Undeclared £20k bonus ‘honest error’, claims college boss

A college has fessed up to failing to declare a £20,000 bonus made to its principal in 2018 amid a government crackdown on transparency.

Lincoln College boss Gary Headland told FE Week he was “both embarrassed and disappointed” that the payment was “erroneously not included” in that year’s accounts owing to an “honest error”.

His salary of £199,000 in 2017/18, as recorded in the Education and Skills Funding Agency official college accounts data, also does not include the bonus that was awarded for international work.

The £20,000 payment was disclosed in Lincoln’s 2018/19 accounts (see image right), alongside a £40,000 bonus for that year, but nowhere does it note the discrepancy and the only explanation came after FE Week started asking questions.

Click to enlarge

A financial auditor told FE Week that they would have expected the £20,000 prior year (2018) adjustment in the 2019 accounts to include a note to explain the past error, particularly as the government is very sensitive to the disclosure of senior staff pay.

Lincoln College’s main international venture is in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where its subsidiary is Lincoln College International (LCI) runs colleges.

LCI generated £30.1 million in 2018 and £25.7 million in 2019, more than half the college group income.

Headland (pictured) said: “At the complete discretion of the board of corporation, I am able to be awarded an annual payment based upon the scale and performance of our commercial and international work.

“In our annual accounts submitted in December 2018, the discretionary payment was erroneously not included. This was an honest error and I am both embarrassed and disappointed in equal measure.

“Importantly, the oversight was not repeated in December 2019 in which full disclosure of all emoluments in 2018 and 2019 was made.”

The college did not explain why there was no note in the 2019 accounts to explain the error.

FE Week has asked the college’s external auditor firm, RSM, about the discrepancy.

The ESFA said it “strengthened” its financial reporting requirements for sixth-form and further education colleges last year.

Specifically, the agency’s finance record spreadsheet for 2018/19 requires, for the first time, that colleges record a figure for its “principal’s performance related pay and bonus”.

For colleges, this should be as simple as listing it separately from the “principal’s salary”.

Their updated rules state: “Corporations receive significant investment from public funds and need to demonstrate to stakeholders that decisions made on executive pay are evidence-based, proportionate and represent value for money.

“This year, as a matter of policy, we have increased transparency around executive pay to support accountability, and to help maintain public confidence and trust in executive pay.”

Burton and South Derbyshire College accounts for 2019, for example, now list a £35,000 bonus for 2018 and £36,000 bonus for 2019 separately from the salary figure.

Its 2018 accounts had lumped the bonus given to principal Dawn Ward in with her salary, totalling £218,000.

Her college runs the International Technical Female College in Jeddah in partnership with Highbury College.

A spokesperson for Burton and South Derbyshire College said: “As you’ve identified, ESFA requirements around disclosure changed in the year between the two sets of accounts.

“Our 2019 accounts adhere to the new reporting requirements and so the value is split out. Obviously, the total value reported in both sets of accounts is unchanged.”

Dawn Ward

However, it is clear from the ESFA’s college accounts direction for 2017/18 that “corporations must separately disclose the emoluments of the accounting officer” and “emoluments include: performance-related awards (including other bonuses)”.

Highbury College told FE Week the ESFA had given them permission to delay the filing of their 2018/19 accounts.

One college FE Week found that has been in full compliance of the rules is Leeds City College.

It declared a £40,000 bonus separately for boss Colin Booth in its 2018 accounts, and again in 2019.

The Association of Colleges developed its own pay code in 2018. It states that “awards made in respect of annual bonus arrangements linked to the achievement of specific annual objectives should not be consolidated”.

The membership body’s chief executive, David Hughes, told FE Week: “AoC’s governor’s council took the initiative in 2018 to adapt the university senior staff remuneration code for college use.

“We’re confident that the code and the open way in which colleges present information about senior staff pay will ensure that governing bodies properly account for the way in which they use public funds and the approach they take to rewarding, motivating and retaining staff to do incredibly challenging jobs.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Further education colleges set their own salaries for staff, which we expect to be fair, represent value for money and be fully justifiable. We now require colleges to explain and justify the salaries of their key management staff in published accounts.”

ESFA planning to limit providers by standards

The Education and Skills Funding Agency is working on plans to require providers to be “accredited” for the apprenticeship standards they offer.

Keith Smith, the agency’s director of apprenticeships, this week said the limits are being considered to give employers more “confidence” in the “future” register of apprenticeship training providers.

Currently, end-point assessment organisations can only assess apprenticeship standards they’re experts in and approved for via application.

Yet providers that have never delivered apprenticeships have no restrictions on which or how many standards they deliver.

During a speech at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference on Tuesday, Smith said: “That is something we talk a lot about in terms of the future provider register and the extent to which we should start to look at accreditation by a different type of standard.

“At the moment we have taken the view that we want to provide the opportunity that providers can play to their strengths. One thing we are beefing up in the provider register all the time is looking at the capacity of those providers in their workforce, about the professionalisation and the skills they bring to the bear in the sector.”

He continued: “We are trying really carefully to make sure we understand what it is to be a good provider, to actually have confidence in the provider register, and very carefully understand how we give assurance to employers and apprentices that they are going to be finding their way to new providers who actually have the right capacity and infrastructure to be able to do good things.

“More on that to come.”

Smith added that it is “the reality” that providers will already be specialising in certain standard areas, and his agency is working to ensure any limits do not add further unnecessary layers of “bureaucracy” for training organisations.

Any restrictions would form the second phase of the ESFA’s attempts to strengthen its register of apprenticeship training providers, which was relaunched last year following a host of problems with the original application process.

One-man bands with no delivery experience were, for example, being given access to millions of pounds of apprenticeships funding.

FE Week analysis shows that the ESFA has cut the number of main and employers providers on the register down by a quarter over the past year – from 2,234 in April 2019 to 1,628 in February 2020.

The reduction shouldn’t come as a major surprise considering the agency had promised to tighten up the register’s application rules and kick off those who aren’t delivering.

But this cull still has some way to go, as FE Week analysis also shows a further 29 per cent of providers currently on there are still not delivering and many more are in single starts figures.

What makes restrictions even more likely is the fact that new providers with no track record will no longer be limited by a lack of non-levy allocation from November 1 as the ESFA moves small employers onto the digital apprenticeship system.

FE Week understands there are also plans being drawn up to potentially introduce funding caps on providers yet to have full Ofsted inspection.

Last year, the education watchdog was handed £5.4 million to carry out monitoring visits of all new apprenticeship providers, which have so far suggested the quality at about a quarter of them is poor.

It is also understood that the ESFA will dedicate a special team to watch over the largest apprenticeship providers to ensure the sector does not suffer from another “too big to fail” scenario if one of them goes bust, as was the case with Learndirect.

London is first to warn about AEB underspend for 2019/20

The first signs of yet another adult education budget (AEB) underspend have appeared, after the Greater London Authority revealed delivery is “lower than expected”.

Agenda papers for a board meeting in February shows they are already taking action by moving unused funds to a budget for later in the year.

GLA officials have proposed to mayor Sadiq Khan that they shift £7 million, out of a £190 million AEB for the first eight months, to be made available in the last four months of the academic year.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has previously used the same “re-profiling” tactic, taking advantage of the academic and financial years being based on different dates, when it was experiencing an underspend in-year.

The GLA’s agenda paper said that where performance is “lower than expected”, they are “working with providers to review performance issues and related actions, and to identify whether allocations or contracts need to be adjusted to reflect the level of AEB delivery”.

They also note that there is a “risk that underspends are recovered by the Secretary of State in circumstances where the Secretary of State considers funds have not sufficiently been committed to be spent”.

FE Week understands AEB underspends for 2019/20 are also being experienced in other devolved areas, as well as in the national budget that is administered by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

Previous analysis by this newspaper found that more than 400 colleges and training providers between them failed to deliver £73 million of AEB funding in 2016/17. Similar underspends have been felt in other academic years since then.

Brenda Mcleish, chief executive of the Learning Curve Group – a training provider that was unsuccessful in obtaining devolved AEB contracts in a number of areas this year, told FE Week: “We are hearing about the potential of in-year underspend in a number of devolved areas.

“Any non-utilisation of funds would be disappointing given that the combined authorities claimed to have undertaken such extensive procurement exercises when selecting providers who could deliver the profiles allocated to them.”

She said that her provider received a “significant volume of enquiries” from learners wanting to access training in devolved areas but these are people “we are unable to help due to the fact we do not have funding in a number of devolved areas.”

She continued: “To discover that money is not being used when we, and other providers in a similar situation, have this level of interest would be hugely disappointing and letting down those most in need of support.”

Brenda McLeish

Sector leaders have previously claimed the fault of not delivering their allocations lies with “restrictive” rules and low funding rates, rather than providers.

Another issue was added following the introduction of FE loans for learners aged 19 to 23 in 2016/17, which meant that courses that used to be funded through the AEB were no longer included.

Underspend for the 2018/19 year cannot be calculated yet as the final allocations and spending figures are not due for publication by the Department for Education for another month.

A spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: “The GLA has forecast expenditure to deliver the AEB for the 2019/20 academic year and we proactively monitor providers’ performance to ensure funding is allocated as effectively as possible.

“This includes funding potential growth for over-performing AEB procured providers to maximise delivery over the full academic year, which would be agreed in May.”

The spokesperson added that officials will continue to review delivery in line with the performance management approach set out in the GLA’s funding rules.

And the agenda papers for the February meeting said: “Importantly, understanding the delivery spend, identifying any underspends associated with under delivery and proposing options to utilise such funds in a prompt manner will improve the reputation of the mayor in successfully managing the AEB.”

Profile: Gillian Keegan

Apprenticeships and skills minister and Chichester MP Gillian Keegan could be a win-win for the Conservative Party. She hails from the country’s ‘most Labour seat’, was a 16-year-old shop floor apprentice, and has a masters-level business intellect.

 

Gillian Keegan, the new apprenticeships and skills minister minister, strikes you as the sort of MP that the Conservatives need more of. Her life story could be an advert both for apprenticeships – being the “only degree-level apprentice in the House of Commons” – and the appeal of conservative values to the “red wall” working-class background she’s from. We meet at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference, almost three years since the Chichester MP first won her seat in parliament. She’s sitting very safely, with 58 per cent of the vote in the December election. But this most southern of cities, which has returned a Conservative MP since the 1800s (except a brief flirt with a Liberal in the 1920s), puts Keegan almost a five-hour drive away from where she grew up, in Knowsley near Liverpool.

She describes her childhood home as “the most Labour seat in the whole country” and she’s right – the MP there won more votes than any other from the party at the most recent election. Keegan appears proud of her political independence of mind from the inheritances of her childhood, explaining her experiences with a matter-of-fact, concise tone of voice that matches it. If she hadn’t been brokering international business deals for the last 30 years, one feels she’d have made an excellent no-nonsense college principal.

‘I’ve done a PhD in patience’

“As my mother said, ‘the Conservative vote left when you left home,’” Keegan concedes, without laughing. However when asked if voting Conservative since age 19 made her unpopular, she follows up with a chuckle: “I’m popular so I can get over the fact I’m a Conservative.”

It must have been quite an inheritance to overcome. Her grandfather was a miner, her nan worked in a biscuit factory, her father was an office manager who wasn’t paid very much and lived in a caravan during the week, and her mother did secretarial work. It’s clear their daughter showed an unusual resilience to the difficult circumstances around her. She was the only pupil to get 10 O-levels at her comprehensive secondary school, having rejected the expectation that girls do only sewing and home economics and instead also studying engineering and technical drawing with her favourite teacher, Mr Ashcroft.

When she entered the workplace aged 16 she was the only girl in the group of trainees at Delco Electronics, a subsidiary group of General Motors that made in-car electronics. None of the boys went on, like she did, to complete the employer-sponsored degree at Liverpool John Moores University. Perhaps the fact school enabled her to take a route out explains why Keegan “loved school” – although it’s not exactly clear how much there was to love.

“They actually closed my school down two years after I left. Some kids did A-levels, but you were never going to get a decent grade, you were never going to get to university. The provision of education was so poor you had to find another way around.” It gives Keegan a very real understanding of the lack of opportunity in areas like hers. “I’ve done many things with many of the world’s brightest people. But all the people I met at that Knowsley comprehensive school were as bright as anyone I’ve ever met since.” She adds: “We would be classed as people who would have to go down a vocational route, because they weren’t bright. But we were bright. We just didn’t get the opportunity to show we were bright.”

Gillian Keegan in her new Department for Education office

It was while working in the car factory for General Motors that Keegan’s political views began to emerge – she was unimpressed by the trade unions trying to battle the company’s decisions. “It was the 1980s and there was a lot of sort of highly unionised behaviour in the car factory, which is actually what made me a Conservative.” She calls these the “bad sort of unions who would be out because they wanted to preserve working practices, not because they wanted to move to where the company wanted to be.” Her views solidified as she took a job in London for NatWest and soon began international business in earnest, heading to Tokyo for weeks on end to negotiate contracts. Some of these were about the contactless card payments we take for granted today.

After a stint with MasterCard, Keegan moved to Madrid for a company called Amadeus, learnt to speak Spanish and bought a flat there, which she still has. While at the company she was part of an initial public offer, or IPO, where the private business is sold on the stock market – meaning Keegan will have got a big financial reward, or, as she puts it, “the financial freedom to think of other careers”. But despite all this, Keegan notes that a sense of misfit can linger on. Aged 40, she did a Sloan Fellowship, which is like an MBA, at the London Business School, “because you always feel you haven’t got the qualifications to match your intellect, if you had to go about it a different way. I wanted to prove to myself I could do a masters.” Just a couple of years later, she was an MP.

The almost rags-to-riches story puts Keegan in a powerful position to advocate for apprenticeships, and also for social mobility from a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps experience. She names the dyslexic businesswoman, Jo Malone, creator of the luxury scent brand, as someone she deeply admires for beating the odds. She also makes a great point about the unique value of a rotational apprenticeship such as hers at General Motors. “By the end of it, pretty much myself and the other apprentices were the only people apart from the CEO and the CFO who actually understood how the whole thing worked, because most people when they get into a large multinational business do not get to go around the whole thing.”

She adds: “Even if you go on a graduate programme you very seldom get to see it, because you’re normally assigned to a department or assigned to specific roles.” Her passion for apprenticeships impressed former skills minister Anne Milton, who had already talent-spotted Keegan before she was an MP and put her in touch with Women2Win, an initiative co-founded by Theresa May to encourage Conservative women to stand for office. Now, she further urged Keegan to become an MP ambassador for apprentices, and Keegan eventually also became co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. Today, with the post of a dedicated apprenticeships and skills minister having gone unfilled since Milton resigned over a no-deal Brexit in July, Keegan finds herself taking up the reigns in her mentor’s old office.

‘I get ideas by chatting with people’

Which brings us to the question of how she will fare in that office. It’s a turbulent time in the Conservative party, with the chancellor already having resigned, bullying allegations engulfing the home secretary and ministerial aides disappearing left, right and centre. One thing worth noting is that several of Keegan’s natural political allies are gone. Justine Greening, respected both in and out of the party, first met Keegan at a party for London Business School graduates in 2017.

“I didn’t know what she was then but she was something important. And I plucked up the courage and went to speak to her and she then helped me on my journey […] to become an MP.” Keegan says she’s done a “PhD in patience” by becoming an MP – working with volunteers and coming to terms with the fact that parliament does not work like a super slick international business – something mentors like Milton and Greening have helped her understand. She laughs as she claims she’s designed her “own apprenticeship in being an MP”, with stints on the public accounts committee, as a parliamentary private secretary to the Treasury, home secretary and Department for Health, as well as posts with the Ministry of Defence. Like Greening, Keegan seems good at listening. “I’m a people person. I get ideas by chatting with people.”

But both Greening and Milton are now gone – unable to match their own values with the direction of the Conservative Party. Keegan backed Rory Stewart for the leadership, but he too has quit. Many commentators have said some of the party’s best moderate talent has left the backbenches.

But Keegan says she exemplifies an important truth about people from backgrounds like hers. “I’m sure the people in many of those areas of the ‘red wall’ that became the ‘blue wall’ are people who are very similar in terms of values, outlook and opportunity to where I grew up. And I’ve always thought, if you took the brand away, and you just looked at the values and what you could achieve, I’ve always thought most of them would vote Conservative […] And actually, as it turns out […] now 30 years on, they have.”

Yet there is some undeniable data. Further education has been badly hit by falls in college funding under the Conservatives. And whilst the apprenticeship budget has risen with the introduction of the levy, rates could be slashed by over 40 per cent.

As someone from a struggling area of the country, who knows deeply the value of apprenticeships, Gillian Keegan is the kind of MP the cabinet should nurture, listen to and promote.

She must ensure the party sticks to its 2019 manifesto commitments to properly invest in further education. Meanwhile, the cabinet would do well to support her to make sure she does not go the way of Stewart, Milton and Greening.

T-levels ‘uniquely narrow’ compared to technical courses in high performing countries, claims think tank

A review into the “uniquely narrow and short” technical courses in England has been called for ahead of the introduction of T-levels this September.

The Education Policy Institute think tank (EPI) made the recommendation in an international comparison of technical education funding systems, published today, which said this country’s 16 to 19 curriculum “remains an outlier for its narrow breadth, both for academic and technical pathways”.

This approach “may be depriving students of valuable skills”, it added.  

While welcoming T-levels’ increased teaching hours, the “substantial” 315-hour industry placement and how they “will bring England closer to technical provision in high performing countries”, the report also says the curriculum “looks narrower” than similar qualifications in other countries.

The new flagship courses will not address the differences in curricular breadth between England and countries like Norway and Germany beyond securing basic levels of literacy and numeracy, the report says.

As T-levels will last for half as long as technical qualifications in other countries, this “probably stands in the way” of broadening the curriculum.

EPI’s research was funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, which is working on preparations for T-levels and is co-running professional development for the qualifications with the Education and Training Foundation.

“The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, and do not reflect those of the foundation,” the report stresses.

The government, the report proposes, ought to commission an independent review to consider if the breadth of 16 to 19 courses is properly providing the basic and technical skills “young people need for the labour market and for progression to further study”.

If this means providers have to increase provision, the government “must” match this with appropriate funding rates. The report found funding support for students fell by 71 per cent in real terms between 2010/11 and 2018/19.

The joint general secretary of the National Education Union Kevin Courtney said the government “must learn from this challenging report” and 16 to 19 students need “sustainable funding” and “real support” for living, learning and travelling costs.

The Association of School and College Leaders’ post-16 and colleges’ specialist Kevin Gilmartin urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak to address the “desperate need” for additional government funding for the sector in the Budget on March 11.

The countries the EPI compared England against were found to offer a broader curriculum, for example technical students in Norway spend more of classroom time studying subjects like English, maths, PE, natural sciences, and social sciences than their vocational specialisation. Technical students in Austria take courses on entrepreneurship, digital skills, communication skills and, in many cases, up to three foreign languages.

In Germany’s dual-system, students attend a vocational school up to two days a week and apart from theoretical and practical knowledge for their apprenticeship, they also take general subjects like economics and social sciences.

Germany’s system was thrown into the spotlight after education secretary Gavin Williamson pledged the UK to overtaking Germany in technical education opportunities by 2029.

However, the report did note the breadth of curriculum in other countries varies dependent on factors like qualification level and whether it is a classroom-based programme or apprenticeship training.

David Robinson, report author and director of post-16 and skills at the EPI, said: “If it wishes to draw level with countries like Germany, the government must give further consideration to properly funding technical education, in order to sustain quality.

“We must also ask serious questions about the structure of our upper secondary programmes, which are uniquely narrow and short by international standards. The breadth of the curriculum and length of technical courses should be reviewed.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The secretary of state has been clear that boosting further education is at the heart of his vision for a world class education system.

“We are investing significantly to level up skills and opportunity across the country. In addition to our £3 billion National Skills fund, we have announced a £400m increase to 16 to 19 funding for 2020-2021, creating longer, higher-quality technical apprenticeships.

“Alongside this, our traineeship programme is a great way for young people to develop the skills and confidence they need to progress on to employment, or a high quality apprenticeship.”

IfATE boss: Business admin level 2 ‘undermines’ efforts to create ‘well-regarded’ programme

The chief executive of the government’s apprenticeship quango has defended the decision to reject a business administration standard at level 2 – claiming it would “undermine” efforts to create a “well-regarded” programme.

Last week FE Week revealed how Jennifer Coupland had shattered hopes for the apprenticeship after she turned down a final plea from employers.

Addressing delegates on the second day of the sixth Annual Apprenticeship Conference this afternoon, the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education boss tackled criticism of the decision head on.

She made clear it was “nothing to do with being averse to level 2”, but simply that the proposal did not meet the required length or quality of an apprenticeship standard.

And when quizzed on why she would not entertain another proposal for the standard, Coupland said she wants to be “blunt” and not give the employers “false hope”.

Here’s what she said during her speech in full:

“I know that one of the big stories last week in the world of apprenticeships and in the conference room this morning was the institute’s decision not to endorse a level 2 business administration proposal.

“I want to talk briefly about why we made that decision. Firstly, take-up on the new level 3 business administration standard has more than doubled since it launched in 2017. That shows there is a great route into skilled employment in an administrative role via an apprenticeship and appetite from providers, apprentices and employers for that.

“And as Doug Richard said in the Richard Review, apprenticeships should not be the only skill show in town, there should be a place for other forms of vocational training and pre-employment provision, and great classroom-based technical routes too.

“We have an opportunity now to really build a high-quality, well-regarded apprenticeship programme and the more we stretch the definition of an apprenticeship the more we undermine attempts to finally achieve that.

“So when we do hand out the apprenticeship label it must be an indicator of a high-quality training programme. It must be for training for skilled occupations that require at least a year of sustained and substantial training to become competent in the role.

“The proposal for a level 2 business administration standard did not meet those tests and that is why we did not back it.

“To be really clear, this is nothing to do with being averse to level 2. There are plenty of level 2 qualifications that meet those tests. Since our establishment the institute has approved over 80 new standards at level 2 across a huge variety of fields.

“We have level 2 apprenticeships for plasterers, for scaffolders, for bricklayers, for sewing machinists, for beauticians, health care support workers, hospitality team members, hair professionals, culinary chefs, and even fish mongers, and that is just a few.

“More than half a million people across the country have now received much better skills training because of this new and more rigorous employer-led approach to setting standards for apprentices.

“To count as an apprenticeship an occupation must take at least a year to learn, there must be scope for a minimum 20 per cent off-the-job training. It is a high bar set by both us and employers themselves, and the reality is that sometimes proposals for new apprenticeships won’t reach it.”

AAC Awards 2020 winners revealed

The winners of the Annual Apprenticeship Awards 2020 have been crowned at a glittering ceremony in Birmingham tonight.

More than 500 sector leaders, staff and apprentices gathered to find out the results of the awards, which are run by FE Week and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

Forty-four organisations and individuals had been shortlisted in 22 categories after more than 350 entries were submitted by colleges, training providers and employers.

New apprenticeship and skills minister Gillian Keegan was in attendance to celebrate the winners.

Taking home the provider of the year award was Leeds College of Building.

Judges said it was “clear” from their application and evidence that they “were enthusiastically dedicated to helping apprentices achieve their full potential, and absolutely committed to steering the next generation of innovators”.

Employer of the year was awarded to Hays Travel, which took over Thomas Cook this year.

“Hays Travel is a true believer and champion of apprenticeships,” the judges said. “It was evident from their application that apprenticeships are embedded within their organisations culture and thus valued and supported by stakeholders.”

This year’s special recognition awards were handed to former skills minister Anne Milton, and her former opposite number Gordon Marsden.

And apprenticeships expert and veteran Beej Kaczmarczyk received the lifetime achievement award.

Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week’s publisher Lsect, said: “We were delighted to award Beej with the lifetime achievement award. Beej has given so much to education throughout his career.

“He is also one of the great characters of the FE sector, regularly putting the ‘fun’ into funding analysis and has a magic way of entertaining those who he supports and informs on sometimes the driest of subjects.

“As he nears his retirement, and the possibility of finally realising his aim of getting in more golf, it is perfect timing, and massively well-deserved.”

Mann added: “Tonight we also recognise the contribution made by two former MPs, Anne Milton and Gordon Marsden. As front bench MPs for government and opposition they made significant contributions to the apprenticeships sector in the UK and globally.

“Regardless of whether you agree with their political decisions and positions, it is undeniable that they placed enormous energy into improving the apprenticeship sector. They are both worthy recipients of this year’s awards.”

AELP chief executive Mark Dawe said: “We’ve had another fabulous evening celebrating all that is best about apprenticeships and the hard working people who offer bright futures to learners who embark on our flagship skills programme.

“Congratulations to a great set of winners and it’s really pleasing that Gillian Keegan has been here with us to hear about these wonderful success stories.”

Look out for more coverage in FE Week’s AAC supplement later this week.

Here are the 2020 award winners in full:

 

Route Apprenticeship Provider of the Year

 

Agriculture, Environmental & Animal Care

British Racing School

 

Business & Administration

Derby Business College Limited

 

Care Services

Lifetime Training

 

Catering & Hospitality Apprenticeship

Lifetime Training

 

Construction

Skills Group

 

Digital – Sponsored by BCS

Manchester Metropolitan University

 

Education & Childcare

Aspiration Training Ltd

 

Engineering & Manufacturing

Abingdon and Witney College

 

Hair & Beauty – Sponsored by VTCT

Truro and Penwith College

 

Health & Science

Performance Through People

 

Legal, Finance & Accounting

Paragon Skills

 

Sales, Marketing, Procurement

Remit Group

 

Transport & Logistics

Performance Through People

 

National Awards:

 

Promoting Apprenticeships campaign

Newcastle & Stafford Colleges Group

 

SEND Apprenticeship Champion Award – sponsored by CognAssist

Eastleigh College

 

Apprenticeship Diversity Award

WhiteHat

 

Outstanding contribution to the development of apprenticeships (employer)  Sponsored  by City & Guilds ILM

Little Inspirations Ltd

 

Outstanding contribution to the development of apprenticeships (individual) Sponsored  by City & Guilds ILM

Jane Hadfield, Health Education England

 

Outstanding contribution to the development of apprenticeships (provider) Sponsored  by City & Guilds ILM

South Devon College

 

Apprentice Employer of the Year

Hays Travel

 

Apprenticeship Provider of the year | sponsored by BKSB

Leeds College of Building

 

Special recognition award

Gordon Marsden

Anne Milton

 

Lifetime achievement award

Beej Kaczmarczyk

Ofsted plans to withhold inspection reports until complaints are resolved

Ofsted will withhold publication of inspection reports until it has resolved complaints about them under a new redress system proposed by the inspectorate.

A consultation launched today proposes that formal complaints raised by providers within two working days of receiving their final report will effectively delay publication of the report until the complaint is dealt with.

Under the current system, providers have to submit formal complaints within 10 days of an issue of concern, but Ofsted does not normally withhold publication of reports while it considers complaints.

Today the watchdog admitted the current approach has led to it having to take action after it has published a report “when a complaint investigation highlights an error in the inspection process”.

“As a result, we are proposing to consider and respond to formal complaints from inspected providers before we publish their inspection report, if these complaints are submitted promptly,” the watchdog said in its consultation documents.

“So that the publication of a report is not overly delayed, if an inspected provider wants to raise a formal complaint, they will need to submit this within two working days of them being issued with their final report. If an inspected provider submits a formal complaint within this period, we will withhold publication of the inspection report until we have considered and responded to the complaint.”

However, complaints will not “normally” be considered outside of this deadline, because the submission will be deemed to be ‘out of time’, Ofsted said.

The consultation also proposes that providers will receive five working days to review their draft report and submit concerns about issues of “factual accuracy and the inspection process”. At the moment, they only receive one, but some other types of provider get longer.

The extended period “will allow all inspected providers the same opportunity to raise any issues of factual inaccuracy in their draft report, or to comment on any aspect of the inspection process”.

“We will consider all submitted comments before we issue the final inspection report to a provider.”

Ofsted also wants to introduce “greater consistency” in post-inspection arrangements.

A new timeline will mean that all providers “should expect to see their draft report within 18 working days of the end of their inspection”, and Ofsted will aim to issue all final reports to providers “within 30 working days of the end of the inspection”.

The current system of internal reviews, which are the last step for those not satisfied with the way their complaint has been handled, will be retained.

Working together to create a sustainable apprenticeship system that unlocks talent, and supports businesses and the economy

A long-term vision for apprenticeships, the report from the Independent Apprenticeship Policy Group, sponsored by Pearson, was launched at the Annual Apprenticeship Conference today. Its independent Chair, Neil Carmichael, tells us more about the group, their intentions, and the key outcomes of the work.

Apprenticeships have long been a bedrock of our education and employment landscape. And I would argue we have a successful system. That said, could it provide individuals and our economy with even greater value? The exploration of that question was at the heart of the Independent Apprenticeship Policy Group (IAPG).

The Group, thanks to the support of Pearson, brought together 15 experts from across the world of apprenticeships, including employers, providers, assessment organisations and the learner voice. In 2018 I chaired the Commission on Sustainable Learning exploring how the broader education and skills system needs to evolve to meet future skills needs. Given their importance, we wanted now to focus on apprenticeships as a vital element of this country’s skills system.

We set out to provide a clear and independent overview of the challenges facing the apprenticeship system in this country, and to generate practical solutions. We focussed on three key themes:

1. Building a sustainable apprenticeship system

2. Supporting individuals to access and succeed

3. Measuring success to inform future investment

Firstly, a successful system is one that is sustainable and fit for the long term.

Investment in apprenticeship spending should remain employer-led. This needs to be within a structure of incentives set by government, and agreed with employers, creating a system that reflects the broader needs of our economy.

And as patterns of economic growth and skills shortages vary considerably across the regions of England the provision of training programmes should be able to adapt to local and regional circumstances.

We also highlight the contribution of small and medium enterprises and the importance of engaging them and ensuring the system helps them grow and thrive.

Secondly, we want the system to evolve to unlock the talent of more individuals to help them access and achieve.

Apprenticeships need to be properly signposted, valued and accessible, and we must invest more in one of our key resources – young people.

A consistent theme expressed to the IAPG was that the employer’s role needed to be clearer, and better supported. And we made a particular point of recommending that we must invest in apprenticeships in the key sectors that will be crucial to our future success. It is worth noting that last week IfATE published a consultation on setting funding bands which shows their thinking is going in the same direction.

Assessment needs to be fit-for-purpose, assessing exactly what learners, and businesses, need to succeed. In achieving this, softer skills and competencies, and highly technical skills, could be usefully tested as part of the programme, and before the end-point assessment.

In particular, the Group felt that to maintain high and consistent standards, one regulator, possibly Ofqual, needs to have overall responsibility for External Quality Assurance (EQA). I was pleased to see, last week, the publication of the IfATE consultation on a system where EQA is delivered by either Ofqual or, for integrated degree apprenticeships, the Office for Students (OfS).

Although much of the political focus is understandably on the recruitment of apprentices, progression should be a central feature of apprenticeships policy. Individuals need to be put at the heart of how progression is understood. The definition of progression needs to be a broad one and take account of what progression might look like for the individual.

Finally, apprenticeships are widely acknowledged to play a key part meeting skills needs and are critical to driving productivity gains within our economy. Finding a way to best measure productivity gains will help inform future investment and policy decisions.

The report was truly collaborative, bringing together a broad spectrum of experiences and ideas from across apprenticeships. Its authority rests on the vast expertise of the Group’s members. And every individual involved was clear about their support for apprenticeships, and their commitment to the success of the system. This commitment was key.

The potential value of apprenticeships to unlock talent and to contribute to the economy is significant. They already support thousands of individuals and employers to flourish, but we know they can achieve even more. The IAPG’s report and recommendations

builds on what is already working and suggests where we can make progress. With everyone agreeing with the value of apprenticeships, further and future success should be within our grasp.

Please see go.pearson.com/iapg, and follow us #IndAppGp