The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has today published its annual accounts for 2019-20, revealing a substantial pay discrepancy between the quango’s former and new chief executive.
This is the third year of the institute’s existence.
Here are five things we learned from the accounts.
1 – Sir Gerry was paid £20k more than the institute’s new CEO
The institute parted ways with its first chief executive, Sir Gerry Berragan, in November. Despite leaving just over half-way through the financial year, he earned himself a £5,000 bonus.
But what is most notable is the difference in his pay with new IfATE boss Jennifer Coupland. Berragan was paid between £140,000 and £145,000 a year, whilst Coupland is now on £120,000 to £125,000.
The accounts provide no explanation for the pay discrepancy.
2 – Costs and staff numbers increase owing to T Levels
The institute’s accounts show that its costs have increased by £6.3 million from £13.5 million to £19.8 million this year, which reflects “our additional workload, most specifically in relation to T Levels”.
The institute’s role expanded to technical education in 2019.
The increase in costs can mostly be attributed to a growing staff headcount – which rose from 146 permanent employees in 2018-19, to 167 in 2019-20.
“Programme costs” have also shot up from £1.7 million to £4.3 million. The accounts explain the most significant increase in programme costs has been “£1.6 million of expenditure incurred in respect of T Level contracts” to awarding bodies.
3 – EQA charges total £420k
The institute is itself an external quality assurance provider for apprenticeships, but contracts this work out to awarding organisation Open Awards.
A controversial fee of £40 is charged to end-point assessment organisations for each apprentice Open Awards quality assures.
The accounts show that for 2019-20, the institute recorded income of £420,000 for EQA charges, which means around 10,500 apprentice were quality assured by the IfATE in that year.
The institute has previously said the £40 charge is on a “cost-recovery basis” only.
4 – Number of appeals go down
Trailblazer employer groups can seek a ‘Procedural Review’, formerly known as an appeal, of a decision or recommendation made by the institute, which usually relate to funding bands for apprenticeship standards.
In total the institute received 29 requests for a Procedural Review in 2019-20, compared with 37 in 2018-19.
Just three of the requests were granted.
5 – IfATE to move in with DfE?
The accounts state that the lease on the institute’s offices in central London is up in March 2021. The premises costs increased from £1.2 million to £1.7 million in 2019-20.
The institute is now “currently planning” on moving to Sanctuary Buildings, the offices of the DfE, to be “closer to our DfE colleagues”. The aim is to finalise this move “without disruption to our activities towards the end of the financial year”.
The goal of this move is to provide “value for money and flexibility for our staff and our stakeholders”, the accounts add.
The awarding organisations that will develop, deliver and award the six T Levels being rolled out from 2022 are Pearson and City & Guilds.
Following a tender, City & Guilds has been handed contracts totalling almost £12.5 million to develop qualifications in engineering, manufacturing, processing and control; maintenance, installation and repair for engineering and manufacturing; design and development for engineering and manufacturing; and management and administration.
Pearson has won contracts totalling £4 million for finance and accounting.
Each of the qualifications make up wave three of the T Levels rollout.
Apprenticeships and skills minister Gillian Keegan said: “Now more than ever, it’s vital we support students to gain the skills they need to progress and employers and our economy need to grow.
“Many have gone above and beyond to make sure this milestone for T Levels is achieved. I want to thank everyone for their continued hard work and I look forward to seeing these new qualifications launch in 2022.”
Jennifer Coupland, chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, said: “I would like to congratulate everyone on delivering another important step forward for T Levels. It is fantastic that this has been achieved on schedule despite all the challenges posed by Covid-19 pandemic.”
Wave one of the T Levels rollout got underway last month. The new post-16 qualifications are the technical equivalent to A-levels and combine classroom theory, practical learning and a three-month (minimum 45 day) industry placement with an employer.
NCFE and Pearson are now delivering the first three T Levels – for education and childcare; digital production, design and development; and design, surveying and planning for construction – which students began studying in September.
NCFE and City & Guilds are developing more T Levels for launch next academic year – covering digital business services; digital support services; health, healthcare science, and science; and onsite construction and building services engineering.
David Phillips, managing director for City & Guilds, said: “We are absolutely delighted to have been awarded the contracts to deliver three engineering and manufacturing T Levels and the business and administration T Level. These qualifications will help shape the lives of many young people by giving them a great start in their careers.
“As the next generation enters the workforce, they will be facing unprecedented challenges as well as new opportunities and we are honoured to get the opportunity to take on a larger role helping to equip these learners with the skills they will need to flourish in their careers.”
Cindy Rampersaud, senior vice president at Pearson UK, said: “We are delighted to be delivering the finance and accounting T Level pathways from September 2022. We look forward to supporting learners as they begin their programmes of study, and playing our part in developing talent in two areas which are so vital for our economy.
“We will draw on our experience of delivering first wave T Levels in the construction and digital pathways, as well as our longstanding collaboration and partnership with government, employers and providers to design, develop and deliver world class qualifications.”
Ofsted inspection results for the college sector at the end of last year fell for the first time in three years after a substantial number of merged colleges received a grade three.
This proportion had been rising steadily since a low of 69 per cent in 2016/17 but appears to have been stifled by a number of merged colleges receiving full inspections for the first time and performing poorly.
However, Ofsted said that as inspections were paused in March 2020, “we should be cautious about reading too much into relatively small fluctuations that have taken place since the suspension of inspections makes it difficult to compare last year with the previous one”.
FE Week’s analysis shows that of the 144 general FE colleges currently with inspection grades, 17 are rated ‘outstanding’, 92 are judged as ‘good’, and 35 are ‘requires improvement’. None are ‘inadequate’.
There were 30 new full inspections during 2019/20, which resulted in three grade ones, 14 grade twos, and 13 (43 per cent) grade threes.
Of the 30, 19 were first ever inspections of merged colleges and seven (37 per cent) of those resulted in ‘requires improvement’ outcomes.
We should be cautious about reading too much into relatively small fluctuations
The gradual rise in the proportion of colleges rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ in previous years was partly because when colleges merge, many of them grade three and four, they are removed from Ofsted’s figures. But many of the newly-formed institutions have now been inspected.
Between September 2015 and March 2019 the Department for Education carried out post-16 area reviews, which resulted in 57 mergers by April 1, 2019. An additional 13 college mergers have taken place since then.
There are currently 21 colleges that have no Ofsted grade as a result of these mergers, many of which were due to be inspected between April and July had inspectors not been stood down during the pandemic.
Ofsted would not be drawn on whether its new inspection framework, introduced in September 2019, had anything to do with the overall dip in college performance.
Covid hampering Ofsted’s window for merged college inspections
The coronavirus pandemic is causing Ofsted to miss its own window for inspecting merged colleges.
The watchdog’s FE and skills inspection handbook states that a “newly merged college will normally receive a full inspection within three years of the merger”.
FE Week analysis shows that there are four colleges that have already passed that three-year inspection window, and a further four will exceed it by the end of this calendar year.
Seven of the eight have, however, received monitoring visits since their merger.
Calls are growing for the inspectorate to further extend this respite period as the UK battles against a second wave of Covid-19. Ofsted has said the timeline is being kept under constant review.
The Department for Education should offer colleges a more flexible deadline for completing capital projects, writes Mark Robinson, chief executive at property services and design company Scape Group
The public sector has enjoyed something of a resurgence in government attention since the arrival of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. For years, the sector has been subject to financial restrictions and ever-diminishing resources. Education has been no exception.
However, the pandemic has caused government to look to the sector as a vehicle for stimulating economic activity – particularly in construction – as the availability of private capital recedes.
For sixth forms and colleges, this is a significant win and what many may consider a timely shot in the arm as the government looks to get spades in the ground, whilst simultaneously upgrading education facilities across the country.
In August, the Department for Education set out plans to fast-track £200 million of infrastructure spend into more than 180 colleges. That funding has now begun to land in college bank accounts across the UK, firing the starter gun on a wave of new projects to help the country “build back better”.
Of those receiving funding, some will no doubt be keen to improve tired learning facilities. For others, it will be about increasing capacity at a time when the challenges of delivering a Covid-secure environment for students are becoming all too apparent.
But while such a sizeable capital injection will always be welcome, it comes caveated with its own conditions that will no doubt require FE leaders to sharpen their pencils.
There is a clear mandate from the top to get spades in the ground
Chief among these are the limitations on the type of work the funding can be used to deliver – any activity must replace or improve “failing” facilities.
Then there’s the timescale. The Department for Education is requesting that projects are completed by the end of next March. For anything beyond small-scale renovations, a six month window leaves very little room for manoeuvre.
This tight timeframe may have partly been suggested because the funding represents an early draw down on the £1.5 billion five year investment plan for further education announced by Rishi Sunak in the Spring Budget.
Given the funding is being taken from an investment pot accounted for over five years, it would seem sensible not to impose such a tight deadline in the short-term and allow some flex into the next financial year so colleges can spend it as efficiently as possible.
That being said, there is a clear mandate from the top to get spades in the ground quickly. Tight timeframes, in the eyes of the government – and, indeed, many economists – are needed to sustain momentum in the construction industry, which has shown signs of slowing in recent weeks.
If colleges are to take advantage of this windfall within the current timeframe, projects will need to be delivered with efficiency while maintaining high standards in build quality.
Direct-award construction and consultancy frameworks are not a new delivery route for educators looking to accelerate their projects, but they can go some way to take full advantage of the £200 million impetus. In essence, direct-award frameworks present a route whereby colleges can be matched with experienced construction partners.
Since the new funding began to land, we’ve noticed a spike in enquiries from colleges and sixth forms. These tend to fall into two camps.
First are those with a firm view on how to spend the money who need support accelerating the procurement process. The second group are those who need help in making sure they invest the money on the right elements of their maintenance backlog.
For example, some are considering whether to use the funding to tackle capacity issues in relation to Covid-19 or to direct it towards upgrading their energy infrastructure, in line with the wider public sector’s commitments to sustainability.
Undoubtedly, we face a difficult winter ahead balancing the needs of public health and the economy. Further education will play a key role in each.
The sector must have the flexibility and necessary support to finish much-needed capital projects within a reasonable framework.
Schools and colleges can be confident that Ofqual and exam boards have the tools to make summer 2021 exams fair, writes Dame Glenys Stacey
Teachers, school and college leaders are working in truly exceptional circumstances with students both in college and at home, and to get them ready for GCSE, AS and A-level exams next summer. I know just how unrelenting and demanding this has been since the start of the pandemic — and still is.
The uncertainties we face are unprecedented, so I hope it will be helpful if I state some certainties, from the regulator’s perspective.
First, and as we have said publicly, we got it wrong in the summer. Like other regulators across the UK, and with the best of intentions, we worked with school and college leaders, the government and others to build a substitute for exams in the midst of this pandemic. Together we misjudged things.
It is simply not acceptable for a student to be deprived of the chance to show what they can do, and to be given instead the grades that the system thinks they warrant. We are sorry.
If anything, this summer has shown the importance, the centrality, of exams. We saw that despite every effort and good intention, other forms of assessment are likely to be more inequitable.
We know from research, for example, that non-exam assessment can be subject to bias, with the result that bright disadvantaged students, or students with special educational needs, suffer the most.
This has been a particular worry this summer and we appreciate that asking teachers to take responsibility for determining results for their students puts them in an invidious position. We are certain that examinations should run next year, and we are working with the government and exam boards on that basis.
Exams are important, not just to allow every student to show knowledge and understanding of the curriculum, but to give a fair representation of the extent of that knowledge and understanding.
The exceptional pressure on students and teachers this year has been alleviated to some extent and in some subjects by changes to the curriculum already announced. We appreciate, nevertheless, that whatever the assessment regime in place next summer, assessment choices cannot make up for lost teaching and learning. That would be akin to holding a thermometer responsible for fluctuations in temperature.
But we can take these truly exceptional circumstances into account at a national level, in the awarding process that is part and parcel of an examination series. We took a similar approach to account for dips in learning in the early years of new GCSEs. We and exam boards have the tools, and the experience.
Contingency arrangements will be required, of course, to cover all eventualities at an individual, local or national level. We are discussing potential options with the Department for Education and exam boards, and I look forward to talking options through with school and college leaders before decisions are made.
This is an exceptional time. It does not look as though we will be free from the pandemic any time soon. More than anything, we all want to make sure our young people get the best chance they can to show what they know, and what they can do, in the fairest way possible.
Teachers no doubt want certainty so that they can get on with teaching knowing what to expect. Government policy is that GCSE, AS and A-levels should be assessed predominantly by examination, as now. The regulator is of the same view.
We are working hard to make sure we take into account the effects of the pandemic, to make the best contingency arrangements we can, and to make sure the results are fair and command public confidence in this exceptional time.
If the prime minister is serious about skills, he needs to take these agreed actions from our latest roundtable, writes David Phoenix
The prime minister’s speech on further and higher education this week and the forthcoming FE white paper present a huge opportunity to grow post-16 technical education.
But growing technical education requires local and national change.
In 2019 we launched LSBU Group which is made up of two secondary schools, one FE college and one HE provider, London South Bank University (LSBU). We work closely together to deliver high-quality technical education across the group.
Our partnership offers students easier opportunities to transfer between technical, vocational and academic pathways; and we actively encourage them to take advantage of the wide range of courses run throughout the group.
On June 22, LSBU hosted a policy roundtable, chaired by former education secretary Damian Hinds, to discuss how we can strengthen post-16 technical education. We were joined by Department for Education colleagues, two universities, two FE trade bodies, six education think-tanks’ representatives, four awarding bodies, two business groups and a training-provider body.
There was wide-ranging consensus on what is needed to grow technical education.
First, we must focus the English post-16 technical system on the needs of the UK economy and students, rather than cutting and pasting a system from Germany or elsewhere.
Second, greater collaboration rather than competition is needed between post-16 education providers. In particular, the roundtable called for the reform of the deeply siloed UK education system.
This particularly affects the 60 per cent of learners who do not follow the one clearly mapped pathway – GCSEs to A-Levels to university. The funding can discourage schools from allowing pupils to transfer to other perhaps more skills-oriented provision (for example, from an academy to a UTC) and schools hold on to their “most able” pupils in sixth form, pushing them towards pre-defined routes (e.g. bachelor degrees at university). Provision needs to be much more closely knitted together, working for the benefit of students, not institutions.
Third, we must resolve the often “disputed territory” between colleges and universities over levels 4 and 5 courses. Many FE colleges have small levels 4 and 5 cohorts and face financial challenges that affect course content, quality and learner progression. Some universities fail to differentiate between standalone levels 4 and 5 and degree programmes.
We must resolve the often ‘disputed territory’ between colleges and universities over levels 4 and 5
To resolve this we need more collaboration between FE and HE institutions.
The complex quality assurance regimes at levels 4 and 5 also need simplifying. For example, a level 4 Higher National Certificate taught at universities is quality assured by the Office for Students and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, whereas a Higher National Certificate taught at a college is quality assured by Ofqual and Ofsted. The additional cost and complexity makes this a difficult set-up for universities and colleges.
The fifth point is to make it easier for students to move between standalone level 4, level 5 and degree level. If a college delivers level 4 courses without clear local pathways to level 5 and 6, this can prevent students from progressing.
Our LSBU Group approach would not suit every institution, but it has clear benefits for learners and may provide a model for other institutions.
But we can’t do it all locally. The government must make maintenance loans available for all level 4 learners so all those studying high-quality courses at this level can receive support for living costs – not just those on a degree, but those doing a higher apprenticeship, level 4 diploma or level 4 NVQ too.
Our final, and seventh, point is there must be a government register of designated level 4 and 5 provider institutions, enabling them to apply for additional funding. This would strengthen technical education by increasing resources needed to deliver highquality personalised learning.
On Tuesday, Boris Johnson said FE colleges will “access funding on the same terms as our most famous universities”, but we need clear details on this to be published.
Billions of pounds and millions of jobs depend on growing post-16 technical education. The FE white paper is the perfect place to start.
A hotly-anticipated application process to widen the provider-base for 19 to 24 traineeships will finally be launched next week.
Details for how businesses can claim new £1,000 incentives for taking on new traineeship learners will also be published “in the coming weeks”, but it is expected that employers will be able to apply for them in late autumn and only once the learner has completed the work placement.
The news was revealed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s traineeships policy lead and head of traineeships during an Association of Employment and Learning Providers webinar today.
It follows chancellor Rishi Sunak’s summer statement announcement that the government is to invest £111 million to triple the number of people taking part in the pre-employment programme as part of the country’s economic recovery from Covid-19.
The procurement to deliver 19 to 24 traineeships, which are funded through the adult education budget, was supposed to run over the summer but was delayed owing to a “significant amount of due diligence” that needed to be taken, the ESFA previously said.
The notification of the tender is now due to launch on Monday 5 October with documents inviting providers to apply released 48 hours later, but the ESFA’s officials would not be drawn on how long it would be open for during today’s AELP webcast.
ESFA slide from AELP’s traineeship webinar about the upcoming procurement
For 16 to 18 traineeships, the civil servants said the agency has published guidance for in-year growth for 2020/21, and they are planning to launch a “market entry exercise” for other 16 to 18 study programme providers to start delivering traineeships.
The ESFA officials said there is concern about demand from employers for traineeships considering the various other skills programmes now available to them, such as the new cash incentives for apprentices and the kickstart programme.
To combat this, the agency has developed a “robust communications plan to engage with employers during October – December to raise their awareness and understanding of traineeships”.
Included in Sunak’s £111 million traineeships investment are £1,000 cash incentives for each trainee the employer takes on, with a cap of 10 incentive payments per employer.
The ESFA’s officials said it is “important” that the employers see the wider benefits of traineeships and not just offer work placements to receive the incentive payment.
An overview of the incentive payment process will be published in a “Traineeships Framework for Delivery” in the “coming weeks for employers and providers”, which will detail how the agency will be paying employers directly, once it has been agreed with the Treasury.
The ESFA expects employers to be able to apply for the incentive from “late autumn” and the employer can apply for the funding “once they have completed the work placement”.
ESFA slide from AELP’s traineeship webinar about the £1k employer incentives
AELP managing director Jane Hickie said: “It was good to hear at last that the procurement is going ahead because there is certainly an appetite, as last week’s FE Week story showed, among independent training providers to use traineeships to help young people affected by the pandemic’s impact to move on to apprenticeships and into employment.
“If the procurement is well designed, there is no reason why the chancellor’s £111 million support for the programme should not be fully utlised by the end of next July. In fact AELP has called for sustained funding of the programme beyond then as part of the comprehensive spending review outcome.”
In August, the ESFA introduced a number of flexibilities into the traineeship programme to make them more accessible for employers and providers, which you can read here.
The government’s forthcoming FE white paper could hand the British Chambers of Commerce key influencing powers over funding and priorities, FE Week understands.
Sources close to policy development say a gap has been created with the demise of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in 2017, and that local enterprise partnerships have failed to impress.
Utilising the national and 53 accredited local chambers would be similar to the much lauded system in Germany.
The chambers’ strong business links are understood to be particularly desired by government as ministers look to align courses on offer closer to those “valued by employers”, as prime minister Boris Johnson said during a major speech on the future of further education on Tuesday.
Greater use of chambers of commerce is an idea favoured by Baroness Alison Wolf, who now advises Johnson on skills three days a week.
In a 2015 report, Fixing a Broken Training System, she wrote that “powerful chambers of commerce to which all local businesses must belong are one way to secure [business] participation (as in Germany)” in the skills system.
Education secretary Gavin Williamson met this year with the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), which represents the UK’s 53 accredited local chambers, to discuss “further education and apprenticeships”, according to the latest government disclosures of Williamson’s meetings.
This was after the minister promised last year’s Conservative Party conference to “overtake Germany in the opportunities we offer to those studying technical routes by 2029”.
Williamson laid out the groundwork for handing chambers greater powers at a major speech on FE reform in July 2020 where he quoted the BCC’s director general Adam Marshall, saying: “Unless we improve the transition from the world of education to the world of work in the United Kingdom, we will not fix our long-standing issues around productivity.”
The BCC told FE Week their members are “open” to exploring how “to use their knowledge, experience and convening power to contribute to the future development of the skills system”. It also confirmed that it is speaking regularly with the DfE on the skills agenda because skills are “of fundamental importance to businesses and local economies in the wake of the pandemic”.
A Department for Education spokesperson said it has had a “number of conversations” with a “wide variety of groups about the future skills system,” ahead of the white paper.
The spokesperson added that involving employers and local business groups, such as the chambers, will be “crucial” for that work, so that “we can make sure we are delivering the skills local communities and our economy need to thrive”. They said more details would come out “in due course”.
Chambers of commerce, the BCC said, would want to work “collaboratively” with FE colleges and providers, employers and communities if they are given a greater role in provision, but already have “long had a role in the skills systems, shaping local strategies”. This has included, for example, organising local skills forums, contributing to the local Skills Advisory Panels, submitting evidence to parliamentary select committees, overseeing links between businesses and education providers, helping develop university technical colleges, and supporting young people with careers activities.
The BCC is also itself involved in the new Kickstart scheme, getting young people on to work placements that can then lead on to apprenticeships or other training, as a gateway provider, which allows employers who have fewer than 30 placements to take part.
The chambers are groups of local businesses, with varying levels of staff, which can offer their members opportunities at networking as well as advice on legal matters, health and safety, and tax.
Because they charge membership fees, chambers do not receive much in the way of public funding, although they have competed for government tenders, the BCC said.
More closely integrating chambers with the FE and skills system in their area would bring England closer to Germany’s “world-class” system, which relies on local chambers to approve the trainer, known as a meister (German for master), that every company needs to have apprentices.
Membership of organisations like the chambers are compulsory for firms in Germany and they have to pay fees.
Tom Bewick
Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Tom Bewick who has worked and written extensively on international
apprenticeship systems, said adopting a
similar approach here would come down to
the capacity of England’s chambers.
Germany’s are built upon decades of
prestige, Bewick says, and as businesses
have to pay into the chambers, they are much more focused on its outcomes: “You always feel a little more anxious when it’s your money going out the door.”
English chambers, meanwhile, suffer from vast gaps in capability, Bewick said: “When you talk about the London chamber of commerce, it’s quite a substantial organisation, got quite a lot of staff, quite a bit of money coming through the door.
“But in other parts of the country, the chambers are no more than one man and a dog, with retired Colonel Blimp who used to run a corner shop.
“We just haven’t got the level of capacity in our chamber movement. If it’s just a series of talking shops, why would active employers, other than out of the goodness of the heart, get involved?”
Whereas German chambers see themselves as the “paymasters for the apprenticeships system”, in England, people look to government as the paymasters, even though the apprenticeship system is funded by employers.
Professor Ewart Keep from the Centre on Skills, Knowledge & Organisational Performance at Oxford University said the compulsory membership element of German chambers renders them “fundamentally different”, as they are “embedded” in the local business structure, and the structure of apprenticeships.
“When people talk about copying the German system, I always laugh a bit because it’s not really that easy. It’s deeply embedded in the structure of their country and the cultural expectations of parents, young people, employers and so on.”
But neither Bewick nor Keep believe chambers taking a beefed-up role in FE and skills is impossible.
Bewick thinks if the government does give chambers more power it will be because policymakers have realised “the system has gone too far in the direction of being a technocratic-led system, as opposed to an employer-responsive one”.
“Employers are engaged quite a lot, but I don’t think it’s the same as having employer-owned bodies independent of government and bureaucracy that then have some say over how provision is organised and paid for.
“So, I suspect that will be the crux of what they’re trying to work through with the chambers.”
While it is “not beyond the wit of man” to award those powers to chambers, it would turn them “into quasi-local authorities”, and although he is not involved in the chamber movement, “I don’t know to what extent there is an appetite to take on that statutory role,” Bewick added.
Keep said that in most developed countries there is some kind of local employer-led body that deals with training, which England does not have and “sooner or later we are going to have to tackle that”, so the chambers “might be a runner” for fulfilling that role.
Any announcement on the role of the chambers is highly likely to be dependent on a successful DfE bid to the Treasury in the forthcoming spending review.
