An adviser to the government’s apprenticeship quango has quit after FE Week found he had set up an assessment company and then broke official advertising rules.

Lee Allsup, one of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) route panel members, left the role this week and his new end-point assessment organisation (EPAO) has stopped claiming to offer standards they are not approved to assess.

It comes amid what this newspaper understands to be serious government concerns over the maturity of the EPAO market, more than a year after sector leaders called for the register to be “purged”.

They have allowed a situation to develop, that has more in common with the Wild West

After being shown this latest case, Tom Bewick, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said officials are “repeating all the same mistakes” and called for the register to be closed and reviewed.

The EPAO in question, Allsup&Dale Limited, was co-founded by chef Lee Allsup whose past jobs have included working at the The Ritz, and incorporated in September 2019.

It was the only company added to the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s register of EPAOs in an update last month, taking the total on there to 268. It is currently only approved to assess apprentices on the level 2 baker standard.

However, the company was advertising on its website that it was approved to assess seven standards, one of which, the fish monger, requires registration with Ofqual. The exams regulator told FE Week Allsup&Dale has not submitted an application for registration to date.

The firm’s website also marketed a further seven standards “coming soon”.

This is despite Education and Skills Funding Agency rules for EPAOs stating: “While we encourage you to directly promote your end-point assessment service to employers you must only do this once you are approved for the register and only for the standard(s) and assessment plan(s) you are registered to assess against.”

What’s more, Allsup was a panel member for the IfATE catering and hospitality route.

The role is advertised as being to “review and make recommendations on whether or not to approve apprenticeship proposals, standards and assessment plans” as well as “make recommendations on funding bands for apprenticeship standards”.

After FE Week brought this to their attention, the ESFA took action. Allsup&Dale was contacted earlier this week and told that they are in breach of the conditions of acceptance, and that they are required to update their website accordingly.

The following day Allsup told FE Week: “You will note that our website clearly states the position of our application process for all the additional EPAs we are hoping to eventually deliver.”

He added: “I am no longer on the hospitality route panel team, I stepped down to prevent a possible conflict of interest.”

Allsup only left the role on Wednesday after this newspaper asked about the obvious conflict of interest the day before. He has since been removed from the IfATE’s website.

A further misleading claim made on Allsup&Dale’s website is that the organisation has “over 70 years developing and progressing the education system in food manufacturing, engineering and hospitality and catering”.

Allsup did not respond to requests for comment about this.

The ESFA did say that as part of EPAO conditions, providers can indicate details of standards that they plan to apply for, but they must make it clear that they are not approved to deliver those standards.

The IfATE said it does not comment on individual cases but told FE Week “we are clear that individuals should declare all conflicts of interest, and we will always investigate and take action where necessary”.

Application guidance states: “You must declare to the Institute any personal or business interest which may or may be perceived (by a reasonable member of the public) to influence your judgement in performing the functions and obligations of a route panel member.”

Questions were also raised over whether Allsup&Dale was fast-tracked to get onto the register. EPAOs are assigned an ID number when they join the register. Allsup&Dale’s number is 303 – which is 15 ahead of the next most recent addition.

The ESFA claimed this was due to a technical issue, adding that the glitch is currently being investigated.

The government was urged to have a clear-out of its register of EPAOs in March last year after FE Week found a sole trader and a new company with no trading history had successfully applied.

At that time, the Federation of Awarding Bodies warned of the “extremely weak” approach to allowing EPAOs onto the register.

“It really is unacceptable that ESFA have not acted on our concerns,” Bewick said this week.

“Instead, they have allowed a situation to develop, that has more in common with the Wild West, than a taxpayer-supported apprenticeship system.

“Things are getting so out of hand, that even some new entrants to the marketplace are offering ’no-win, no fee’ arrangements in order to secure business.”

He told FE Week that three “urgent things” now need to happen.

First, the register “should be closed to new entrants with immediate effect”.

Second, IfATE should lead a “fundamental review, supported by the Quality Alliance partners, into the independence and integrity of the EPAO marketplace”.

“If I have seen a significant amount of evidence of conflicts of interest and sharp practices going on in the marketplace, then I’m sure others have to,” Bewick said.

“I am sent anecdotal evidence all the time of provider-owned EPAOs offering advantageous referral rates which would not exist if there was a clearer operational separation between these two aspects of apprenticeship delivery.”

Thirdly, he said, the planned takeover of the external quality assurance of apprenticeship standards, reassigned to Ofqual in future, “should mean that these bodies hold the EPAO register going forwards, and not the ESFA”.

 

The current EPAO market in numbers

Around half of all registered end-point assessment organisations have not delivered a single end-point assessment to date, the government has admitted.

Education and Skills Funding Agency data obtained by FE Week via a Freedom of Information request shows that 53,362 EPAs have been completed since 2016/17 to date.

However, they would not reveal the names of the organisations that delivered them.

An official said this was because this “could be prejudicial against EPAOs and their commercial interests”, but they do “anticipate sharing this information in the future when the market is more developed”.

While they could not reveal the names, a spokesperson for the agency told FE Week that over half of all EPAOs have delivered end-point assessments.

For a “significant majority” of the others, they are in their readiness development period or have not yet been engaged to deliver end-point assessment.

They added that for over 200 standards which are approved for delivery, apprentices have not yet reached gateway and so the EPAO are not required to deliver yet.

There are currently 268 EPAOs on the government’s provider register.

EPA numbers have, unsurprisingly, been shooting up each year ever since 2016/17 when apprenticeship standards were first brought in to replace frameworks.

In the first year, 299 EPAs were completed, while 26,570 were carried out in 2018/19.

A total of 23,496 EPAs have been completed so far in 2019/20.

The level 3 team leader / supervisor standard, which takes apprentices 12 months to complete, has racked up the most EPAs since 2016/17 – 4,680 in total.

Second was the level 2 customer service practitioner standard, which again has a typical duration of 12 months, after recording 3,595 EPAs.

Third was the 12-month level 2 adult care worker standard with 2,929 EPAs.

Apprenticeship subcontracting has more than halved since the introduction of the levy in April 2017, new FE Week analysis has revealed.

The Department for Education released a new list of declared subcontractors for 2019/20 this week – updating the records for the first time in more than a year.

It follows the launch of an Education and Skills Funding Agency consultation on proposed changes to subcontracting rules at the start of the month – as officials bid to cap deals and “eliminate” poor arrangements.

FE Week analysis shows the amount of subcontracting funding for apprenticeships dropped from £310,659,000 in 2016/2017 – the last time the full figures were provided – to £145,270,000 in 2019/20.

In addition, the number of declared subcontractors decreased by three quarters during this period, from 1,557 to 386.

The number of contracts also dropped by 70 per cent over the three academic years, from 3,417 to 1,012.

However, there was a slight increase in the amount of main providers, which rose from 322 in 2016/17 to 347 in 2019/20.

There are two most likely causes for the dramatic reduction in funding being passed on to subcontractors.

Firstly, a new funding rule forced main providers to deliver apprenticeship starts to all the employers also serviced by the subcontractor, or end the arrangement.

Secondly, many subcontractors gained direct access to funding with the introduction of the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers, so no longer needed to work with a main provider.

In the most recent figures, out of all main providers, the British Army awarded the highest value of subcontracts, £22,922,296 – more than the rest of the top five combined. The employer provider gave out just four subcontracts – with Babcock Training Limited receiving the largest sum of £8,068,043.

The independent learning provider advertises that it is the largest provider of engineering apprenticeships to the British Army, and also delivers more than 758,000 training days annually for the force.

East Sussex College Group distributed the second highest amount of subcontracting funding as a prime provider for apprentices this year, £6,881,266, to 13 providers.

In third, independent learning provider BCTG Limited handed over £5,238,444 to 20 subcontractors.

Rounding off the top five was employer provider Bae Systems PLC, which gave out £4,812,196 to 13 providers, and the CITB (Construction Industry Training Board) which offered £4,654,650 to 70 subcontractors.

The next four general FE colleges on the list after East Sussex College Group were Bradford College, Dudley College of Technology, Eastleigh College and Heart of Worcestershire College.

One of the key proposals in the ESFA’s subcontracting consultation is to strengthen controls on the volume and value of provision that can be subcontracted by a prime provider.

A percentage cap is proposed on subcontracted provision of 25 per cent of ESFA post-16 income in 2021/22, and further reducing that percentage to 17.5 per cent in 2022/23 and to 10 per cent in 2023/24.

The ESFA also wants to “exercise greater oversight of the volume and value of provision that can be delivered by a single subcontractor”.

Its consultation said that where the aggregate value of a subcontractor’s delivery exceeds more than £3 million of ESFA funded provision, the agency proposes to make a referral to Ofsted for the subcontractor to be subject to a direct inspection.

The ESFA also outlined that as a “broad rule of thumb”, it believes subcontracting partners should be no more than one hour away from the prime contractor by car.

And from 2021/22 the government agency proposes to introduce stricter controls on the circumstances in which the whole of a learner’s programme can be subcontracted.

A sixth-form college in Blackburn is set to be the first of its kind to remove its Catholic status, FE Week understands.

St Mary’s College, now in government “supervised status”, will make the move in order to secure a merger partner to survive after running into severe financial difficulty.

Earlier this week, an FE Commissioner report about the college was published and concluded it could not continue as a standalone entity beyond the current year and “urgently requires” a restructure.

The main reason St Mary’s, which is the smallest sixth-form college (SFC) in England, was told it was no longer “sustainable” was due to falling student numbers.

It was first warned of its deteriorating financial position four years ago and was urged at that time to find a merger partner or to academise.

But it has been its ethos as a Catholic college that has prevented it from doing so.

The process for removing the status – including timescales – is not clear at this stage because it has never been done before.

St Mary’s said it could not comment on this because a structure and prospects appraisal is currently taking place with the FE Commissioner. It is due to finish by April and is expected to iron out the details for removing its Catholic status.

A spokesperson for the Diocese of Salford, the district within which St Mary’s falls, added they were “awaiting the outcome of that process”.

Despite being established by the Marist Fathers – an international Roman Catholic religious congregation – in 1925, the FE Commissioner’s report found St Mary’s current trustees were concerned the college “does not meet its constitutional objectives as a Catholic institution”, citing non-Catholic senior staff and very low numbers of Catholic students.

For example, vice principal Elissa Best was appointed interim principal in July 2019 but it was noted that she had not been eligible for the permanent post as she is not Catholic.

They also concluded that imposing mandatory Catholic requirements with significant financial implications would be “unfeasible”.

They have now proposed to “dissolve the trust through a ‘managed withdrawal’, removing the constraints on the college and allowing it to seek a non-Catholic partner as part of any restructuring process”.

The report added that while land and leasing arrangements are “complex, there is a willingness to negotiate a long-term agreement to the benefit of both the trust and college”.

St Mary’s was first told to merge or academise in 2016 following the Lancashire Area Review.

Becoming an academy, and consequently enjoying the luxury of not paying VAT, has been an option for nearly all SFCs since former chancellor George Osborne changed the rules in November 2015.

But a group of 14 Catholic-run SFCs have been prevented from doing so due to their religious character, areas of curriculum, acts of worship and governance, which would not be maintained under current government rules.

A short clause in the education bill could “easily rectify this”, according to the Catholic Education Service and the Sixth-Form Colleges Association, which were in joint talks with the Department for Education in 2018.

The SFCA this week said discussions are still ongoing but it would require a brand new education bill to add the clause.

The same issues persist when it comes to merging with other non-Catholic colleges.

Plans were previously developed to create a formal federation between Liverpool Hope University and Cheadle & Marple Sixth-Form College but this “did not address the financial weaknesses at St Mary’s directly”, this week’s report said.

In addition, a “weak” balance sheet was reported to provide “no resilience against unforeseen events and raises questions as to future solvency”.

In a letter published alongside the report, former DfE minister Lord Agnew said it was “clear that previous efforts to secure the college’s financial position since being placed in intervention have failed”.

“The college is currently operating under extreme financial duress and is unsustainable without immediate exploration of possible structural solutions,” he added.

In the latest financial accounts for 2018-19, the provider recorded a £347,264 deficit, an increase from £249,781 in 2017-18.

The college declined to comment on potential merger partners.

The government has agreed to write off the loans for another group of learners left with no qualifications after their provider closed, despite a previous investigation that concluded they were still liable to make repayments.

Questions have now been raised about the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) after it appeared to re-open their cases and U-turn on the cancellations only after FE Week began investigating.

In one instance a staff member from the agency, who previously dealt with some of the complaints, was accused of “gaslighting” and “victim-blaming” a student while dismissing their concerns.

This development follows a year-long battle for students to have their advanced learner loans written off after Nottingham-based independent learning provider Active Lifestyles closed down – with some testifying how their mental health has been affected during this process.

The training provider had its contracts terminated in November 2018 after receiving a grade four from Ofsted. There were 102 listed learners at the time of inspection in September 2018.

Since July 1 2019, the education secretary has been able to cancel advanced learner loans for learners left in debt when their provider goes bust, following a change in legislation prompted by FE Week’s Save Our Adult Education campaign.

FE Week previously revealed how almost 700 students have been identified as possibly being in scope for loan write-offs, which would cost the government £1.3 million.

On January 27, the start of a one-month FE Week investigation, this newspaper asked the ESFA if any Active Lifestyle students were in scope for their loans to be cancelled.

The DfE said none were, as Student Loans Company (SLC) records showed there were no loan-funded students in learning at the time of the provider’s termination.

But last week, Alexandra Allen, 31, was told her £2,882 loan for a Diploma in Personal Training, and the interest accrued, is eligible to be cancelled.

The ESFA’s response to her complaint, which was originally lodged in November 2019, cited new evidence from Active Lifestyle’s awarding body, YMCA Awards, which was obtained by FE Week.

The SLC had told FE Week she was still liable to repay the loan on January 30, 2020.

The former sports coach from Long Eaton, who was signed off work with stress, anxiety and depression last year, said she had been “left in the lurch” and called it a “big scandal.”

While she described the loan cancellation as a weight being lifted, Allen said she had not received an explanation or apology from the ESFA.

Once a loans-only provider has its contracts terminated, they are not monitored by the ESFA, the agency told FE Week.

“Someone has to take responsibility and change the process,” Allen said.

Nick Price, 22, a duty manager from Lincoln, was notified that his loan from 2018, worth around £1,200, is also now eligible to be cancelled.

Price received a new response from the government last week after previously being told an investigation into the case had been closed in October 2019.

The first reply had referenced his complaint from June, which asked for his loan to be wiped. “It is safe to say I was losing sleep over it all,” he told FE Week.

“I am extremely grateful to not have to pay the loan back but I think this is only fair anyway, they haven’t done me a favour, they have just done what was needed this whole time,” Price added.

Victoria Paterson, 45, alleged representatives from the government agency were “gaslighting”, “victimblaming” and “quite rude” to her after she complained about the situation.

In emails seen by FE Week, she was told the ESFA had not funded her loan or selected her training provider, and that these decisions had been made by “you”.

“I was really gobsmacked by that… [the official] was being deliberately difficult and provocative,” Paterson continued.

“I couldn’t understand why they were so averse to doing a proper investigation.”

Paterson, who has since completed her qualification elsewhere, set up a support group on Facebook for learners “still waiting” for their certification in June 2019.

It currently has 25 members but not all of those who joined have had their debts written off.

Another former student has been told he is still liable to pay back his loan while others have not been contacted as they did not complain.

Jamie Williams, 28, said: “I have been devastated… It’s a constant burden over my life if I’m honest.”

Phonchrist Ongouya Adouki, 35, called the situation a “mess” and added that his “whole life is on hold”. He said it felt “hopeless when you do not know who to talk to”.

Lucy Godfrey, 26, also claimed she had been unsure who to complain to.

The DfE declined to explain why the ESFA had not checked with YMCA Awards before, or confirm how many student loans from Active Lifestyles are now being cancelled.

Last September Ofsted began inspecting apprenticeship providers using their new framework. 

Out went the Common Inspection Framework (CIF), in which inspector judgements relied heavily on achievement rates. In came the Education Inspection Framework (EIF), in which judgements focus far more on the appropriateness of the curriculum. 

Six months into the EIF, FE Week took a look at the full inspections, comparing the apprenticeship grade profile to those published in the last year of the CIF. 

The results (see right) show the proportion of providers being hit with a grade three of four after a full inspection has risen six percentage points to 52 percent. 

But perhaps most surprisingly, whilst there appeared to be little grade profile difference between new and existing providers under the old CIF, the same cannot be said so far under the EIF, with 60 percent of existing providers receiving a grade three of four. 

So what does Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s deputy director for further education and skills, make of our findings?

“We will continue to monitor this very closely, but it is obviously disappointing. Any provider that we find to be less than good is disappointing,” he says.

Should we be worried that apprenticeship quality is declining?

“If we are in the same position after a year or after two years where we see a much higher proportion of apprenticeship providers, if we are still around the 56 percentage point mark, I’ll be worried about apprenticeship provision,” Joyce states.

Do the figures suggest the new EIF is tougher than the CIF?

“The new framework is different, and inspectors focus on different things in this framework compared to the last, so we know that data carries less weight under this framework and inspectors don’t spend as long looking at internal data for example.

“What inspectors do in this framework far more is look at the curriculum, the sequencing of the curriculum, the link between on and off the job training and how that is coordinated and most importantly how apprentices develop knowledge, skills and behaviours that benefit them in their workplace and for their longer-term career.

“That’s a very different focus than the previous framework and providers that haven’t moved to that and for example are just delivering the qualification framework, they are not going to perform as well under this framework as they did under the last.” 

So existing providers could be struggling with the shift away from apprenticeship frameworks (that include unitised qualifications) to standards with end-point-assessment?

Joyce says: “I’ve said before that standards are very different to frameworks and some providers are struggling to make the move to standards from frameworks so it’s a different delivery method, it is a different assessment method with end point assessment and that requires providers to think carefully about how they deliver the apprenticeship programme.

“So it is about the curriculum and providers that are thinking about the curriculum, sequencing the curriculum, allowing apprentices to develop new knowledge, skills and behaviours to repeat and get confident and competent over time.

“They are doing much better under the new EIF than under the old CIF where some providers would focus on doing something once, assessing it once and then not revisiting it.”

Is he surprised some providers appear to be struggling to adapt?

“I’m not surprised that providers are finding the challenges of working with different employers and different sectors, the levy, subcontracting, all sorts of things that are happening within the landscape, a challenge. Some are dealing with that much better than others. We’re interested in quality, we’ll continue to monitor that quality carefully.”

But Joyce remains hopeful apprenticeship providers will quickly get to grips with the challenges and rise to the demands of the new inspection framework.

“It is interesting [FE Week] analysis six months in and obviously we’re also doing some analysis.

“It is perhaps a bit early and too few inspections for us to definitively say what’s better or what’s worse but on the broader point about the apprenticeship landscape, we are undoubtedly seeing some really good apprenticeship provision which is nice to see.”

 

It’s all about the curriculum: example statements from reports published in the past 6 months

The government is consulting on plans to dump employers when it comes to external quality assurance of apprentices – and hand all of it to Ofqual within the next two years.

The only exception would be for integrated degree apprenticeships, which would be overseen by higher education regulator the Office for Students.

The move would bring an end to substantial charges, which can reach almost £200 per apprentice, being imposed on end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs).

Sally Collier, Ofqual’s chief regulator, welcomed the expanded role, adding that “we believe the current arrangements are complex, and the proposals outlined by the Institute will simplify and strengthen the approach in the future”.

We believe the current arrangements are complex

Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive, Tom Bewick, hailed the change to make external quality assurance (EQA) a “statutory-led service in future, paid for directly by government”.

“It was always a crazy proposition to have so many statutory and non-statutory bodies checking on the work of EPAOs, when this is not the case, for example, in how apprenticeship providers are inspected for quality,” he said.

“It has unfortunately resulted in a nascent market turning into a Wild-West market in some parts.”

A consultation on proposals to “simplify and strengthen” how EQA works was launched by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) today.

Currently there are 20 EQA organisations which monitor the EPAOs that run examinations for apprentices.

The job is done by a mix of professional bodies, employers and quangos including the IfATE and Ofqual. The institute’s own delivery of EQA, originally conceived as a back-stop in the event of failure to secure a different organisation, is now in use across around half of all standards.

Sector leaders and EPAOs have long complained about this complex and “frustrating” system, especially as many of them, including the IfATE, charge various amounts per apprentice for doing the job.

The institute said the proposed changes would allow the “opportunity to change” how EQA is funded.

It “enables government to move to a model of funding EQA directly, away from a system whereby end-point assessment organisations are charged for EQA,” the consultation document said.

Under the plans, professional and employer bodies would continue to support Ofqual and OfS in their delivery of EQA, to “ensure the employer voice remains integral”.

A new “register of professional or employer-led bodies” would be established from which the two regulators can draw occupational expertise.

The consultations said that in order to “retain confidence that only those organisations which genuinely speak for their sector operate in this role”, the institute is proposing that trailblazer groups should nominate a professional or employer-led body to register for their standard.

There are close to 300 firms on the government’s register of end-point assessment organisations; 55 of which are currently recognised by Ofqual and 46 by OfS.

Over time, the IfATE states, all EPAOs would need to become recognised by the regulators.

A two-stage transition approach is proposed and is expected to get underway in the summer.

It has unfortunately resulted in a nascent market turning into a Wild-West market

Stage one would involve moving standards where the IfATE is currently the named EQA provider to Ofqual, in a “phased approach”. No completion date for this stage has been given.

Stage two would then transition standards from all other EQA providers to Ofqual, again in a phased approach, by the summer of 2022.

Should an existing EQA provider choose to exit the market outside the transition, Ofqual would “work with the institute on appropriate interim arrangements that made sure coverage remained unaffected”.

The IfATE’s chief executive, Jennifer Coupland, said: “The institute supports employers and welcomes as much feedback as possible on how we should reform the system, so that it works better for them and everyone else involved with EQA.

“It is extremely important that EQA maintains high assessment standards and apprentices are rigorously challenged to prove they can do the job they are being trained for.”

Collier added: “We have established a strong track record of regulating end point assessments and employers and apprentices can have confidence that they are fair, consistent and signal occupational competence.”

The consultation runs for 6 weeks, closing on 9 April. The institute expects to publish its response in the summer.

The number of apprenticeship starts in England plunged by 12 per cent in December, according to government figures published this morning.

Provisional figures for December 2019, when compared to the same publication last February, reveal a fall of 1,900 in a single month.

The analysis by FE Week shows starts for those under the age of 19 decreased the most, from 3,600 to 2,800, a 22 per cent drop.

Level two saw the largest percentage decrease in December, with a 21 percent fall.

Meanwhile, higher apprenticeships went up by 4 per cent from 2,500 to 2,600.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Thanks to our reforms, apprenticeships are now longer, higher-quality, with more off-the-job training and have an independent assessment at the end. Our higher quality apprenticeships are also ensuring employers can invest in the people and skills they need.

“We do recognise there is more work to do and we are continuing to look at how the apprenticeship programme can best support the changing needs of businesses so more people can get ahead and all employers can benefit.”

The education secretary has demanded a review into the controversial MBA apprenticeship “to safeguard the integrity of the apprenticeship brand and value for money of the levy.”

The letter, sent today from Gavin Williamson to the new boss at the Institute for Apprenticeships, Jennifer Coupland, sets 1 June as a deadline for determining whether the level 7 senior leader standard will continue to be funded.

The letter comes less than a month after Coupland told FE Week that public funding for management apprenticeships is “perfectly legitimate”.

Coupland was calling on the government to find an extra £750 million to invest in apprenticeships for small employers, those that do not pay the levy.

When asked about the spiraling cost of the controversial management apprenticeships she said: “It is not government money, it comes from the levy that was levied directly to support apprenticeships.”

The Department for Education told FE Week 34 of their staff are currently studying towards the apprenticeship MBA.

The then-director of the DfE’s National Apprenticeship Service, Sue Husband, told a House of Lords enquiry in 2018 she was on a level 6 chartered management degree apprenticeship and was finding it “hugely beneficial”. She confirmed to FE Week this morning she was carrying on the apprenticeship with her new employer.

FE Week was first to report, back in 2016, that management apprenticeships were already the third most popular, proving to be “unstoppable” and would likely “rocket to the top spot once the apprenticeship levy kicks in next year.”

In early 2019, our analysis found management taking the top-spot,  including 1,220 starts on the level 7 MBA. 

The levy is paid to the Treasury, which means it is technically public funding, and its use for management qualifications has come under criticism from Ofsted’s chief inspection, Amanda Spielman, who said “we see levy funding subsidising re-packaged graduate schemes and MBAs that just don’t need it”.

The National Audit Office last year reported that these “new types of apprenticeship raise questions about whether public money is being used to pay for training that already existed in other forms”.

And more than a year ago, the then skills minister, Anne Milton, told the chief executive of the Association of Colleges David Hughes: “We will need to look ahead, when the system is really running well – and I think we’re nearly at that stage – when we need to look at do we continue to fund apprenticeships for people who are already in work, people doing second degrees.”

In a statement to the media that accompanied the letter, Williamson said: “The levy funds apprenticeships for businesses of all sizes, helping people of all ages and backgrounds make the most of their talents.

“I am committed to maintaining an employer-led system, but I’m not convinced the levy should be used to pay for staff, who are often already highly qualified and highly paid, to receive an MBA.

“I’d rather see funding helping to kick-start careers or level up skills and opportunities. That’s why I’ve asked for a review of the senior leader apprenticeship standard to ensure it is meeting its aims.”

Read Gavin Williamson’s letter in full:

Dear Jennifer,

I know the Institute and its Board share my commitment for apprenticeships to support learners to develop and progress and employers to build a talent pipeline and increase the productivity of their business.

I am absolutely determined to make sure levy funds are being used to support the people that can benefit most from an apprenticeship, such as those starting out in their careers or helping more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get ahead, and that we ensure good value for money in the apprenticeships offer. My officials will be working closely with you through the Spending Review process to make sure that we achieve that balance.

In that context, I am unconvinced that having an apprenticeship standard that includes an MBA paid for by the levy is in the spirit of our reformed apprenticeships or provides value for money. I question whether an MBA is an essential regulatory or professional requirement to work in this field of senior leadership. It is of the utmost importance for the integrity of the programme and the apprenticeships brand that each and every standard meets our highest possible expectations. I recognise that looking again at this standard may be unpopular with some levy payers. Whilst respecting the decisions that employers make about which apprenticeships and apprentices are best for their organisation, I am of the view that we absolutely need to safeguard the integrity of the apprenticeship brand and value for money of the levy.

Therefore, I am asking the Institute, as the body responsible for the quality and content of those standards, to bring forward a formal review of the Senior Leader Level 7 standard. You should ensure that the standard meets the current policy intent and rules, including the mandatory qualifications policy, and provides value for money.

I have every confidence that notwithstanding your range of priorities you will be able to take forward this review with your employer-led groups at pace. Therefore, I look forward to hearing back from you by 1 June about the outcome of your considerations.

I am copying this letter to Antony Jenkins, Chair of the Institute.

The education secretary Gavin Williamson is launching a new £9 million “collaboration” fund in a bid to improve governance and leadership at colleges which aren’t “getting it right”.

Bids of up to £500,000 can be submitted by groups of colleges to “share good practice and expertise”, but they will be required to stump up an extra 25 per cent in match funding between them.

The 12-month programme follows the Strategic College Improvement Fund – which ended last year after £12.3 million of the £15 million up for grabs was used to help 80 colleges rated ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ team up with better performing colleges.

Williamson told FE Week the new funding, which has partly come from the Treasury, is needed because there “have been examples where colleges haven’t been getting it right and things that we are not comfortable with have been going on”.

“We mustn’t forget that is a minority,” he added. “Where we have got good we want to make them excellent, where we have got average we want to make them good and then to excellent, and where we have poor we want to make sure that they are actually really achieving the very best on that.”

Recent cases of poor governance have led to high-profile and significant failings, including at Hadlow College, which became the first college to enter education administration last year.

Each application to the collaboration fund will need a “lead” college with at least a ‘good’ rating from Ofsted, and at least one other college with a grade three or four, or one that has ‘inadequate’ financial health. The maximum number of colleges allowed in each group is four.

Colleges are expected to apply with others within a shared geographic place, for example, the “same sub-regional level”.

Merged colleges without an Ofsted rating can still apply, as long as one of the two previous colleges meets the criteria.

Each proposed programme of work must address at least one of the fund’s three “quality improvement themes” identified by DfE: governance and leadership, financial and resource management, and quality of education.

Applications are invited for grants of a value up to £500,000 and a minimum value of £80,000.

The Department for Education’s guidance states that colleges are expected to contribute match funding equal to 25 per cent of the total grant applied for, split equally between all of the colleges in each group. “In-kind” costs will not be eligible.

The fund will have two application rounds throughout the 2020-21 financial year. Bid for the first round are open from today and will close on 8 April. The second round is due to open on 15 June.

As well as the collaboration fund, the DfE has said an additional £4.5 million will be invested in bespoke continuing professional development for college leaders.

It will be developed by the Education and Training Foundation in partnership with the Oxford Said Business School, The Chartered Institute of Accountants in England and Wales and the Association of Colleges.

The DfE said the programme will aim to provide FE leaders and governors with tailored support in a range of areas including strategic planning, finance and working with employers to address local and national skills needs.

Another £200,000 is set to go towards two governance pilots (full story here).

FE Commissioner Richard Atkins said that in order to be “successful”, colleges require “excellent governance and leadership provided by well trained and well supported chairs, governors, principals, clerks and leaders, so that learners can benefit from enrolling at great colleges”.

He added: “My team and I see examples of excellent practice during our visits across the country, but we also see examples of where support is needed if standards of governance and leadership are to improve.

“I am pleased that we will now have this expanded range of development opportunities to offer to colleges where we see this as necessary.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges said this package will “help colleges help themselves and each other – proper peer to peer support, developing the skills and knowledge of leaders and governors across the country to strengthen the great education colleges already provide”.