Universities are still planning to offer the MBA in the level 7 senior leader apprenticeship, despite the qualification being axed from the programme.

Earlier this month the Institute for Apprenticeships & Technical Education launched a consultation on a revised version of the standard which scrapped all references to MBAs.

The apprenticeships quango said that requiring a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) in the level 7 senior leader standard would no longer “meet the intent of our policy on mandated qualifications”.

It followed the education secretary Gavin Williamson’s request for a review of the popular programme, who said he was “unconvinced” it provides value for money.

However, the institute has this week confirmed to FE Week that providers would still be allowed to offer the MBA as a non-mandatory qualification, though costs for qualification registration, certification and any training not directly related to the standard would not be fundable from the levy.

The MBA will always remain a key part of our programme

An employer could choose to pay these costs out of their own pocket to enable their apprentice to acquire the qualification in addition to passing the apprenticeship via the end-point assessment.

Aston University, which has recruited almost 300 people on to the standard since its launch in February 2018, said the removal of the MBA component “does not mean we would automatically remove the MBA from our senior leader offer”.

A spokesperson added they would determine with the apprentice employers “if the most valuable vehicle for a level 7 senior leader programme remains an MBA qualification”.

“Then we would be keen to include it.”

But they said it was too early to say with certainty whether they would charge any additional fees.

The Henley Business School, which runs the senior leader programme for the University of Reading and has had 226 starts to date, said: “The Henley MBA will always remain a key part of our programme” – hinting that option will remain open for employers.

But, as the IfATE’s consultation is still live, the university’s spokesperson said they were “unable to comment on what changes we will make to our programme until the new standard and assessment plan is finalised”.

Many other universities, such as Exeter, Portsmouth, Liverpool John Moores, the Open University, and the biggest MBA provider – Cranfield University – all told FE Week they will wait until the standard is finalised before making any changes to their programme.

The University of Bradford launched a last-ditch recruitment drive for MBA apprentices last month as a result of the government’s review into the standard.

A spokesperson from the university told FE Week that they are “aware that this will be removed in future”, however, the “final version is not yet approved to affect existing delivery”.

The university will “engage in a review of our level 7 apprenticeship provision when the full, confirmed details of the new standard are published”.

The government’s review of the standard is planned to conclude by June 1.

The IfATE told FE Week that as the changes to the occupational standard and end-point assessment plan are likely to be “significant”, they expect to consider the funding band, which currently sits at £18,000.

The senior leader apprenticeship has proven extremely popular since its launch in February 2018. FE Week analysis shows it had 6,387 starts on the programme up to the first quarter of 2019-20.

As each of these attracted up to £18,000 of levy funding – it means as much as £115 million has been spent on this standard to date.

---

MoJ ploughs ahead with £2m tender for MBA apprentices

A government department is ploughing ahead with a £2 million hunt for MBA apprentices to “enhance social mobility” despite the qualification being axed from apprenticeships.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is tendering for providers to deliver the level 7 senior leader degree apprenticeship with an attached Masters of Business Administration or Masters of Science.

That’s despite the Institute for Apprenticeships & Technical Education removing the MBA component following a review called for by education secretary Gavin Williamson.

The MoJ told FE Week it was aware of this, but as “no changes have been made” officially yet, they will continue to recruit MBA apprentices.

The Department for Education said that while the review is under way, it is up to providers and employers to decide how to recruit and promote apprenticeship standards.

The ministry wants to deliver the MBA apprenticeship because, the tender document says, “senior leadership capability is a key priority for the department and there is currently no apprenticeship on offer to fill this learning gap”.

Offering the apprenticeships will “enhance the MoJ social mobility strategy by allowing employees who did not attend university to gain higher-level qualifications while in the workplace”.

Applicants for the MoJ tender have been asked to submit bids by April 30.

Freddie Whittaker meets Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour’s new shadow education secretary

The lack of an “overarching message” from Labour on its flagship national education service (NES) was one of the reasons it lost the last general election, says the new shadow education secretary.

But Rebecca Long-Bailey says the “fantastic” policy will survive and be developed by Labour under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership.

She has pledged to “flesh out the detail” in the “next few years”.

A flagship policy of Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s former leader, the service was an umbrella term for a free “cradle-to-grave” education that had no tuition fees. It also pledged to replace Ofsted.

But although elements of the policy were extensively covered in the media and seemed to reach voters, many felt the overall vision did not hit home.

“There are a number of reasons as to why we lost, we know that, but one of the reasons is that we didn’t have that overarching message that explained to people what the national education service was for and what a Labour government was for,” said Long-Bailey in an exclusive interview with FE Week’s sister paper FE Week.

But the former party leadership candidate believes the NES was key policy “for a reason”, adding that that the coronavirus crisis has highlighted the “huge role” schools, colleges and training providers play in society.

“If we’re going to make sure that we don’t just see social mobility, the odd few climbing the ladder and doing very well for themselves, but everybody rising up and realising their potential, then we’ve got to have a cradle-to-grave national education service that means education is a right for all.”

Long-Bailey’s first task before she can flesh out Labour’s education policies is to hold the government to account for its coronavirus response.

She believes “clearer” communication is needed about plans to reopen schools and colleges, and warns of “a lot of concern”
among staff about a rushed return.

And in terms of training providers, she says the DfE’s response to support them financially has been inadequate – especially their latest announcement, that levy-funded apprenticeships will not be eligible for supplier relief.

“The Association of Employment and Learning Providers has raised the alarm about this and I understand that they’re seeking legal advice on the government’s action, because they believe that the grounds to exclude those providers isn’t justified.

“By being a levy provider, you would have a direct contract [with the ESFA] in any event through that system.

“So I think the government does need to address this very, very quickly because there are a number of training providers who now really are worried about not just what’s going to happen over the next few months, but they’re worried about whether they’re actually viable over the next week.”

Long-Bailey says training providers are going to be “essential in our economic recovery”, so it’s an “incredibly worrying” time for them.

Colleges are calling on Ofqual to relax plans for ranking GCSE students within each grade this summer, as doing so for hundreds across different campuses would be “impractical”.

A number that spoke to FE Week expressed fear that it would produce “inaccurate” results and put thousands of learners at a “disadvantage”.

The exams regulator is currently consulting on the proposal, which was revealed last month as part of the standardised assessment process that will replace cancelled exams due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Schools and colleges are being asked to provide both a centre grade in each subject for each student and a rank order of pupils within each grade.

Ofqual says the rank order will help determine which students move between grades during the standardisation process, which will be run by exam boards in order to ensure that students are not disadvantaged by “generous or severe” assessment.

Jeanne Rogers, vice principal for quality teaching and learning at the Luminate Education Group, told FE Week that she is not “confident in the legitimacy and accuracy of a ranking process, where hundreds of students would have to be placed in order with potentially little or no distinguishable evidence between them”.

Her group, which encompasses five colleges including Leeds City, has almost 8,900 GCSE entries from 5,520 students this summer who are taught by almost 100 teachers.

“Our main concern is that any largescale ranking will place some students at a disadvantage,” Rogers said.

“Take our GCSE maths, for example: one campus might have 800 maths students, in 60 groups, across five departments, assessed by ten teachers. Two teachers in each department will rank their 150 students, with direct experience of the comparable features of performance, giving them a good degree of confidence.

“They then have to join four other departments to merge the rankings and that’s where you will inevitably see some students being moved down in the rank order, as a consequence of sheer volume and the necessity to give each a unique rank.”

Rogers added that if 200 students were to share a grade in any one campus, there will be “clusters” within that grade, where there is “little in the evidence base to distinguish between them”.

While this is a challenge that Luminate will “take on, for the sake of each student”, they hope Ofqual will adjust the plan so that it allows for the ranking of students in smaller cohorts of around 150 – which would be equitable to a year 11 cohort in schools.

Birmingham Metropolitan College shares similar concerns. The group, made up of three colleges, has almost 4,000 GCSE students taught by 50 teachers.

A spokesperson said that ranking this high number will be “very challenging logistically. We would like flexibility in the ranking and have voiced this as part of the consultation,” they added.

Meanwhile, NCG has 80 GCSE teachers teaching around 4,000 students across its seven colleges.

A spokesperson described ranking hundreds of learners within the same grade band as a “key challenge”.

“For example, we know from the DfE progress measures that nationally, and at NCG, the majority of 16-to-18-year-old learners stay at the same grade, so, given that the annual distribution of learners is heavily centred around grade three, for all colleges, no matter the size, this will be hundreds of learners at different ages, from different departments having to be ranked,” she added.

“Getting this right, particularly at the proportional grade boundaries, will require some real care and attention.”

Their concerns have been echoed by their counterparts across the country, according to the Association of Colleges.

The membership organisation’s draft response to Ofqual’s consultation said colleges are “concerned” about a single-centre ranking for all candidate grades, which is not “necessary” and nor would it provide “any additional degree of accuracy”.

“Under the current circumstances, moderating student grades across a large team and across campuses is not practical.”

The AoC, like the Luminate Education Group, suggests that it should be possible to submit rankings either by teacher or in smaller groupings of around 150 instead.

Ofqual’s consultation closes on April 29.

The cut-off date for starts on old-style apprenticeships, known as frameworks, could be extended, the chief operating officer of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has said.

In a webinar hosted by the Association of Colleges this afternoon, Rob Nitsch revealed that work on prolonging the switch beyond 31 July is already underway.

“Yes, in a nutshell”, he said when asked whether it would “make sense” to extend the date.

“We have done a bit of work on this. It is interesting across different sectors – some are very well set up, they have left frameworks behind but there are a couple of other sectors where that conversion hasn’t fully happened.

“There is a discussion to be had and I know there is consideration of what is the best thing to do in that space.

“That is where it sits at the moment, voices are being heard and it is currently being weighed as an issue.”

Nitsch added that the government is “absolutely committed” to the turn off of frameworks as their employer-designed replacement, known as standards, are “widely acknowledged as the better product, they are where the future is”.

The process of closing old-style apprenticeship frameworks to new starts began in March 2016, and the original intention was to switch them all off by August 2017.

But this cut-off was dropped at the end of 2015, and replaced with a “migration from apprenticeship frameworks to standards over the course of the parliament”.

The government’s current plan is for all apprenticeship starts to be on standards from 1 August 2020.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief policy officer, Simon Ashworth, said a postponement on this is a “no-brainer”.

“The IfATE position makes a great deal of sense to us and in our view, we should be seeking a delay in the switch-off until March next year,” he told FE Week.

“When the pandemic is over, employers and providers are going to have more than enough on their plate to support a recovery than to be worrying about this.”

A spokesperson for the IfATE said any decision “regarding possible change to the turnoff date for frameworks” is “for the Department for Education to make, taking into consideration a wide range of factors”.

Apprenticeships with small businesses funded via an employer transfer or that have recently transitioned onto the government’s digital system will not be eligible for supplier relief.

The Department for Education confirmed this afternoon that the support, details of which are expected to be unveiled later this week, will only apply to non-levy apprenticeships where a provider holds an Education and Skills Funding Agency funding allocation.

It means that any starts with small businesses via the digital apprenticeship system – for both employer transferred funds and the transition period that launched in January – will be ineligible.

Transfer funding, where large employers share unused funds, was launched in April 2018 and small employers began transitioning onto the digital system in January of this year.

The confirmation comes after DfE minister Gillian Keegan revealed that more than 1,000 apprenticeship providers that only train levy-paying employers, through the digital system, will not be eligible for supplier relief support.

In a letter to MPs she said that the relief will “not apply in relation to apprenticeships funded from employer digital accounts where the contractual relationship is between the employer and the provider”.

The move has prompted a fierce reaction from the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which has sought legal advice to challenge the decision.

The membership body’s board met yesterday agreed that Keegan’s letter “made it clear that the proposed support would only be available to providers in respect of apprenticeships offered by non-levy paying employers where providers hold ‘a direct contract’ with the Education and Skills Funding Agency”.

They unanimously agreed that the statement “ignores the fact that the levy is a tax as defined by the Finance Act 2016” and that levy-funded apprenticeships “also have a direct contract with the ESFA and so the DfE’s grounds for excluding relief for them were not justified”.

“Therefore the board has instructed AELP’s secretariat to immediately seek formal legal advice on whether the department is still failing to comply with the Cabinet Office guidance to which the minister’s letter refers,” a statement from the membership organisation said.

The DfE told FE Week that the Cabinet Office’s Procurement Policy Notice 02/20, which underpins their supplier relief scheme, applies only to circumstances where the service was procured under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and is being delivered under a contract for services.

A total of 593 providers currently have non-levy allocations amounting to £690 million, the contracts for which have recently been extended to cover the financial year 2020-21.

As well as non-levy apprenticeships funded through a “direct” ESFA contract, the support will be offered to adult education funding.

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers will seek formal legal advice to challenge the government’s decision to exclude over 1,000 apprenticeship providers from the Covid-19 supplier relief scheme.

Earlier today, FE Week revealed that a letter to MPs from minister Gillian Keegan said that their upcoming financial support will “not apply in relation to apprenticeships funded from employer digital accounts where the contractual relationship is between the employer and the provider”.

The AELP’s board met this afternoon agreed the letter “made it clear that the proposed support would only be available to providers in respect of apprenticeships offered by non-levy paying employers where providers hold ‘a direct contract’ with the Education and Skills Funding Agency”.

They unanimously agreed that the statement “ignores the fact that the levy is a tax as defined by the Finance Act 2016” and that levy-funded apprenticeships “also have a direct contract with the ESFA and so the DfE’s grounds for excluding relief for them were not justified”.

“Therefore the board has instructed AELP’s secretariat to immediately seek formal legal advice on whether the department is still failing to comply with the Cabinet Office guidance to which the minister’s letter refers,” a statement from the membership organisation said.

The DfE told FE Week that the Cabinet Office’s Procurement Policy Notice 02/20, which underpins their supplier relief scheme, applies only to circumstances where the service was procured under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and is being delivered under a contract for services.

As reported by this newspaper earlier, there are currently more than 1,000 apprenticeship providers that only train apprentices from levy-paying employers and will therefore not be eligible for supplier relief support from the DfE.

A total of 593 providers currently have non-levy allocations amounting to £690 million, the contracts for which have recently been extended to cover the financial year 2020-21.

The DfE is expected to set out further detail on their supplier relief measures and the criteria for accessing it at the end of this week.

More than 1,000 apprenticeship providers that only train levy-paying employers will not be eligible for supplier relief support from the Department for Education, minister Gillian Keegan has said.

In a letter to MPs dated 17 April, seen by FE Week, she confirmed the DfE will be introducing targeted financial relief measures “for those providers that need it”, but only where they “hold direct contracts with the Education and Skills Funding Agency”.

This includes adult education and non-levy apprenticeships, but not levy contracts held between providers and employers.

“This does not apply in relation to apprenticeships funded from employer digital accounts where the contractual relationship is between the employer and the provider,” Keegan wrote.

FE Week analysis shows there are 1,624 main and employer providers on the register of apprenticeship training providers currently, of which 593 have non-levy allocations this year amounting to £690 million.

That means there are 1,031 providers that only have access to levy funding, and are therefore not eligible for the supplier relief.

Keegan told MPs that the extra targeted support, being offered due to the coronavirus crisis, is to “enable high-quality providers to remain active where that is still possible and safe”.

She will set out further detail on these measures and the criteria for accessing the financial relief this week.

“In doing so we will ensure that this support is targeted at those providers who need it, with proven track records for delivering quality training, and that it takes account of any wider support providers have accessed from HM Treasury or elsewhere,” Keegan said.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Mark Dawe said that in the absence of published criteria so far, “we are concerned that the proposed ‘targeted support’ will involve some form of arbitrary selection of providers that may not be fair or justifiable”.

“The letter refers to enabling ‘high quality providers’ remaining active as a result of the promised support but how will the DfE define ‘high quality’?” he added.

“Full transparency is required.”

An independent panel for FE pay should be formed to help fix the disparity between technical lecturer salaries and what they can earn in the field, according to a new report.

The Edge Foundation says that ingrained funding challenges have left college principals “strapped, unable to recruit the staff they need”, particularly from industries like manufacturing and digital where “they simply cannot match pay in the sector”.

Its report, Our Plan for FE, published today has called for the launch of an independent panel to establish “transparency, fairness and impartiality” when it comes to lecturer wages.

Olly Newton, Edge’s executive director, told FE Week the “outline idea” would be to “bring together a range of external perspectives and expertise to look at the level of FE pay and make recommendations to government and the sector”.

“They would need to take into account the pay and conditions in the wider sectors from which FE staff would be drawn,” he added.

“We think a degree of independent analysis in this space could be very valuable to all parties”, but further details would need to be worked up in consultation with the sector.

While there appears to be little research in the way of comparing lecturer salaries with wages in the field, Edge’s report said that recruitment of “high quality” lecturers and leaders is made “challenging by direct competition from schools, higher education institutions and businesses, all of which typically offer more attractive rates of pay for comparable roles”.

The Department for Education’s first ever and latest college staff survey, published in 2018, showed that “competition from higher salaries in industry” was the most common recruitment challenge facing principals.

Areas such as engineering and manufacturing, construction, maths and digital/IT were found to be the most difficult to lure workers from industry into the classroom.

The survey also showed that 42 per cent of lecturers and 33 per cent of leaders indicated they were likely to leave the sector over the next 12 months.

The 2019 Augur Review highlighted staff recruitment as a significant issue for FE, and found an average national vacancy rate of 3 per cent in colleges, with higher levels of 5 per cent in engineering and manufacturing; construction; and legal, finance and accounting, compared to 1.1 per cent in secondary schools.

Analysis of the Education and Training Foundation’s (ETF) staff individualised record (SIR) data from England for 2017-2018, published in Edge’s report, shows that lecturers make up 50 per cent of the average total workforce of a college and their average pay is £31,600 compared to an average of £37,400 for school teachers.

It adds that reduced funding “translates directly into staff numbers and salaries, with about 68 per cent of all college spending on staff costs, resulting in a recruitment and retention crisis across colleges”.

The ETF collates data for the FE sector including wages but would not comment as it doesn’t compare them to other sectors.

Edge explained that rather than addressing the funding and pay issue, the government’s policy response to FE staffing has been to revoke regulations relating to lecturers’ qualifications.

Since 2012/13, there have been no prescribed levels of educational or professional status required to teach in FE.

While the reform hoped to increase recruitment of industry professionals with relevant teaching skills but without specific qualifications, the charity said in actuality, the result is a “lack of clarity over what skills lecturers should have and how these might be demonstrated”.

Edge’s report concludes that principals have been “trapped, by the wider system, in a position where they are unable to pay anything near what an individual would earn in many growth industries”.

Neil Bates, chair of the Edge Foundation, said: “We need a clear and ambitious workforce strategy to attract a new and inspiring generation of technical lecturers and offer the continuing development and connection to industry they need to remain at the forefront of their fields.”

The monthly data return to claim FE funding, known as the individualised learner record (ILR), need only be returned if providers “have the resources available to do so”, the Department for Education has said.

A list of data collections and services which will be cancelled or paused owing to the coronavirus pandemic was published this afternoon by the department.

It said that the collection of the ILR remains “open”, and providers are “asked to submit the return if they have the resources available to do so”.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency said for the previous return, due 6 April, that providers are working through “exceptional circumstances due to Covid-19” and this “might make it difficult to meet the deadline”.

Any providers that could not meet the deadline were asked to contact the agency by emailing sde.servicedesk@education.gov.uk.

The next ILR submission deadline, which is the ninth nine of the 2019/20 academic year, is 6 May.

FE Week has asked the DfE what happens to payments if providers cannot submit their ILR.