year-olds unlimited free bus travel and reduced off-peak tram fares in the whole Greater Manchester area.

The scheme, sponsored by a number of organisations, chief among them JD Sports, went live last September. Some 37,000 Our Pass cards have since been issued, with cardholders making 5 million journeys – around 250,000 a week – over the past five months.

The prompt and effective implementation of Our Pass is in stark contrast to the promise made in the Conservatives’ 2017 manifesto, in which the party committed to implementing “significantly discounted bus and train travel for apprentices”.

Subsidised travel is not a natural fit for Conservative economics. In fact, the Taxpayers’ Alliance suggests the effect could be to have taxpayers in rural areas (where public transport is less readily available) subsidising bus passengers in London, who account for half of the nation’s 4.5 billion annual bus journeys.

Nevertheless, a promised scheme has yet to materialise.

A promised scheme has yet to materialise.

The government maintains that it isn’t resting on its laurels. It has introduced the 16-17 Railcard (which offers a 50 per cent discount on train fares), while older apprentices can use the 26-30 railcard (which offers a third off all off-peak fares). It has updated guidance on local authorities’ duties “to support those in education and training post-16, including apprentices” with transport, and the DfE also points out that the ESFA provides additional payments to support “apprentices who are young or from disadvantaged backgrounds”.

In addition, the DfE says there are “a number of apprentice concessionary schemes offered by local authorities, individual train and bus operators and the National Union of Students via their Apprentice Extra card”.

But the Department for Education and Department for Transport are still working on the “joint proposal for discounted public transport for apprentices” – promised in 2017, and last discussed in parliament nearly six months ago.

The government says ‘get fired up’ but its policy is on the backburner

On that matter, the DfE passed on the opportunity to comment, stating that the joint proposal is being led by the DfT. When contacted, the DfT nearly missed its stop, and when comment did come, it was to inform us that “this policy is owned by the DfE”, leaving us to wonder just who is driving the bus.

Some information was forthcoming nonetheless, and it shows that while the government wants us to “get fired up” for National Apprenticeship Week this week, discounted travel for apprentices is very much on the backburner. It is not due to be delivered until 2021 – four years after it was promised.

Education and enrichment

The National Union of Students’ (NUS) vice president for further education, Juliana Mohamad Noor, is clear on her expectations. “We hope that in the coming budget we will finally see some money for this, otherwise it will be just another empty ploy to win over young people,” she says. NUS research shows that “49 per cent of FE students were concerned about the amount they spend on travel, and 44 per cent of those who had missed college had done so because they didn’t have the money to get there.”

In a system set up so that providers compete for students – and are held accountable for those students’ attendance – access and accessibility are paramount to ensuring equity for students and colleges alike. This is especially true for areas with higher levels of disadvantage, as well as for rural areas.

“Just another empty ploy to win over young people”

According to 2016 research by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 70 per cent of FE students travel less than 10km to their providers, and 50 per cent travel less than 6km. “Time and cost of travel are key constraints,” the report says, to “learners’ choices about FE.” The same report adds that “where travel is free, they are often willing to travel further”.

The report cites London as an example, but the evidence is also borne out in Manchester. At Trafford College, principal Lesley Davies reports that “learners say they now have the freedom to make an informed choice of where they wish to study without the restrictions they may have encountered before”. At open evenings, she adds, the college are seeing prospective learners “from areas of Greater Manchester that are further afield than would usually be the case”.

For Andy Burnham, education doesn’t just happen in the classroom. Our Pass, he says, “is designed to show everyone growing up in our city-region that we believe in them”. Referring to the substantial number of cultural offers bundled in with Our Pass, he adds that “The new opportunities we are releasing are giving young people the chance to explore the amazing place we live in and go even further.”

Access to enrichment opportunities is correlated to educational attainment, and it is also distributed unevenly between urban and rural areas and between more- and less-advantaged groups. In essence then, the free and discounted travel available to students in Manchester and London contributes to tackling within-city inequalities, but only further exacerbates the divide between metropolitan students and their rural peers.

While the government’s proposal to discount travel for apprentices can only be welcome, it will in fact do little to even that out, especially since applications for levels 2 and 3 apprenticeships continue to fall, so that an already-small target group is only shrinking further.

Travel poverty

Within Manchester, Our Pass isn’t without teething problems. Trafford College, for example, has struggled to communicate the policy to a small number of students, whose confusion about how their travel is subsidised has left them feeling that the college is doing less to assist them. In fact, they are simply drawing less on ESFA funding – and like all colleges in the Greater Manchester area, Trafford College even reimburses the Our Pass £10 admin fee for those in financial hardship.

But this does point to a confused state of affairs. With corporate sponsors, local government, colleges and bus companies themselves involved, who is taking ultimate responsibility for young people’s access to education, and who is accountable for its delivery now and into the future? 

With T levels, the problem of inequality of access is only likely to get worse

By and large though, students at Trafford College have embraced Our Pass. “It takes the stress out of money and travel,” one said. Another volunteered that Our Pass “has made getting to work easier, and I don’t have to worry about getting to college”.

But individual stories are no evidence base, and while the six-term pilot is only in its second term, early indications from bigger data sets are also good. According to Andy Burnham’s social enterprise advisor and Our Pass lead, Rose Marley, a marked dip in bus journeys is evident over the half-term break, showing that a vast majority of those journeys are to and from schools and colleges.

The evidence is clear and growing that travel poverty is negatively affecting student choice, attainment and wellbeing. In turn, it is also affecting colleges and regions who can’t draw from the whole pool of local talent and are hobbled in delivering on their local industrial strategies.

But the reality is that regional implementation can only deliver unequally across the country. Left to local authorities, the effect can at best only be geographically uneven – and at worse it could compound wealth inequality. While the Manchester model is delivering for young people there, in economically left-behind communities where sponsorship could be harder to come by, taxpayers faced with footing more of the bill could decide not to pursue the policy.

What’s more, with mandatory placements of three months forming a major part of the upcoming T levels, the problem of inequality of access is only likely to get worse – and could mean the new ‘gold-standard’ qualification remains the preserve of so-called metropolitan elites.

Ultimately, delivering on the twin promises of student choice and of colleges as global Britain’s regional engines of growth will require more than piecemeal policy nudges. And even if nudges are all the policy we get, they will need to be delivered faster than this one.

But maybe policies in further education are like buses, and three might turn up soon.

College complaint forces Ofsted to reopen grade 4 inspection

Ofsted inspectors will return to a college after the principal questioned the accuracy of serious safeguarding failure claims that led to a provisional ‘inadequate’ rating.

Shrewsbury Colleges Group, which teaches more than 9,000 students mostly aged 16 to 18, insisted the judgement from an inspection in November was “wrong”.

Its principal, James Staniforth, told FE Week that he had “never experienced anything like it” after working for 27 years in education.

Ofsted have subsequently deemed the inspection to be incomplete

The Education and Skills Funding Agency required the college to appoint an independent review of safeguarding by an approved consultant following a referral from Ofsted.

The consultant undertook a two day of audit at the end of January and concluded in a 10 page report, seen by FE Week, that “having visited and worked at many colleges across the country, Shrewsbury Colleges Group is one of the safest”.

“Every effort has been made by the senior leadership team and safeguarding team to ensure the continued safety of both students and staff,” it added.

“There is a strong culture of safeguarding evident which is underpinned by established policies and procedures. There is substantial evidence to support this statement as detailed in the report.”

Staniforth has now told FE Week: “Ofsted have subsequently deemed the inspection to be incomplete and will be returning to complete the inspection. 

“We are delighted that Ofsted will now have another opportunity to review the wide range of evidence we have regarding safeguarding.”

He said the college submitted a formal complaint after the draft report criticised the college’s safeguarding provision because they felt the team involved had run out of time and were not able to review the available evidence.

“We are a safe place to study and we are confident that the evidence available will demonstrate the effectiveness of our safeguarding practices,” Staniforth added.

The principal said the college looks forward to Ofsted returning and will await their judgement.

He also extended acknowledgments to “our excellent staff for their hard work in keeping students safe” and thanked students, parents, employers and partners for their support during “this difficult process”.

Staff were informed of the revisit this morning.

Ofsted declined to comment.

Shrewsbury Colleges Group previously denied safeguarding was “ineffective” and claimed the “judgement was changed on the final day of the inspection without adequate explanation”.

It did admit, however, that West Mercia Police were called to an incident during the inspection, after a suspended student tried to regain entry to college.

At the time a spokesperson told FE Week the force had “reassured us, in the light of enquiries by this Ofsted inspection team, that they consider our college campuses to be safe”.

There is a strong culture of safeguarding evident

The inspectorate had been set to report that students and staff do not feel safe and the college had not taken sufficient steps to help ensure their safety.

Inspectors also allegedly found that staff required to carry out site security roles have not received adequate training and necessary risk assessments to ensure effective safeguarding covering the college estate were not in place.

The college denied these accusations.

Shrewsbury Sixth Form College and Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology merged to become Shrewsbury Colleges Group in August 2016.

Both FE providers were rated ‘good’ in their final inspections before the merger. The group is now based across three campuses with a turnover of £23 million.

The group’s first inspection took place between 26 and 29 November 2019.

If the draft report had been published, it would have been the first general FE college to receive a grade four in nearly two years.

How we fought to save our local college – and won

When the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea sought to sell off a local college, they reckoned without the passion and organisational skills of local residents, says Samantha Batra.

It started in the wind and the rain outside the gates of the beleaguered college. It started with a gathering of staunch campaigners in 2016 as news leaked out that the Kensington and Chelsea College (KCC) board had sold the land and building that housed its Wornington Road site.

The site was sold to Kensington and Chelsea council who were notorious for “regeneration” development; and it was no surprise that the “Royal Borough” had plans (word had it) to demolish the building and build luxury apartments.

The deal was clandestine but soon rumour spread and it stirred our North Kensington community. At times, members of the regime came out and tried to intimidate the protestors. We were not put off. However, when the Grenfell atrocity happened, the tragic loss of our friends and neighbours traumatised us with a pain that permeates our people still. Our battle to save our precious college was accelerated as our community struggled with a raw, open wound. 

At a community meeting at Bevington Primary School in September 2017 we challenged the powers that reigned, though we were repeatedly told by the board and executive and the leaders of RBKC that that there was simply no money left.

Our college was being forced into a toxic merger with Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College (EHWLC) and there was no alternative. They even started to decamp the college assets and ship them out to EHWLC; most of the hairdressing and beauty equipment simply disappeared over a few days.

Emboldened by anger, frustration and sorrow, our campaign snowballed and we reached into the far corners of our community and ensured that people were informed about the skulduggery. Some people were sceptical, but we maintained the pressure, holding a weekly street stall in Portobello Road, handing out leaflets, making videos, circulating mischievous lampoons and staging noisy demonstrations at Wornington Road and even Hortensia Road (the other KCC site). Time and again, we invited people to come and discuss with us the possibilities for our much neglected friend, the “invisible” college. We met in stuffy school halls and other community spaces and all were welcome.

Our campaign group – made up of disparate people – fought on, all of us giving countless hours and our energy. Sometimes we didn’t agree but we had a common goal and we stuck to it. We met ministers and mandarins along the way in the hallowed corridors of power. Some seemed powerless, others listened and took action.

When the outgoing KCC board and executive congratulate themselves on their achievements, as in the FE Week article of January 15, applauding the “new culture of openness and trust, paving the way for the KCC merger”, remember that we have been pitched against them for more than three and a half years. They would have long submitted to the disastrous merger with EHWLC at the end of 2017. It was the Save Wornington College Campaign who pressed for more, who enabled the damning Kroll Report that pointed to the machinations of the council and the rotten governance of the college that led to the sale of the community’s land and buildings.

Now that we have finally arrived at this alliance with Morley College, after months and months of negotiations, we are engaged in the transition of KCC to Morley College, North Kensington.

“The opportunity to achieve this vision is the result of determined advocacy and activism in the North Kensington community, led by the Save Wornington College Campaign,” stated Morley College’s press release on February 3, 2020.

We are determined to ensure that Morley College deliver their promises and honour the Grenfell legacy. They have shown commitment. Now is their chance to show us their integrity and be part of the renaissance of a venerable and precious community college.

Let’s celebrate the many apprenticeship successes

Jennifer Coupland took over as chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education last November. She reflects on her first National Apprenticeship Week (NAW) in the post.

It has been a pleasure to travel across the country during NAW and speak to so many people who deliver and benefit from fantastic apprenticeships.

Memorable moments included talking to business representatives and providers about apprenticeship priorities.

An important focus for us all looking ahead will be quality. We run the Quality Alliance with the Education and Skills Funding Agency, Ofsted, Ofqual, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) and the Office for Students (OfS). I will make sure we all work closely together to ensure apprenticeships truly deliver for employers and apprentices.

Attending the NAW conference meant I got to meet and hear from those who feel passionate about degree-level apprenticeships.

We now have over 100 of these higher-level apprenticeship standards, a similar number of standards at level four and five, and just under 300 at levels two and three. This all provides for fantastic opportunities for people to progress.

I’m committed to apprenticeships at all levels, and we are hearing encouraging feedback on how they are opening out a huge variety of professions – including accountancy, the law, and nursing – to people from wider backgrounds.

On our website we have revamped our occupational maps, which chart the best routes that apprentices can take across the skills system.

On Wednesday last I also attended the BAE Systems Apprenticeships Awards, where I had the honour of presenting five awards for ‘outstanding achievement’.

This was a particularly touching category as it focused on apprentices who had overcome some really significant challenges in their lives – including long spells of illness or unemployment.

They were now flying high in their apprenticeships – and being great role models for others, which was fantastic to see. It was obvious from people’s reactions to being nominated and winning quite how much recognition of their achievements matters. One winner looked quite choked – and my table of engineers started to tear up too!

NAW unfailingly provides a fantastic opportunity to celebrate the many successes of apprenticeships.

But there is always more to do – and other priorities for the institute in the coming months will be improving our funding decision making processes and simplifying how external quality assurance works.

However, the outlook is good. I have seen so much impressive progress with the development of the employer-led reforms since I started as Deputy Director of the Apprenticeships Unit eight years ago.

It has been thrilling to see how far things have moved on since I started in my new role. I remember when we set up the first trailblazer employer groups – look how far we’ve come now!

We have thousands of employers on board with developing and delivering apprenticeships and there have now been more than 500,000 starts on standards.

There is so much to be proud of and I would like to thank everyone – employers, providers, awarding organisations and apprentices – who is making this happen. 

Providers and the government need to better manage subcontracting

This week the ESFA published 10 subcontracting proposals in a consultation document. The FE sector is encouraged to respond – and this should put an end to speculation of a complete subcontracting ban, says Peter Mucklow

This week we published a consultation proposing reforms to the delivery of subcontracted further education provision. The proposal is calling on FE providers to give feedback on the proposed reforms by March 17. This won’t be a surprise to the sector. We have been very open about our intent to review subcontracting and we trailed our review, the reasons for it and that we would consult on it, in a personal letter from Eileen Milner to all providers receiving post-16 funds back in October 2019.

Current arrangements are not good enough

I hope the consultation quells concerns about rumours of a complete ban on subcontracting. We know that subcontracting can enrich a learner’s experience, be a necessity in some geographical locations, and – for some learner groups – be a gateway to participation. That said, current arrangements are not good enough. Some cases of subcontracting demonstrate poor planning, and too many show insufficient and inadequate oversight by those who have made the decision to subcontract provision. When this happens, unsatisfactory practice can creep in – with unacceptable consequences for both learners and the public purse.

We all want the FE and skills sector to be known for having a great reputation both nationally and internationally. As the organisation responsible for funding, it is important that we consistently review, challenge and be willing to change our practice – to make things better, and to offer the very best value for money both to our learners and to taxpayers.

This review is broad in scope, and because of its breadth and depth, we know some of these changes may take a period of years, rather than months, to fully implement. But it is important and timely to start the journey and see it through.

We need to make changes that make a positive difference

The improvement in oversight of subcontracting is not just looking at what providers can do. We know there are things the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) need to do better, which is why we are looking at how we can be more transparent in the requirements we set out, and how we use data more effectively to address concerns earlier.

However, lead providers are ultimately responsible for the subcontracting agreements they enter into – and they must improve their oversight of subcontracted provision. Learners on subcontracted provision are enrolled with lead providers – and they have every right to expect their provision to be managed as if it were directly controlled by the provider themselves.

We must be satisfied that we are managing public money properly, so we need to make changes that make a positive difference. But we must do it in a fair way – a way that respects the fact that providers may need some time to implement certain aspects of the reforms. We can only do this if organisations and networks talk and engage in the debate.

That is why we are asking those in the FE sector to tell us what they think about the proposed changes by March 17 – thus helping us make meaningful change and improvement to subcontracting