It’s everyone’s role in colleges to embrace cyber security

Hannah H from National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) tells us why it’s vital that everyone in the FE sector understands their own role in protecting their networks

The possible impact of a cyber incident

Like all organisations, colleges are increasingly reliant on IT and technology and, as a result, are falling victim to a range of malicious cyber activity. In recent weeks, for example, we’ve seen reports about a significant data breach at Swindon College and an attack by a so-called “ethical hacker” at South Staffordshire College.

Think about all the services used by your college that rely on your IT systems: not just teaching and learning resources, but administrative functions too, perhaps your phones, CCTV, safeguarding records and maybe even the way you pay for your lunch.

Losing access to this technology, having funds stolen or suffering a data breach through a cyber attack can be devastating, both financially and reputationally.

Cyber attacks faced by colleges

Many cyber incidents at colleges are caused by untargeted attacks that can potentially impact hundreds of thousands of victims. Those behind these sorts of attacks are often cyber criminals, who deploy a range of tactics to make money, often through quite sophisticated technical means.

Phishing emails are commonplace and getting more and more difficult to spot, and the deployment of ransomware – which encrypts data to make it inaccessible, with victims then invited to pay a ransom to decrypt their information – is a risk too.

Targeted attacks are more specifically directed at an organisation. We recently heard of a head of HR receiving an email seemingly from the college principal requesting their salary should be paid into a different account that month.

Colleges also need to be alert to the risk posed by insiders, such as a disgruntled staff member or student, past or present, who wants to discredit the college or cause disruption.

Taking action

There are a range of measures colleges can take to make any attack less likely to succeed in the first place and, if they are affected, to reduce its impact. The NCSC website is a great place to start.

1.  Help all users understand their own role

An NCSC product already being used in many colleges is the Top Tips for Staff e-learning package. This covers essential information on issues such as choosing strong passwords and spotting potential phishing attempts. This resource could become part of mandatory staff training and ingested into your own eLMS system. Best of all, it’s totally free!

Boards are pivotal in improving the cyber security of their organisations

2.  Support technical teams

Many colleges have already been accredited through Cyber Essentials, a programme that ensures basic technical controls are in place. The Ten Steps To Cyber Security will also be of use to network managers and/or heads of IT. The NCSC website has detailed guidance on topics such as phishing and password policies.

3.  Lead from the top

We know that cyber security can be a daunting subject, but boards are pivotal in improving the cyber security of their organisations. The NCSC’s Board Toolkit was created to encourage essential discussions about cyber security to take place between the board and their technical experts.

4.  Check your cyber resilience

A particularly practical product is Exercise in a Box, which enables organisations to test their preparedness for a cyber incident with table-top exercises or simulations. Full guidance is given for each exercise – they don’t need to be led by an expert.

Get the right mindset!

It’s vital that we all know our role in keeping our networks and data safe. Colleges are an attractive target for cyber criminals and we want to ensure that, wherever the threat comes from, they are able to protect themselves in cyberspace.

We all have a part to play in keeping the UK the safest place to live and work online.

NCSC experts work closely with colleges and the wider academic sector to improve their security practices and help protect from cyber threats. For further information, please email enquiries@ncsc.gov.uk

Increasing transparency will improve students’ learning

Financial mismanagement and substandard teaching provision are often co-symptomatic. Enhanced financial transparency will help address financial mismanagement among poor-performing colleges, as well as improve educational experiences and outcomes, says Lawrence Barton.

Barely a week goes by without news of yet another further education college navigating its way into financial difficulty, either through mismanagement or impropriety. It really is time for concerted action to prevent it, for the good of the sector.

Less than a fortnight ago saw the conclusion of FE Week’s own year-long Freedom of Information (FOI) battle with Highbury College. The findings shed light on the lavish chauffeur-driven lifestyle of its principal, Stella Mbubaegbu, and the splashing of college funds on first-class flights, five-star hotels and lobster dinners – all at a time of salary freezes, job cuts and plummeting Ofsted ratings for the college.

Last Wednesday offered news of the latest rescue bid to save the ailing City College Southampton, which has been limping from one taxpayer-funded bailout to another.

The next day, the government revealed that it is “carefully monitoring” an independent investigation into allegations regarding the management of Hull College Group, including reports of nepotism and inappropriate use of college funds by management staff. It has subsequently been revealed that this “independent” investigation is to be led by the college’s own lawyer.

This culture of financial mismanagement and aversion to public accountability is unsustainable. Not only is it unfair on the thousands of learners who pass through the college system every year, but it also paints an unfair picture of the college system as a whole. Despite the multitude of negative stories, the bulk of our country’s FE colleges are in good financial health and offer quality teaching to their students. Reform is needed to address the minority of colleges who let the rest of the sector down.

The Department for Education’s pledge that there is to be an end to the long-term bailouts available to colleges is a much-needed step. Hadlow College represented a watershed moment for the sector. For too long, the attitude of further education colleges being “too big to fail” only fostered an attitude of financial irresponsibility among some college chiefs, safe in the knowledge that further funding was just a phone call away.

The expansion of education minister Lord Agnew’s brief to include financial oversight of colleges and his commitment to improve college governance structures is also needed. Similarly, proposals for financial ratings reports to form part of Ofsted’s inspection remit will help to identify the financial health of all providers. But the department needs to go further.

Financial mismanagement and substandard teaching provision are often co-symptomatic

Financial mismanagement and substandard teaching provision are often co-symptomatic. Beyond their weak financial health, a common thread linking Hull, Southampton City and Highbury colleges is their poor teaching standards. It is not just the public purse that suffers; students and communities are being let down too, with knock-on effects on long-term prosperity.

The unwillingness of colleges such as Highbury to disclose senior management spending is unacceptable. Action is needed.

Just as enhanced transparency of MPs’ spending in the wake of the 2009 Westminster expenses scandal has done much to restrict irresponsible spending and restore public confidence, the college sector needs an equivalent.

The Department for Education should mandate the automatic public disclosure online of all senior management spending above a given threshold for colleges in receipt of significant public funding who have an Ofsted rating below that of “good”.

This enhanced transparency and improved public oversight would do much to deliver a culture shift among poorly performing colleges and their management. Incentivising college leaders to show greater financial discipline will increase the likelihood of financial wrongdoing being spotted sooner.

Such a culture change within the sector will benefit taxpayers for sure, but it must be driven by more than financial probity to capture broad support. There is a strong case to be made for the betterment of learners’ education and the sustainability of the skills industry as a whole.

London to clamp down on funding for out-of-area colleges

Eastleigh is one of over 30 colleges that could lose millions as part of plans to end out-of-area providers subcontracting in London, FE Week can reveal.

The Greater London Authority proposal, approved by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, will come into effect from 2021-22 – the third year of devolution of the adult education budget.

Currently, the GLA provides around £14 million of AEB grant funding to providers located further than what is considered to be a “reasonable travel-to-learn distances for London learners”.

The GLA will be able to redirect funding to those providers delivering directly to London learners

Officials say the majority of this funding is subcontracted to training providers based in London who are then charged a “substantial” management fee.

“By restricting the number of out-of-London providers it grants to, the GLA will be able to redirect funding, including subcontracting management fees, to those providers delivering directly to London learners with the local knowledge and understanding to ensure it meets the needs of the local community most effectively,” the GLA said.

It comes after the authority introduced the first-ever cap on management fees in subcontracting deals. From August 2019, providers with direct AEB contracts with the GLA are expected to limit the management charge to a maximum of 20 per cent of the funding.

Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said his organisation “strongly supports” a reduction in top slicing and “more direct delivery is also desirable”.

However, he warned this shouldn’t “necessarily preclude national providers from winning contracts if they have a demonstrable presence in the area and show good knowledge of it”.

Click to enlarge

Mary Vine-Morris, the area director for London at the Association of Colleges, said the GLA’s proposed policy is an “inevitable consequence of adult education budget devolution”.

News of the move comes in the same week that Education and Skills Funding Agency boss Eileen Milner sent a sector-wide letter cracking down on poor subcontracting practice.

It was sent amid high-profile subcontracting scandals, the latest of which involves Brooklands College. FE Week has also previously exposed examples where management fees have risen to as much as 40 per cent.

Mirroring the GLA, Milner’s letter said the government is considering placing “limits on the permitted geographical distance between a directly-funded institution and the location where subcontracted provision is delivered”.

To determine which providers are within reasonable travel-to-learn distances for London learners, the GLA has adopted the ESFA’s definition of London’s “fringe” (see map).

For those providers based outside the fringe – typically more than 30 miles away from central London – the authority said it has notified and invited them to make a business case for why their funding should continue based on the type of provision they offer and the groups of learners they support.

FE Week analysis shows there are 33 colleges based more than 30 miles away from central London which are currently grant funded with the GLA to deliver AEB in the capital.

One of the largest college groups in the country, NCG, has its headquarters based nearly 250 miles away in Newcastle and currently holds a GLA contract worth £10.4 million.

However, two colleges in its group – Lewisham and Southwark – are located in London. A spokesperson for NCG said they have been notified that “we are recognised as a London provider”.

Eastleigh College, which is based 65 miles away from central London, has a contract with the GLA totalling £3.4 million.

It has a history of high-level subcontracting, as highlighted in the latest subcontracting figures published by the government, which are for the 2016-17 academic year.

The college subcontracted to 58 providers in that year and charged a 22 per cent top-slice on average.

Jan Edrich

Principal Jan Edrich said Eastleigh is now “concerned about the future of the priority area provision (Functional Skills in English, maths and IT) that we have provided Londoners for many years”.

“We are working closely with the GLA to understand how we can support them to achieve their objectives over the next few years,” she added.

Elsewhere, Strode College has a contract with the GLA worth £379,000 this year, and is based 115 miles away from central London. It currently subcontracts all of this funding out to a provider in the capital called Yeti, which is charged a 20 per management fee.

A spokesperson said the college “agrees that the training provider should be based within 30 miles of central London, employing London quality training staff delivering to London residents”.

However, the training providers the college has “partnered with, have clearly stated they prefer to focus on delivering outstanding training to their learners and rely on Strode College to efficiently manage compliance and quality for a value for money management fee”.

The spokesperson added they will not be making a business case to the GLA to continue this relationship.

Derby College, based 112 miles away from central London, has a GLA contract worth £672,000 for this year. A spokesperson said the college is in “early discussions” with the authority on the impact of its grant funding plan.

East Sussex Colleges Group is based more than 50 miles away from central London and has a current GLA contract worth £383,000.

Its executive director for strategic partnerships and engagement, Dan Shelley, said the college “respects devolution decisions and will continue to work with the GLA to deliver provision that meets their identified priorities”.

Click to enlarge

“To that end ESCG is seeking more information on the business case process so we can continue to deliver our programmes to disadvantaged adults in the capital,” he added.

Gateshead College, based nearly 250 miles away from central London, has a contract with the GLA worth £560,000.

Its deputy principal, Chris Toon, said all of this funding is delivered directly by the college’s own staff who are based at a site near the capital.

“The programmes were not subcontracted to any other organisation and given our extensive experience of directly delivering national skills programmes, we will continue to tender for work where we feel it is appropriate and in line with our expertise,” he added.

A decision on those providers in scope for continued grant funding will be made by the GLA “before the end of 2019”.

The move will free up a chunk of AEB funding, and the GLA has said it will consult on how best to use this as part of its next Skills for Londoners framework consultation, which will launch in February.

Options could include running a separate AEB procurement exercise or funding uplifts for certain learners and qualifications.

Ofsted watch: Mega apprenticeship provider making ‘significant progress’ after grade three

A major financial services provider to high-profile employers and over 3,500 apprentices, has made ‘significant progress’ following a previous bad result, while others scored reasonably well in this week’s run of Ofsted reports.

Kaplan Financial, which also has 10 adult learners and 185 advanced learner loan learners, was downgraded to a grade three last year, but has impressed inspectors by making ‘reasonable progress’ in three areas and ‘significant progress’ in improving the management of underperforming subcontractors.

“Leaders and managers have been highly effective in improving the quality of learning that apprentices receive through subcontracting arrangements,” inspectors wrote.

The independent training provider, which has worked with employers including British Airways, Eurostar and Morrisons Supermarkets, has gone about these improvements by cutting the number of organisations it subcontracts with from nine at the last inspection, to two.

Kaplan has also decided to only deliver apprenticeships in the future, so has been incrementally reducing its adult learning provision, while it implemented a “more rigorous” due diligence and associated operating procedure for remaining providers.

This, the report reads, is to ensure “the quality of education and training for these apprentices is of at least the same standard as that provided by Kaplan”.

Independent training provider The Number 4 Group also performed well, scoring two ‘significant progress’ ratings and one ‘reasonable progress’ rating in its Ofsted report.

Four learners were enrolled in construction skills for building site operatives and door supervisor courses at the time of the inspection, and inspectors wrote: “Managers have successfully designed programmes that allow learners to gain the relevant accreditation.”

Particular praise was paid to the senior management team for their “clear vision” of how their provision can help unemployed adults to return to the job market.

The provider works with JobCentre Plus, charities and employers to address regional skills shortages, and it uses government funding “effectively” to overcome learners’ economic and social barriers.

Safeguarding is given a “very high priority” by leaders and managers, and all staff are fully trained in the area.

It wasn’t all good news however, as N&B Training Company, which offers level 2 adult courses and apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3 to 440, dropped from grade two to three this week.

Inspectors found leaders had made slow progress in handling recommendations from the previous inspection report, so too few apprentices benefit from high-quality feedback to improve their work.

Additionally, staff lack confidence in developing learners’ knowledge of the dangers of radicalisation and extremism.

It is also reported the quality of teaching, learning and assessment is not consistently good for all learners, which has been blamed on high staff turnover negatively impacting upon learners’ progress.

One example the watchdog picked out was the business apprentices who are making less than expected progress, while leaders, managers and training coordinators are “unclear” about how many of those apprentices have a substantial amount of work to complete to achieve their apprenticeship.

But the provider was praised for the high timely achievement rates of apprentices in 2017/18 and for the design of programmes meeting employers’ needs “effectively”.

Templegate Training Academy CIC earned two ‘insufficient progress’ and one ‘reasonable progress’ ratings from an early monitoring visit of its provision to 19 adult learners.

The provider’s main curriculum intent was until recently to provide functional skills to ethnic minority learners, but inspectors wrote: “Leaders and managers are not meeting the learning needs of local minority ethnic communities” as per the stated aims and ambitions.

The major functional skills programmes on offer had ceased by the time of the inspection; the provider’s remaining curriculum offer was small and directed at other learner groups.

Templegate’s designated safeguarding lead is unable to provide appropriate support to any at-risk learners, as they had not developed any links with relevant external agencies.

But leaders do demonstrate a good understanding of British values, and learners on the provider’s diploma programmes gain skills and knowledge for their intended careers.

Beats Learning Limited and Digital Marketing Mentor Limited scored three ‘reasonable progress’ ratings in early monitoring visits.

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Beats Learning Limited 11/09/2019 01/10/2019 M N/A
Digital Marketing Mentor Limited 11/09/2019 03/10/2019 M N/A
Kaplan Financial Limited 30/09/2019 04/10/2019 M 3
N&B Training Company Limited 23/09/2019 30/09/2019 3 2
Templegate Training Academy CIC 12/09/2019 03/10/2019 M N/A
The Number 4 Group Limited 04/09/2019 30/09/2019 M N/A

AELP accuses DfE of ‘sidestepping’ with £515k tender to engage SMEs in apprenticeships

The government has come under fire for planning to spend £500,000 helping small employers get “onboarded onto the Apprenticeship Service”.

A tender was launched last week by the Department for Education seeking a supplier to help “intermediaries”, such as local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and membership organisations, ensure non-levy payers engaging in apprenticeships are aware of the transition to the digital system.

“Apprenticeships are a key feature of the government’s educational policy”, the procurement, worth up to £515,000, says, “with specific ambitions to improve quality and ensure all employers offering apprenticeships are onboarded onto the Apprenticeship Service – be they levy-paying or otherwise.

“Intermediaries, including LEPs, have a significant role to play in helping government achieve these goals through using their existing employer networks and understanding of local skills needs.”

The DfE has been inviting non-levy payers to test the Apprenticeship Service – where employers can manage apprenticeship funding and pick standards, frameworks and end-point assessment organisations – since the summer.

Previously only companies which pay the apprenticeship levy, so those with a pay bill of over £3 million, could access the service.

The ESFA original aimed to have all small employers on the digital system by April 2019, but had to delay this for a year.

But the tender has been criticised by Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, who said: “Why does the government need to do this when there are local networks of providers who would have no difficulty in finding SMEs across the country willing to offer apprenticeship opportunities? They are just sidestepping the obvious solution.”

AELP research in August found three-quarters of training providers could not meet demand from such businesses for apprenticeship provision, showing that engaging small-to-medium enterprises in apprenticeship delivery is not so much of a problem.

Dawe has called for greater funding to be put towards the apprenticeships budget, due to a shortage of funding for SME apprenticeships that he warned could become worse.

The Department for Education defended the tender: “The aim of this initiative is to make sure all avenues are being pursued in the engagement of small businesses in apprenticeship delivery,” a spokesperson said.

“Of course, we are aware of the local networks of providers, but this is an additional option to connect more employers with apprenticeships.”

The ESFA allocated a £500 million funding pot to providers to deliver apprenticeships to small employers between January 2018 and March 2019.

Contracts were then renewed for another year while the digital system is prepared.

As FE Week has reported, last year’s funding pot had been exhausted by February 2019 and providers were having to turn learners away.

Shortly afterwards, the Federation of Small Businesses went public with “serious concerns” over how the budget was being handled, having found 41 per cent of businesses had reported an increase in costs related to recruiting and training apprentices since the system reforms in 2017.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education warned the budget could be overspent by £0.5 billion in 2018/19 and £1.5 billion in 2021/22, which FE Week was first to report upon in December 2018.

Applicants to the DfE’s tender, which must be not-for-profit organisations, have until October 11 to bid.

Counter fraud becomes 500th approved apprenticeship standard

Counter fraud investigator has become the 500th apprenticeship standard approved for delivery by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

The level 4 standard, with a maximum funding band of £15,000, has been approved just eight months after the institute passed the 400 approved standards mark in January.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said it was “fantastic news” to have reached this milestone.

“This is a great achievement and means there are now more high-quality apprenticeship opportunities available than ever before,” he added.

The counter fraud programme was developed by the Cabinet Office, HMRC, and the Department for Health and it is hoped it will be used by both central and local government

It may be of use to the Department for Education, as this news comes a day after Education and Skills Funding Agency chief executive Eileen Milner warned providers her agency will act against providers acting fraudulently in subcontracting deals.

The chief executive of the Civil Service John Manzoni said: “This apprenticeship is an important milestone for the government counter fraud profession.

“It represents the first means of direct entry into the profession and as such will be integral to embedding a baseline standard of highly skilled professionals across the counter fraud community.”

Standards were introduced in March 2016 as replacements for the old apprenticeship frameworks, as part of the government’s sweeping reforms to the system.

The pace at which standards are approved has doubled since the institute instituted its ‘faster and better’ scheme in December 2017.

After employers complained the approvals process was too slow and bureaucratic, the scheme was intended to cut through the red tape and streamline the process.

Of reaching the “impressive landmark” of 500 approved standards, institute chief executive Sir Gerry Berragan said: “We will ensure through our reviews process that all standards remain relevant and in demand by employers.”

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 292

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

Elizabeth Taylor, chief executive, Employment Related Services Association

Start date: November 2019

Previous job: Interim chief executive, Employment Related Services Association

Interesting fact: She was once the social enterprise champion for Lancashire.

John Kerr, managing director, Develop Training

Start date: July 2019

Previous job: Operations director, Develop Training

Interesting fact: He spent his upbringing playing in brass bands.

Nancy Doyle, vice chair, Employment Related Services Association

Start date: September 2019

Concurrent job: Chief executive, Genius Within CIC

Interesting fact: She has appeared on BBC Two’s Employable Me.

Richard Clifton, chair, Employment Related Services Association

Start date: September 2019

Concurrent job: Chief commercial officer, Shaw Trust

Interesting fact: He is a lifelong Leicester City supporter.

Even a mastermind would fail to keep up with complex, changing and contradictory subcontracting rules

My specialist subject on Mastermind would be the ESFA funding rules for subcontracting.

I can quote documents and paragraphs for every year going back a decade because my business has in part grown by personally delivering commercial training to help colleges and training providers stay on the right side of the increasingly complex and confusing rules.

In 2011 I even wrote a guide to subcontracting policy, commissioned, funded and published by a government quango.

In addition, FE Week has typically been first to report rule changes and expose when they have been broken.

So I feel well placed to comment on the ESFA’s latest letter, a decade too late, threatening yet more subcontracting rules following the £20 million scandal at Brooklands College.

But first the ESFA need to get their own house in order.

The ESFA letter to providers ends with current ‘Subcontracting Requirements and Intervention and Oversight Policies’. 

Eight documents with a total of 426 pages, plus a lengthy webpage, all liable to be updated at any time during the contractual year.

But, even these documents don’t include summary of changes or other ESFA documents doing the rounds, all of which can contradict the rules.

Mastermind question one: Should apprenticeship providers reduce the price when subcontracting to an employer?

In March 2018, ten months into the contractual year, the ESFA published version 6 of the 2017/18 funding rules.

Alongside the rules was an 8 page summary of changes document, which included conflicting “clarifications”.

One clarification said the overall price should not be reduced: “Where an employer is legitimately delivering training or providing an eligible cost the overall price should not be reduced.”

Another clarification said the price should be reduced to exclude profit: “where the employer is the delivery sub-contractor actual costs must be used. An employer should not make a profit on the delivery to their own employees.”…“we will only pay actual costs and this must be recorded”.

When I asked the ESFA for an explanation at the time they emailed me to say: “we mean that the overall price should not be discounted to completely remove the employer element”.

Mastermind question two: When should apprenticeship providers apply the subcontracting rules to an employer if the employer delivers some of the relevant training themselves?

When seeking clarity from the ESFA in March 2017, they said the following: “All providers should be clear that any delivery of training is classed as sub-contracting, regardless of who is delivering it, the volume or the financial amount.”

So far so clear, and I think nearly all providers would today say the answer to the question is “always”.

But they would be wrong.

It seems this rule was quietly changed last month, with no update to the funding rules, in an obscure document, updated for the third time, associated with the off-the-job training policy.

Buried away on page 31 of version three of the ESFA’s “Apprenticeship off-the-job training: policy background and examples” document, published on the 13 September 2019, is paragraph 109.

It states: “If the employer is delivering relevant training associated with the apprenticeship framework or standard, without which the apprenticeship cannot be achieved, then they are potentially a subcontractor. The acid test is whether apprenticeship funding is being used”… “if the employer is not accessing apprenticeship funding then they are not considered to be a subcontractor.”

So there you have it, a significant change to the subcontracting rules that are not even published in the funding rules.

If we are to expect providers to play this game the answers needs to be consistent and clear.

This may all sound complex, and it is, but it sits at the core of the problem for the ESFA.

They have to get a grip of both their communications and rules – which have spiralled out of all control over the last few years.

If they cannot do it, then the job should go to an agency that can.

Mastermind question three: If the technical machinations of the funding rules are not understood by anyone then what hope is there to enforce them?

Answers on a postcard please…

Flagship rail college hopes new name and broader offering will put it back on track

The National College for High Speed Rail is ploughing ahead with a new name and broader course offer, following a multi-million pound government bailout.

After consulting earlier this year, the government’s flagship college is changing its name to the National College for Advanced Transport and Infrastructure and intends to offer a wider range of courses at its Birmingham and Doncaster campuses.

Chief executive of the college Clair Mowbray said: “As an employer-led college, it’s key we ensure the skills we equip our learners with meet the demands and the skills shortages of the broader advanced transport and infrastructure sector.”

She quoted figures from the Strategic Transport Apprenticeship Taskforce which estimate 50,000 more people are needed to work in the rail sector; 41,000 to fill roles on the road network; and 180,000 to deliver the Heathrow Expansion project.

“There is huge demand across the sectors and the name change reflects our dedication to delivering and developing our curriculum to meet industry demands,” Mowbray continued.

This name change coincides with delays and costing problems with the HS2 project, which is meant to deliver a high-speed rail link from London to the north and is closely aligned with the college.

Mowbray developed the college while working at the company responsible for the project, HS2 Ltd, which has lent her college £2,906,000 in 2018 and £2,804,000 in 2017.

But completion of the first phase of HS2, between London and Birmingham, will probably be pushed back until 2040, transport secretary Grant Shapps told parliament last month, and the budget for the project could increase by around £20 billion.

NCHSR’s rebrand comes after FE Week reported in May the National College for High Speed Rail needed a £4.55 million bailout from the Department for Education to sign off its 2017-18 accounts, that the provider would not need to pay back.

However, what will need to be paid back – by 2030 – is a working capital loan of £8.3 million in 2017-18 that was necessary “to help with startup costs that have been incurred in establishing the college,” according to a spokesperson.

This is not the only national college to run into difficulty since the scheme was launched with £80 million of taxpayers’ money in 2014.

National College Creative Industries is consulting on dissolving and instead starting a new company, NCCI Ltd, which would franchise classroom provision and its building out to South Essex College and apprenticeship provision to Access Creative College. NCCI’s move came after it made it through 2017-18 as a “going concern” thanks to a £600,000 bailout from the Department for Education.

Despite a target to recruit 1,000 learners a year, it only recruited 167 between May 2018 and May 2019.

Following the bailout, then-skills minister Anne Milton announced NCCI would be going through a structure and prospects appraisal to identify partners.

The DfE launched an evaluation of the national college policy in November, to avoid making mistakes in the rollout of the Institutes of Technology, of which eight more were announced this week by education secretary Gavin Williamson (see page 14).