Chair follows principal and quits at college with shock £6m deficit

A former deputy FE commissioner has been drafted into a college that is currently investigating an unexpected £6 million deficit after its chair resigned.

John Hogg today replaced John McCabe, who was appointed as chair of Gateshead College just six months ago.

The high-profile college, which uncovered the shock shortfall after its finance director went on sick leave in September, put 26 jobs at risk earlier this month.

The former highest-paid principal in the country, Judith Doyle, retired from Gateshead with immediate effect on 31 December.

McCabe commissioned an external forensic investigation to identity the cause of its current financial position. It is expected to conclude next week – during which FE Week understands Ofsted will also be visiting. The college was given a grade one in 2015.

McCabe said: “Following discussions with the FE Commissioner about what the college needed right now, I tendered my resignation.

“I am disappointed that I will not have the opportunity to lead the college to recovery but I want to do what is in the best interests of the college, and I wish the governing body and all members of staff the very best as they continue the important work that is underway.”

McCabe added he was confident a three-year recovery plan will “restore the college’s long-term financial sustainability”.

New chair Hogg previously worked as a principal for Middlesbrough College, Wolverhampton City College and City College Coventry.

It is not known whether Hogg, a former deputy FE commissioner, has taken over on an interim or permanent basis, or whether he will be paid for the role.

He said McCabe’s “speedy and measured response to the unplanned deficit, in particular the investigation he commissioned, will prove to be fundamental to the college’s recovery plan”.

“I am looking forward to working with colleagues in the college to ensure we make the progress needed to return us to a healthy position and continue to deliver the high-quality education and training the college provides for students and employers,” Hogg added.

A spokesperson on behalf of the board added: “On behalf of the board and all our colleagues we would like to sincerely thank [McCabe] for his support and recognise the work he has done in this very short space of time.

“We had hoped to have John longer, but this situation is not the one the board had anticipated at the time of his appointment.”

Deputy principal Chris Toon took over as acting principal at Gateshead College in January.

He announced a redundancy consultation was underway earlier this month.

The college previously told FE Week a “highly experienced interim financial director” was appointed before Christmas and it was considering “options for short-term funding loans”.

It was also previously confirmed that a new three-year financial plan, which is hoped to return the college to a surplus by 2020-2021, is to be delivered with the support of the ESFA and FE Commissioner.

Gateshead College recorded a surplus of £748,000 in 2017-18, according to its latest accounts.

A new approach to financial regulation and oversight in the sector

Shortly after the scandal at Hadlow College Group was exposed, the government commissioned an independent review of college financial oversight. Dame Mary Ney’s report is due for publication imminently and FE Week has already reported that the Education and Skills Funding Agency is to be heavily criticised. Chris Todd, a chartered accountant and college principal, considers the problems and how to fix them

Having worked in further education for around 15 years, I’ve noticed that not much has really changed when it comes to financial regulation and oversight in the sector. It really is no different now to what is was 15 years ago. Colleges are still getting into financial trouble; there continue to be cases where the management override of controls is evident; and our regulator (the ESFA) remains fixated on financial data returns.

I’m a big fan of Game of Thrones and a particular quotation by Daenerys Targaryen springs to mind: “We need to break the wheel.”  Clearly, what we are doing isn’t working. It never has and it never will, until we start to think differently.

ESFA needs high-calibre, qualified staff who can rival the best of us

As someone who has quite an unusual range of experience in further education finance I feel well placed to comment on these issues. I’ve been an external and internal auditor at KPMG; I’ve worked at the Learning and Skills Council in provider financial management; and I’ve been a finance director in three educational institutions (two of them FE colleges). 

Not wanting to steal Dame Mary’s thunder, although I’m not sure her report will reach the same conclusions that I have, I thought it would be useful to share my three-point plan for improving financial regulation and oversight in the FE sector.

 

  1. Use information that already exists to monitor the finances of colleges

The current approach employed by the ESFA to capture financial data is, in my opinion, not working.  Even with the introduction of the new Integrated Financial Model for colleges (IFMC) return, the focus remains on data harvesting, as opposed to interpretation and human-based interaction.  I may be wrong, but I’m not convinced the agency will make best use of this return when set against the significant workload that it creates.  

Here’s an idea: all colleges produce management accounts on a frequent and timely basis across the year – why not use these to review college financial performance and to exercise oversight?

Yes, the quality of management accounts will vary between colleges. However, poor-quality accounts are often an early warning sign that financial issues lie ahead. This in itself could be an early trigger for intervention. Additionally, reviewing the management accounts on a regular basis, could highlight areas where colleges are exhibiting early signs of distress (ie, unexpected cash-flow decline).

It strikes me as a fairly obvious solution and would provide more frequent and timely information to support the early identification of issues. It would also reduce the significant amount of time our finance colleagues spend each year completing these data returns, which provide little benefit or use to our own organisations. 

 

  1. Employ the right people

I read with interest Dominic Cummings’ recent blog post encouraging “weirdos and misfits with odd skills” to apply for jobs within No 10. Whether you agree with this or not, my experience of the ESFA, and Civil Service more generally, is that they lack diversity in thinking. Many of the people I have come across in the Civil Service have worked there for the majority of their career, with limited exposure to the commercial world. 

If the ESFA is going to move to a model that is less reliant on data harvesting and rules-based transactional funding, to a model focused on intelligence, interpretation and relationship management, it will need to make sure it employs the right people.

Challenging a finance director or principal of an FE college on financial performance requires a specific range of skills. Too often, discussions around financial performance take place with non-financial staff, who do not have the experience or expertise to challenge effectively.

Fewer high-quality staff, paid at a level commensurate with the skills set and experience required, would add much greater value. Additionally, if their employment results in fewer colleges becoming financially distressed, then the public purse would benefit greatly. We may even be able to generate a favourable return on investment!

 

  1. Focus on people and relationship management

There are lots of great people working in the ESFA, and in the North-East in particular, we enjoy a positive relationship based on mutual respect and trust. Unfortunately, however, the ESFA has become a shadow of its former self, with a huge decline in staffing numbers evident since 2011. To me, this is not sustainable and we need a fit-for-purpose funding agency that is properly funded going forward.

This is not to say that things were perfect back in the days of the Learning and Skills Council, but what did exist back then was an approach to financial regulation and oversight based on relationship management. We need this again but better, with high-calibre, qualified staff who can rival the best of us working in colleges across the country. Only this, will deliver the high-quality financial regulation and oversight colleges need.

To conclude, financial regulation and oversight will never remove financial failure altogether. There is always scope for human error and the management override of controls, but we must reach a position where the avoidable failures are identified at a much earlier stage. In my view, this is entirely possible if we take a fresh approach.

Measuring impact fairly in the devolved areas

The mayoral combined authorities are developing impact and performance measures to assess whether the adult education budget is having a positive impact in their area. Setting the right targets and outcome measures, in a fair, simple and cost-effective way, is critical, warns Harminder Matharu

The end of January marks the end of the first six months of devolved delivery of the adult education budget (AEB) and the returns from colleges and providers may indicate whether the new arrangements are resulting in less underspend than has been the case nationally over the past few years. Of course, it’s not just about how much funding has been spent; having fought so hard to get it devolved, the mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) will want to assure themselves and stakeholders that local delivery has made a tangible difference to their local communities.

The combined authorities should ensure fairness across all provider groups

The whole point of devolution is that each of the combined authorities will eventually define for themselves their AEB priorities. Increasingly there is talk of assessing the impact on these, rather than looking solely at outputs and outcomes, although the latter will obviously help measure impact. Work is already under way, with the GLA commissioning the Learning and Work Institute to support the development of their impact-assessment proposal with a view to running a pilot.

The Liverpool City Region is piloting outcome-based delivery through their sector-based work academies, while the West Midlands combined authority is testing wider than traditional approaches.

All are also very conscious of finding the best way to measure the impact of AEB on social value, where the learning may not be centred around qualification and outputs.

AELP welcomes this work, and if stakeholders are supportive, we would like to see it used as a template for developments in other areas.

We hope that the devolved areas as a collective group will also keep a wider national picture in mind because providers deliver across multiple areas. Measuring impact is a complex challenge when faced with variances in local labour markets, and AELP has suggested to the nine devolved areas a set of principles to consider.

These start with setting the right targets and outcome measures from the outset, as this is critical for ensuring that adult education reaches the right individuals. The combined authorities should consider and compare approaches in neighbouring areas, along with any national approaches, to identify common aspects to align where there is value in doing so. 

Outcome measures should take into account the learner’s starting point to accurately assess distance travelled, impact on social mobility and real added value. This should be backed up by the measurement of planned progression outcomes to allow for longer term impact assessments. We should recognise that cohorts of learners may require differentiated outcomes supported by clear criteria and rationale for assessing impact.  This involves acknowledging the varying socio-economic factors affecting them.

It will undoubtedly help if there are clear definitions for all performance measures related to assessing the impact of delivery. At the same time, we should minimise the administrative burden and financial costs of data collection. 

Finally, the combined authorities should ensure fairness across all provider groups through a system that allows providers to invest and plan delivery which maintains value for money throughout.

As well as deciding what progression outcomes should be measured, it’s important also to agree on when to measure progression, because a learner may not benefit from it in the short term. Existing data collection systems should be reviewed before new systems are created, which means engaging with other stakeholders and partners that already collect measurement and destination data. For example, we recommend a look at the DWP’s new Data Lab and exploring whether this allows tracking of individuals over a longer period.

Despite the size of the challenge, we must work to keep the processes as simple as possible with cost considerations at the forefront of the emerging proposals.

 

Back A Bid: Campaign to host WorldSkills 2027 in the UK

FE Week is coordinating a campaign for the UK to host WorldSkills in 2027.

The chief executive of WordSkills UK used this paper earlier in January to suggest that their organisation was starting to look at whether we could host a future competition.

We believe this would be an amazing opportunity for our sector and the UK to play host to the global skills community. 

A bid is an opportunity for our sector to truly think big and demonstrate a bold ambition. We can exploit the process of bidding, and hopefully hosting, as a catalyst for change. Adopting an ambition to implement international benchmarking across the sector and thus creating a stronger economic future for more young people.

Winning the bid would also see the UK host ministers and, business and education leaders from across the globe as part of an international skills summit. A platform from which we can demonstrate we are developing the skills needed to attract investment and subsequently jobs for our highly-skilled learners.

The next step for government is to announce their support of a feasibility study, which of course will require public money and time. The Secretary of State appears to be supportive, in principle, but he will need some encouragement. That’s where the sector and your stakeholders come in!

Show your support for the UK to host WorldSkills 2027 on social media using #BackABid and by leaving a comment at the end of this post. FE Week will collate these responses and present them to the education secretary, Gavin Williamson at the end of February.

Provider challenging ‘flawed’ AEB tender in the high court

Lawyers are set to go to battle at the high court later this month, in the first ever challenge to a failed adult education budget application, FE Week can reveal.

East Birmingham Community Forum (EBCF) claims it was wrongly denied a fair run at securing a slice of £28 million of funding put out by the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) last year.

In documents obtained by FE Week ahead of the January 31 court date, the independent learning provider alleges the procurement was “flawed” and that WMCA admitted in writing that they had made scoring errors.

They also claim the WMCA did not abide by legislative procurement rules.

The information provided by the defendant is unclear and inadequate

A spokesperson for WMCA told FE Week they refute the claims but would be “making no further comment at this time”.

EBCF declined to comment.

If the EBCF challenge is successful, two areas of the area’s AEB provision bid could have to be retendered.

EBCF, which operates across two centres in Birmingham, applied to run a programme aimed at teaching unemployed people new skills, and an “innovative delivery” project by the March 2019 deadline of the WMCA’s tender.

But in May it was told it had failed at the first of two stages for the AEB procurement.

The first stage was split into questions about eligibility, and a general technical evaluation which asked questions about the provider’s achievement rates, learner satisfaction scores, quality assurance, capability and track record and its ability to meet local needs.

For achievement rates, EBCF had to provide its latest data for adult education, which it duly did: 96 per cent for entry-level and level one and 100 per cent for level two in 2017/18.

It sent this off with the rest of the application – only to be told later it had scored just 55 per cent when it needed 60 to progress.

A list of possible scores replicated in the court paperwork gives the only available scores being even numbers between zero and ten; but WMCA scored EBCF three for one question and seven for another question.

Following this, EBCF asked for further evaluation of its application and received a feedback report which said “no achievement rate data was received”. 

When challenged by the provider, WMCA allegedly “acknowledged the feedback report was wrong” and explained it had contained the “unmoderated” feedback of one evaluator.

EBCF claims the authority made “manifest errors” in the scoring of tenders, and believes the report is not the unmoderated comments of one evaluator, but are in fact comments made after the event.

This is because comments made in the feedback for the information EBCF provided about its achievement rates and quality assurance appear to reference emails the provider sent after submitting its application.

In June, EBCF met with WMCA’s head of skills delivery Clare Hatton to discuss its scoring and concerns, where the provider said its entire general technical evaluation should be reviewed. 

A few days later, WMCA sent a letter instead. This stated that it would review only the question on achievement rates, and Hatton had performed a personal review of that question and found it deserved a score of four, not three.

“It is unclear if this review was a formal re-scoring of the claimant’s responses to question one,” the provider has said.

“On any view, the information provided by the defendant is unclear and inadequate,” adding the feedback report and Hatton’s comments have created “a thoroughly confused picture”.

Following the letter, EBCF had their solicitors write to WMCA asking for the make-up of the evaluation panel which reviewed their application, the guidance provided to them, and any evaluation report with recommendations for the authority.

They also asked for an award notice, explaining the reasons why EBCF had not been picked and why the successful tenderer had.

EBCF claims not to have received this notice, which they say means the standstill period on the tender had not come to an end so WMCA cannot enter into contracts for the lots EBCF bid for.

This is due to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which says the contracting authority has to send an award notice to every operator which took part in a tender.

Proceedings were initiated on June 12 when WMCA did not provide any of the information asked of them.

According to the EBCF, the lack of an award notice means that if WMCA has entered into contracts for the services the provider bid for, they are in breach of regulations and those contracts “should be declared ineffective”.

WMCA announced that nine providers were successful in their bid for the skills for the unemployed tender and 10 were for the innovative delivery tender.

If their case is successful, EBCF is also asking for their application to be “properly evaluated”, information on how the tenders were evaluated, damages and costs.

Ofsted watch: ‘Outstanding’ week for sixth form college

A sixth form college was lauded as ‘outstanding’ in a mixed week for FE, which saw one private provider plummet to ‘inadequate’ while another dropped two grades to ‘requires improvement’.

Godalming College was given the top rating by Ofsted in its first inspection since converting to a 16 to 19 academy in January 2018.

The Surrey-based college has around 1,900 students, who “thrive in the atmosphere of industrious learning,” with a large majority studying A-level courses.

Inspectors found they “make strong and sustained progress with their learning and achieve excellent examination grades”.

Staff were praised for supporting students who fall behind or need extra help “very effectively” and for revisiting topics, providing “clear” feedback and distributing “useful” careers advice.

In contrast, independent learning provider Icon Vocational Training Limited dropped from a grade one to a grade three.

It works with about 118 employers within the leisure and sport industry and currently has 309 apprentices.

While Ofsted said many apprentices benefit from frequent feedback and gain promotion due to their participation in the programme, some do not develop significant new knowledge for their vocational areas rapidly enough because “leaders and managers do not plan and sequence the curriculum to take into account the previous experiences of apprentices”.

Engagement with smaller employers was deemed “not as successful” as it is with the large employers.

Recent improvement actions to address these issues are “only just beginning to have a positive impact,” according to inspectors.

Another private provider to receive a grade three this week was Seymour Davies Limited.

It has 68 apprentices across care, business administration and carpentry as well as 108 adults working in the care sector who are enrolled on short-duration qualifications in care.

The inspectorate said carpentry apprentices, taught by a subcontractor, become “highly skilled very quickly”.

However, it was reported that too few taught by the prime provider “receive high-quality off-the-job training or prompt feedback on the quality of their work” and “most have not completed their qualifications in the time planned”.

Tutors have “significant industrial experience” which helps apprentices to link theoretical concepts to the real-life situations that they face at work, but careers guidance was also criticised.

Chesterfield College, a general FE college, received a second grade three in two years.

At the time of the inspection, it had 2,000 learners aged 16 to 18, 900 adult learners and 1,500 apprentices across three main sites in Chesterfield and three satellite apprenticeship centres in Derby, Manchester and Nottingham.

Ofsted found learners “do not always receive high-quality training” and those with high needs “do not receive personalised training”.

The report said “leaders have not improved the quality of education for young people rapidly enough”.

Elsewhere, the education watchdog found North Lincolnshire Council, an adult and community learning provider, was making ‘reasonable progress’ in its first re-inspection monitoring visit following a full inspection in June 2019 – which found it to be ‘inadequate’.

In addition, Derwen College, an ‘outstanding’ independent specialist college, received a monitoring visit after safeguarding “concerns” were brought to Ofsted’s attention.

It provides education and support for learners with special educational needs and disabilities.

The college was found to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in ensuring that effective arrangements are in place to safeguard learners, frequently reviewing them and making improvements as a result.

As reported earlier in the week, Progress to Excellence Ltd was declared ‘inadequate’ and is immediately exiting the training market, leaving more than 2,500 apprentices and adult learners in the lurch.

Meanwhile, Ofsted reported that apprentices “thoroughly enjoy their learning” and are “highly motivated to do well” at private provider Bright Direction Training Limited.

Similar praise was offered to fellow provider Louise Setton, where apprentices “benefit from a high level of support and technical training”.

Both firm’s received grade twos in their first full inspections.

Hull Business Training Centre Limited was also rated ‘good’ – maintaining the grade it has retained since 2005.

The remaining independent learning providers inspected by Ofsted this week received positive reports following monitoring visits.

Primary Goal Ltd was found to be making ‘significant progress’ in one area and ‘reasonable progress’ in the other two assessed themes.

Both Cambridge Professional Academy Limited and Parenta Training Limited received ‘reasonable progress’ across the board.

Employer provider Kingswood Learning and Leisure Group also made ‘reasonable progress’ in a second monitoring visit, after receiving three ‘insufficient progress’ grades in September.

But British Airways PLC was given one ‘insufficient progress’ rating out of three in its first monitoring visit (read the full story here).

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Bright Direction Training Limited 12/12/2019 21/01/2020 2 M
Cambridge Professional Academy Limited 12/12/2019 20/01/2020 M N/A
Hull Business Training Centre Limited 12/12/2019 21/01/2020 2 2
Icon Vocational Training Limited 13/12/2019 24/01/2020 3 1
Louise Setton 12/12/2019 21/01/2020 2 M
Parenta Training Limited 17/12/2019 21/01/2020 M M 
Primary Goal Ltd 12/12/2019 20/01/2020 M N/A
Progress to Excellence Ltd 16/12/2019 22/01/2020 4 2
Seymour Davies Ltd 29/11/2019 20/01/2020 3 M

 

Sixth Form Colleges (inc 16-19 academies) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Godalming College 06/12/2019 21/01/2020 1 N/A

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
North Lincolnshire Council 10/01/2020 24/01/2020 M 4

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
British Airways PLC 18/12/2019 19/01/2020 M N/A
Kingswood Learning and Leisure Group 11/12/2019 22/01/2020 M M

 

Specialist colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Derwen College 08/01/2020 22/01/2020 M 1

 

General FE colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Chesterfield College 28/11/2019 24/01/2020 3 3

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 304

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving.

Clare Russell, Principal, Runshaw College

Start date: August 2020

Previous job: Deputy principal, Runshaw College

Interesting fact: She bought her first house aged 19, with savings from
her £1.50 an hour job in a chip shop.

Matthew Percival, Director of people and skills policy, Confederation of British Industry

Start date: October 2019

Previous job: Head of employment policy, Confederation of British Industry

Interesting fact: He chairs Chislehurst & West Kent Cricket Club, the only club whose ground is protected for cricket by an Act of Parliament.

Michelle Brabner, Principal, Southport College

Start date: April 2020

Previous job: Deputy principal, Runshaw College

Interesting fact: As part of her Master’s degree, she bred thousands
of lobsters to release into the wild.

DfE granted screening firm access to 28m learner records

The founder of a firm at the centre of a major education data breach involving betting companies was subject to a previous government investigation.

Questions have now been asked as to why the firm, which offers screening checks, was allowed access to a database with the records of 28 million young people, meant only for vetted education training providers.

Unions have slammed the Department for Education’s due diligence processes, with one calling for an “urgent investigation looking at the criteria the DfE uses to grant access to the data”.

“DfE has failed these young people by not performing the relevant due diligence”

According to a DfE list, more than 12,000 organisations have successfully applied to have access to the Learning Records Service (LRS).

Earlier this week, an inquiry was launched by the ESFA after the Sunday Times reported that the LRS had been accessed by data intelligence firm GB Group – whose clients include 32Red and Betfair among other gambling companies.

The data contains names, ages and addresses of young people aged 14 and over in schools and colleges across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Privacy rules state that young people’s personal information should only be accessed through the LRS by organisations “specifically linked to your education and training”.

The DfE suspended access to the system this week in order to carry out the “necessary checks to ensure data security”. It reopened on Thursday.

According to the department, the “education training provider” which “wrongly provided access” to the LRS was Trustopia, a firm co-founded by Ronan Smith in August 2018.

The department said the company had access to the LRS because they registered with a UK Provider Reference Number (UKPRN) on the UK Register of Learning Providers (UKRLP) as an apprenticeship provider.

Trustopia is not on the government’s approved register of apprenticeship providers and can therefore not deliver apprenticeships in any capacity.

Its “nature of business”, according to Companies house, is “other information technology service activities”.

Smith declined to comment on the breach when approached by FE Week, but did confirm Trustopia is not a training provider, nor has it ever been.

It is understood that the firm has worked with education providers in the past.

A previous investigation by FE Week exposed how any company can gain a UKPRN within 24 hours, simply by providing their limited company number.

And a UKRLP spokesperson said at the time: “It is up to stakeholders who use the UKPRNs to ensure that they carry out the necessary due diligence appropriate to their scope when engaging with providers.”

READ MORE: How easy is it to become a registered training provider?

Once a company has a UKPRN, it then needs to fill in a three-page application form to access the LRS.

The service is designed to help training providers verify their potential student’s previous educational achievements and their eligibility for additional funding.

The DfE would not say why Trustopia was given access to the LRS, or what it used the service for.

A spokesperson would say only that “a full investigation is under way and we will share any further information with you in due course.”

Prior to co-founding Trustopia, Smith ran a private provider called Edudo, which was investigated by the ESFA in 2017. The agency subsequently terminated the firm’s contracts, which were used to deliver courses funded through advanced learner loans.

Smith then transferred Edudo’s assets to a new company called Learning Republic and went bust. Hundreds of learners were subsequently left thousands of pounds in debt with no qualifications to show for it.

An FE Week investigation last year found that some of these learners, most of whom were Polish construction workers, had claimed they never started the course with Edudo – or even realised they had signed up for one.

Smith declared as bankrupt in November 2019.

Juliana Mohamad Noor, the vice president for further education at the National Union of Students, said her union is “shocked that this level of personal data of students was readily available without adequate checks on who can access it”.

The DfE has “failed these young people by not performing the relevant due diligence assessment of Trustopia and its owner,” she added.

“We are calling for a full and thorough investigation of this case to ensure that no more harm is done to the students involved.”

“We are calling for a full and thorough investigation of this case”

Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the NEU, said: “Parents will be rightly concerned about this data breach.

“There needs to be an urgent investigation looking at the criteria the DfE uses to grant access to the data and the identities of organisations which already have access.

“Given the hugely sensitive nature of this data it is also vital that there are rigorous checks on any organisations which are granted access.”

According to the Sunday Times report, GB Group used the LRS for age and identity verification services for its clients.

The DfE this week referred the breach to data regulators the Information Commissioner’s Office. An ICO spokesperson confirmed it has “received a report” from the DfE and “will be making enquiries”.

A DfE spokesperson said Trustopia “broke their agreement with us” with regards to the LRS.

“This was completely unacceptable and we have immediately stopped the firm’s access and ended our agreement with them. We will be taking the strongest possible action,” they added.

A GB Group spokesperson said: “We can confirm that we use the Learning Records Service dataset via a third party. We take claims of this nature very seriously and, depending on the results of our review, we will take appropriate action.”

Trustopia did not respond to requests for comment.

Parents demand ‘inadequate’ Sheffield film school be reopened

Parents are lobbying the government to restart funding for an arts and media provider that trained mostly high-needs learners.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency terminated its contracts with Sheffield Independent Film and Television (SHIFT) last year, after it was rated ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted.

A report by the education watchdog, published in February 2019, said inspectors found the quality of provision for 51 learners on 16 to 19 study programmes, a third of whom had special educational needs, had “declined and was now inadequate” since an earlier grade two report.

The proportion of its learners who go on to further study, apprenticeships or employment was “low” and Ofsted warned that learners make “slow progress” in achieving qualifications and developing skills.

The report came shortly after the watchdog’s chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, spoke out about the “mismatch” between the numbers of students taking low-level arts and media courses and their “future employment in the industry”. She reiterated this concern just this week.

However, a parent petition says the watchdog is “ill-equipped and inadequately trained to judge specialist provision working with students who have complex needs”.

They have said the provision on offer at SHIFT was “specialist and unique”, as well as “learner-focused using gentle teaching techniques which engages the students”.

Ofsted defended itself by stating that all of its inspectors complete an extensive training programme before undertaking inspection work and inspectors with particular expertise in areas like SEND are recruited too.

“We are confident we made accurate judgements about the provision delivered by Sheffield Independent Film and Television Limited,” a spokesperson added.

SHIFT director Kathy Loizou said parents were “absolutely distraught” that the provider had to close. They believed their  children would not have gotten through education without their training.

A lot of the young people’s needs were connected with anxiety, meaning they would have found it “difficult” to go to a learning environment like an FE college, Loizou said. She added that although colleges do “great work under very extreme funding circumstances,” they are often too big for some young people.

“We provided a safe and effective place for learners with complex needs to re-engage. We felt we were especially good at that.”

The petitioners, who are calling for the immediate reinstatement of SHIFT’s funding by the ESFA and for Sheffield City Council to take action to influence the ESFA, said there is no other provision like what SHIFT did in the area.

“Young people in north England are put at a disadvantage in relation to their peers in the south,” they say, compared to providers in the south like Dv8 Training (Brighton).

Dv8, which also caters for high needs learners and offers arts and media courses, received a grade four in November 2018; yet has been allowed to continue its provision, albeit while subject to two monitoring visits in May and September.

Asked to explain this discrepancy, the Department for Education said that while it is normal to terminate contracts for independent providers which receive a grade four, if there is evidence learners’ interests would be best served by maintaining the contract, they will do so under strict conditions with rigorous monitoring.

The spokesperson did say factors such as whether there are other providers in the local area to support learners are taken into account.

“Protecting the interests of learners is always our main priority, and Ofsted’s published assessments of the inadequate quality of provision is always taken seriously,” they said.

Dv8 did not respond to requests for comment about why it was allowed to keep its contract. Sheffield City Council declined to comment on the petition.

The petition had 49 signatures at the time of going to press. It can be viewed by visiting https://bit.ly/2uqrl7p