Colleges won’t see the wood for the trees without big data

With Ofsted focusing on curriculum intent, implementation and impact, colleges must be able to show they are truly responsive to local needs, says John Gray

Ofsted’s education inspection framework sets out three basic criteria by which a college’s curriculum will be assessed: intent, implementation and impact. Of these, intent is critical because it determines everything else. Get it wrong and everything else will be too.

Thankfully, the sector doesn’t need to guess at where its focus should be. Ofsted’s documentation is explicit that a “coherently planned and sequenced” curriculum should have as its intent “the needs of learners, employers, and the local, regional and national economy, as necessary.”

What Ofsted is looking for is nothing less than a vocational and technical sector producing curricula that give learners the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life, and which are highly responsive to the needs of employers at a local level.

It might be an obvious point, but it is not possible to achieve this without first getting a really good understanding of local employers’ needs. Nor is this something that can be done by relying on employer engagement. There are simply too many businesses in a college’s region; to find out their skills needs would be a Sisyphean task. Not that employer engagement is redundant, of course, but the most effective way to identify local skills needs to feed into curriculum planning is by combining it with detailed Labour Market Insight (LMI).

LMI use in colleges is sporadic. For some colleges it is a tick-box exercise to placate Ofsted, while others clearly see the huge potential it gives them, very often using it predominantly to look for the big, profitable emerging opportunities. Looking at the forest is good, but might there be opportunities to use the data to look a bit more closely at the trees as well?

Generic planning leaves students’ future progress to pot luck

The answer is yes, and a good example of this is around the expansion of digital skills. Over the past year, there have been about 280,000 job postings for programming and software development professionals in Britain. Using LMI, we can go deeper to identify the top skills employers want in these roles. In fact, 65,000 required C Sharp programming skills, while 43,000 asked for Amazon Web Services knowledge.

Generic planning for an IT curriculum leaves students’ future progress to pot luck, but we can zoom in further still. When we look at the more local level data, we find that the situation turns out to be more nuanced.Comparing four regions’ job postings over the past 12 months, big differences emerge. For example, of nearly 3,000 unique job postings in Outer London-South, Agile Software Development featured 737 times. It didn’t feature at all In Coventry, Derby and Sheffield. Server management skills were among the top four required skills in Coventry and Outer London-South, but didn’t feature in Derby or Sheffield.

This shows the importance of not just looking at the forest (more digital skills needed), nor even getting a little closer to look at the trees (hard skills demand across the nation). Rather, it illustrates the need to look much closer still, at the granular detail of the wood, to see which digital skills are in demand in each region. This is where the information that will inform effective curriculum planning and course design is to be found, with the potential to positively impact college performance and the post-qualification destinations of learners.

Of course there are limitations to what the data can tell us, and it certainly isn’t the definitive answer to Ofsted’s curriculum intent question. Yet, neither can “doing it for Ofsted” be the entire purpose. If the sector is to rise to the challenge of giving learners the skills local employers need, LMI is a crucial element.

The government must prevent any rationing of apprenticeship funding

The government looks likely to miss its apprenticeships target while running out of the money it set aside to meet it. Action is needed now, says Joe Dromey, because bigger problems are lurking

Two years ago the government introduced the apprenticeship levy in an effort to boost employer investment in skills and deliver their target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. Yet, as new Learning and Work Institute research shows, we are at risk of missing their target and blowing the budget.

The number of apprenticeship starts fell sharply following the levy’s introduction. There has been a recovery, but starts remain a fifth lower than pre-levy levels. At the same time – as was first revealed by FE Week – the levy is set to be over-spent next year by £1 billion.

At first glance, this is paradoxical, but two factors help to resolve these apparently contradictory trends.

First, apprenticeship standards – which were introduced at the same time as the levy with the aim of ensuring high-quality training – are more costly than anticipated.

Second, there has been a rapid growth in higher and degree apprenticeships, which tend to be more expensive. Over the past two years, while total apprenticeship numbers fell, starts at levels four and five doubled, and degree apprenticeships (levels six and seven) increased by a factor of 12.

This exponential increase in demand has been driven by large employers seeking to get the most out of the levy, with most going to existing workers and those aged over 25, rather than young people starting their careers.

The levy was designed on the assumption that unspent funds would be used to fund apprenticeships at SMEs. Our research shows that levy-paying employers are using about 80 per cent of the funding – higher than the 60 to 70 per cent the government had anticipated. That isn’t a bad thing in itself, but less money left by levy-payers means less funding for SMEs.

We’re already seeing the impact of the funding squeeze

We’re already seeing the impact of the funding squeeze. An AELP survey showed many providers were having to reduce or cease recruitment for SMEs. Our analysis suggests this could lead to 75,000 fewer apprenticeships at small firms, precisely those most likely to offer apprenticeships to young workers.

There is a strong case for government to act to prevent a creeping rationing of apprenticeship funding at SMEs.

We set out a balanced proposal to bridge the gap. We call for apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds to be funded out of the DfE budget – requiring an additional £400 million – and for a £150 million top-up for the SME budget.

We also call for measures to dampen the growth in higher and degree apprenticeships for older workers. Requiring employers to pay some of the costs of apprenticeships at level 4 and above for workers aged 25 and over from outside their levy funds would save more than £300 million. This is not to say there is no value in this training, but we would not want to see young people and SMEs lose out due to funding being sucked up by higher-level apprenticeships for older workers.

There are other potential solutions. The gap could be covered solely through additional funding, although with many areas crying out for investment after a decade of austerity, this is unlikely to happen. We could prevent employers from using levy funds altogether on apprenticeships above a certain level or on apprentices above a certain age. Or we could introduce a pre-apprenticeship salary cap as the former skills minister suggested.

However it is done, it is clear that there must be a decision. Ignoring it will not make it go away.

Because beyond this immediate challenge, the longer-term future of funding for training still needs consideration. Most have accepted the strong case for the levy, but there is less of a case for limiting this to apprenticeships. A future system could, for example, involve a more flexible skills levy which allows employers to invest in other forms of high-quality training, in return for larger contributions.

Given employers are more likely to invest in training higher skilled workers, government should also consider wider measures to ensure training is more evenly distributed, so that young workers and those with lower levels of qualifications will not lose out, and the system will focus both on boosting productivity and on delivering social justice.

Colleges may need to ignore DfE bribes to avoid unethical T-level enrolments

Colleges selected for T-level delivery from September 2020 have been showered with financial incentives – some might even call them Department for Education bribes. 

Hundreds of thousands of pounds for equipment, development, piloting, marketing and even a promise they can keep 100 per cent of the course income as long as they recruit at least 60 per cent of the planned students.

But, as our investigation shows this week, the biggest challenge for these ‘lucky’ few is likely to come in 2021, the second year of their courses, when students need to complete a 45 day mandatory T-level industry placement.

Scarborough Sixth Form College recently realised that there simply weren’t enough local employers in the digital sector and rightly walked away from that T-level pathway.

And the reaction they received from the new education secretary for making this tough decision, was praise.

But how many other colleges outside London or near digital employer hubs have been so honest in the face of this likely insurmountable challenge?

The former skills minister, Anne Milton, suggested to the education and skills committee in July 2018 that parents might want to “leave it a year” and see how successful T-levels prove.

Waiting might be impractical if your child is 15 years-old and finishing their GCSEs this year.

Rather than wait, savvy parents should demand (before enrolment) that colleges reveal which employer they have lined up for the industry placement.

And savvy college bosses shouldn’t recruit any young people without a commitment from the employer.

The DfE incentives for the 2020 providers must not be allowed to create conditions for unethical recruitment.

The sort of recruitment where learners are unable to finish their T-level because the closest available industry placement is 100 miles away.

UTC deficits more than double over 4 years, National Audit Office finds

University technical colleges’ deficits have more than doubled over four years, a damning National Audit Office report has revealed.

The government’s audit watchdog found that total deficits for the embattled 14 to 19 technical providers now constitute nearly a tenth of the total for every academy trust, after rising from £3.5 million in 2014/15 to £7.7 million in 2017/18.

The Department for Education has spent what was described by one union as an “eye-watering bill for the taxpayer” of £792 million on the UTC programme between 2010/11, when they were first set up, and 2018/19.

Despite the huge cash injection, the scheme has been hit with a catalogue of issues which FE Week has exposed over the years and which the NAO’s report lists, including unviable student numbers, multiple closures and poor Ofsted results.

Chair of the Public Accounts Committee Meg Hillier said the report “provides further evidence as to why the Department for Education is my top department of concern”.

Most of the £792 million was capital grants, but there was also £28 million to improve UTCs financial positions and £8.8 million to cover their deficits.

In too many cases, University Technical Colleges have proved to be expensive failures

The DfE has also spent £4.5 million on helping UTCs “improve” and £9 million on closing UTCs, which included the costs of writing off debts and staff redundancies.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady said too often UTCs have proved to be “expensive failures” that took funds away from the further education sector at a time when it most needed support.

Assistant general secretary of the National Education Union Nansi Ellis found it “shocking” that such a “staggering amount of money” has been spent on the “flawed model” of UTCs. 

The NAO has also found the 48 open UTCs were operating at 45 per cent of capacity at the end of January 2019, which it says has implications for their financial viability.

It reported that the Education and Skills Funding Agency has “significant concerns” about the finances of a quarter of the remaining UTCs (13 out of 48).

UTCs have attempted to remedy their recruitment and financial problems by applying to take on pupils from year 7, rather than from the age of 14 as they were originally intended to.

This month it was announced two UTCs have been granted permission to open to 11-year-olds from next September, after another UTC and before others are expected to follow suit.

They’ve also been actively encouraged by government to join multi-academy trusts to strengthen their position.

In 2017, the Department for Education embarked on a three-year project to improve UTCs’ finances and provision with two main measures of success: for the proportion of UTCs rated as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted to be the same as for free schools generally; and for the proportion of UTCs on the ESFA’s national concerns list to be the same as for academies generally.

However, the NAO has found UTCs are struggling to meet both counts: as of August 2019, as a proportion of schools inspected, Ofsted had rated 52 per cent of UTCs as good or outstanding, compared with 84 per cent of free schools.

This report records the price of everything and the value of nothing

And as of July 2019, 26 per cent of UTCs were on the ESFA’s list, compared with one per cent of academy trusts.

Responding to the NAO report, Lord Baker said it “records the price of everything and the value of nothing”.

“UTCs should be judged by the success of their students becoming apprentices, studying STEM subjects at a university and getting a job as a technician or an engineer. For that we have the best destination data of any schools in the country.”

The NAO did find a higher proportion of students from UTCs go into sustained apprenticeships after GCSEs and A-levels or their equivalents, compared with the national average.

He added that the DfE has encouraged the Baker Dearing Trust to make applications for new UTCs and they are working with local employers and universities for the next round in November.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We have been clear that the department is committed to ensuring people have access to high-quality technical education across the country.

“UTCs are helping to deliver on that, with 21 per cent of pupils progressing into apprenticeships after completing their post 16 education, more than double the national average. 

“As this report recognises, we have taken significant action to support and raise the profile of UTCs to make sure they continue to play a role in our diverse education system and provide the skills that employers need.” 

Apprenticeship budget overspend: small employers to face cap on starts

Small employers are likely to be capped on the number of apprentices they can employ, as part of the government’s plan to enable all providers to access funding for non-levy payers from January.

Keith Smith, the director of apprenticeships at the Education and Skills Funding Agency, announced today that every firm on the register of apprenticeship training providers will be able to engage with the programmes with small businesses on the digital apprenticeship system from the New Year.

It will more than double the number of providers with direct access to funding for non-levy payers, including most universities.

But recognising the strain on the apprenticeship budget, as first reported by FE Week and followed up by the National Audit Office, there will be restrictions on the number of starts for the employers.

“We’ll think about funding 15,000 or so starts initially through the online service,” Smith told the Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference.

“Over the next few days we’ll give you specific information about that scale of activity and how we’ll manage that on a month by month basis.

“From a provider’s point of view there will be no stop on cap. What we are thinking about is, purely for testing reasons, putting a cap on the number of apprentices per employer. We think that is a sensible way to try and control and test. What we want to see is how the service will operate to scale.

“There will probably be restrictions in relation to the number of transactions per employer rather than the number of providers.”

Smith added that the move to the apprenticeship service will provide “certainty” that funding is “going to be there going forward”.

“We will introduce something called ‘reserve my funding’, which will enable an SME with a provider to access and reserve apprenticeship opportunities into the system and bank that investment to know that their reservation is there, although it will only be held for a period of time,” he explained.

Speaking to FE Week after his speech, Smith said the ESFA will continue to look at the caps going forward, but confirmed there will be no more tendering for non-levy contracts for providers.

Small employers were meant to move onto the apprenticeship system in April 2019 but the agency delayed this by a year to ensure the roll out is successful. At this point it extended non-levy contracts for training providers until March 2020.

Smith said today that providers with current non-levy contracts will have them extended in April 2020, but there is no fixed deadline for when these will end.

“We’re going to now embark on a dual running and transition system,” he told AELP delegates.

“We’ll move from a contract led system to a service led system. There will not be a switch off and on.

“Contracts are currently the primary route for funding small business apprenticeships. Over time we’ll be switching to those being the secondary route and the digital system to the primary route and eventually we’ll switch off those contracts altogether.”

He continued: “If you have a non-levy contract you can continue to train on that contract, but you can also engage new opportunities from the online service. In essence there will be a dual running of the two services concurrently running in parallel.

“We’re not going to put a fixed time frame to how long that transition period works, but what we can give you assurance on is those non-levy contracts will continue to operate for as long as we think you’ll need them before we fully switch them off.

“We are looking at extensions on those contracts, we think that is a very safe and sensible thing to do, but it shouldn’t be confused with some sort of delay of not moving onto the new online service.

“As we go through next year we will start to think how we’ll scale down those contracts and scale up the online service.”

Highbury College principal to retire next summer

A principal at the centre of an expenses scandal announced her retirement today after 18 years at the helm.

Stella Mbubaegbu will leave her position at Highbury College in the summer next year. 

This follows accusations of the lavish spending of college funds, revealed by FE Week in September.

In a statement released on Highbury College’s website Stella Mbubaegbu CBE said: “In the summer of 2019, I informed my Board of Governors of my intention to retire from my post in a year’s time (end of July 2020).

“I deeply care about and am extremely proud of Highbury College. It has been an immense joy and privilege to serve the College, its diverse communities and the wider FE sector over the past two decades. 

“I am proud of my contributions to Highbury, steering the College through the turbulent times that FE has seen over the past 8 years with funding cuts and policy changes, positioning Highbury on the global education map, the transformation of the College estate, the uncompromising approach to educational and social inclusion and our Ofsted outstanding for 7 years.

“The Board will be initiating the search for my successor in the coming weeks, with my full support, and I will focus on continuing to lead this amazing College and its amazing staff and students with passion and commitment.”

She was awarded a CBE in the 2008 New Year Honours for services to further education.

Ministers ordered the FE Commissioner to investigate the principal’s “deeply concerning” corporate credit card use in September after £150,000 was spent in just four years.

More than 500 receipts obtained by FE Week showed college funds were spent on first class flights, five-star hotels, travel in luxury cars and a £350 bill – including a £45 lobster and nearly £100 on cocktails – at a Michelin star restaurant.

These expenses were exposed following a year-long freedom of information battle with the college, which is based in Portsmouth.

At the time Department for Education minister Lord Theodore Agnew, who oversees the FE Commissioner, said he and education secretary Gavin Williamson were “deeply concerned by these revelations” and he had “already asked the FE Commissioner to urgently look into this matter.”

“School and college leaders must treat taxpayers’ money with the utmost care and in a way that benefits their students. Where this does not happen we take the strongest possible action,” Lord Agnew added.

Mrs Mbubaegbu’s expenditure took place over a period of redundancies at the college, which axed its sixth form two months ago, amid deteriorating finances. The last time staff got a pay rise was in January 2013.

Its Ofsted grade also dropped from ‘outstanding’ to ‘requires improvement.’

Minutes published from a board meeting in May show international and first class travel have been restricted and lunch and alcoholic drink claims have been banned.

A £2,000 limit was also been placed on the principal’s corporate card although the college would not say whether this was a monthly or annual limit.

Yesterday FE Week revealed cladding at a college’s halls of residence for students under the age of 18, the type used on the Grenfell Tower, failed a safety test several months ago. 

The college also previously called in lawyers to recover a long-running £1.4 million debt held up in Nigeria, following a technical education project in the country.

One in five providers concerned about procurement process for devolved AEB

A fifth of providers believe adult education budget tenders run by devolved authorities need to be improved, with one saying bidding was a “nightmare”, according to new Association of Employment and Learning Providers research.

Ahead of their autumn conference in Manchester today, the AELP surveyed 93 providers on devolved AEB procurement after the budget was handed over to six mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority in August.

The survey found transparency in the bidding process was one area where changes should be made: one provider said it had been a “nightmare for bid writers” and respondents revealed they would not have bothered bidding if they had known only a few contracts were being awarded.

Twenty nine of the survey respondents won devolved AEB contracts for 2019/20, compared with 69 in 2018/19; and the value of those contracts was generally lower than last year as well, providers reported.

Respondents also complained unproven providers with good bid writers won over those with a good track record and a foothold in their local community.

The combined authorities also came in for criticism for their “poor” understanding of skills; and for “focusing on activity with residents over skills and employment partnership, so skills needs are now unmet”.

Asked which sectors or subjects they thought will be lost or significantly reduced to the point it would cause skills shortages in a devolved area, providers’ single greatest concern was for health and social care, followed by retail and commercial – but respondents acknowledged there are wider factors at play in that area.

Respondents wanted consistency across areas as well, saying dealings with some MCAs were “overly-complex”, while others were “too light touch to make credible judgements”.

Regulations also left providers vexed, with reports providers that complied with guidance were unsuccessful due to a technical point which appeared to contradict guidance.

FE Week approached the six mayoral combined authorities with an AEB devolution deal, as well as the Greater London Authority.

The GLA’s deputy mayor for skills Jules Pipe said: “As City Hall takes over responsibility for London’s share of the Adult Education Budget, we are working closely with education and skills providers and investing in new projects to ensure all Londoners have access to the training and education they need.

“Following significant engagement with the sector we awarded 29 contracts totalling £130 million to deliver the AEB programme, and are currently reviewing the key lessons learned from the procurement process.”

A spokesperson for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority said: “We have been evaluating the process for procuring services to develop a system which is accessible, transparent and delivers contracts that best meets our skills objectives.

“The report’s findings will be read with interest as part of our ongoing work to improve.”

The AELP said respondents gave a “reasonably positive verdict overall to the series of AEB tenders”, and chief executive Mark Dawe said it was hoped the survey will help combined authorities and the national government “finesse their approach during a recognised period of transition”.

Over 80 per cent of responses to the AELP’s survey said it was difficult or very difficult to engage with a lead or prime provider; only seven said it was easy or very easy.

The survey confirmed one reason for this was prime providers had a reduced budget, leaving them nothing left to subcontract out.

Another problem, according to the report, was: “Unsuccessful partners and others seeking subcontracts weren’t given the names of the AEB contract winners, so had to ring around to ask and sometimes couldn’t find who it was.”

But respondents also said contract winners were now seeking new partnerships, which indicated they requested more than they could use.

Dawe said: “We knew they were never going to be plain sailing and it was only the first year of a transitional process.

“If notice is taken of the AELP survey findings and the combined authorities start to procure more of the budget in future years, we could well be on the right track to the AEB delivering the much-needed skills that the English regions require.”

Ofsted watch: Week ends with flurry of new reports

It has been a mixed week for FE providers amid a flurry of new reports published on Friday by Ofsted, including the first 13 under the new Education Inspection Framework (EIF).

Nine providers were found to be ‘good,’ out of a total of 23 reports released today.

Those with grade two included six independent learning providers, one adult and community learning provider, one general further education college and one specialist college.

Two general further education colleges and the only employer provider to be assessed this week were graded “requires improvement.”

However, the only provider to receive a grade four told FE Week today that the company has appealed.

Independent learning provider Mercia Partnership (UK) Ltd was labelled ‘inadequate’ by the inspectorate after previously receiving a ‘good’ grade.

Employer provider Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust was graded as “requires improvement” in its first full inspection.

The healthcare service had 38 apprentices on a level 3 team leading standards-based apprenticeship during the inspection.

While inspectors found they enjoyed the programme and receive good support from staff, the report stated “apprentices do not benefit enough from a well-planned curriculum that links their theory sessions with workplace practice and assessment.”

Coventry College failed to improve its grade from “requires improvement” and received a grade three in every area that was assessed in the most recent inspection.

At the time of the inspection, 3,085 learners were on young people education programmes, 2,375 learners were on adult learning programmes and there were 463 apprentices.

Inspectors praised the new governors for having “a good understanding of the college’s curriculum” and providing “leaders with effective challenge to improve provision.”

The new college was formed when City College Coventry and Henley College Coventry merged in August 2017.

Ofsted stated learners and apprentices are generally positive about the quality of the training on offer but “many feel that it could be improved”.

The report criticised teachers and assessors at the college for “not routinely review learners’ and apprentices’ work well enough” and failing to provide “sufficiently helpful feedback for them to extend their knowledge.”

CEO of Coventry College Gill Banks said: “We are pleased that the report provides a fair outline of the improvements already made at Coventry College.

“The Ofsted process and the report itself have enabled us to focus our collective and continuing efforts in making sure Coventry College succeeds as the largest general further education provider in the heart of our regenerating and booming city.”

The Sheffield College, the other further general education college to receive grade three, “requires improvement” for the third inspection in a row.

In 2018/19, the college had over 15,000 learners and apprentices enrolled on courses.

The overall effectiveness of the quality of education, leadership and management, education programmes for young people, apprenticeships and provision for learners with high needs at the college all were considered to be of grade three standard.

Although the education watchdog praised the confidence, self-belief and career aspirations developed by staff in attendees, it stated “too many apprentices and learners on study programmes do not develop the knowledge and skills expected of them.”

The report also noted that senior leaders have “taken action to address the significant weaknesses in the quality of education” since the previous inspection.

Angela Foulkes, Chief Executive and Principal at The Sheffield College, said: “We are pleased that Ofsted has recognised our students enjoy their studies, feel safe and receive good pastoral support and that we have successfully improved adult education.

“We are committed to being a consistently great college and our staff are working hard on the areas that are not yet good.” 

Independent learning providers CQM Training And Consultancy Limited, Fuel Learning Limited and JM Recruitment Education & Training Ltd were graded ‘good’ in their first full inspections.

Other independent learning providers Norman Mackie & Associates Limited and Woodspeen Training Limited moved up from “requires improvement” to “good.”

Independent learning provider Digital Telecoms Network Academy Limited maintained its grade two as did general further education college North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College.

However, Kirklees Council Adult and Community Learning, the only adult and community learning provider to be graded this week, dropped from being considered “outstanding” to “good.”

Two specialist colleges, Expanse Group Ltd and Moulton College, received monitoring visits from Ofsted this week following grade three and grade four evaluations on previous inspections.

Expanse Group Ltd made ‘reasonable progress’ in the two themes assessed by the education watchdog but Moulton College was found to have made ‘insufficient progress’ in raising the expectations teachers have of what students should know and be able to do – one of three areas evaluated.

Independent learning provider CSJ Training Limited was assessed to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in two out of three themes for its adult learning provision after a monitoring visit.

These were “designing and delivering relevant adult learning provision that has a clearly defined purpose” and ensuring “learners benefit from high quality adult education that prepares them well” for their next steps.

In contrast, the other adult learning provider to receive a monitoring visit this week, Bock Consultancy & Personnel Development Limited, was graded as having made ‘reasonable progress’ across the board.

All six apprenticeship providers which received monitoring visits this week were graded as having made ‘reasonable progress’ in every assessed theme.

These were: Education and Skills Training & Development Limited, Elev8 Training Limited, Eliesha Training Limited, Grey Seal Academy Limited, Lean Engineering and Manufacturing Academy Limited and RM Training (UK) Limited.

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Bock Consultancy & Personnel Development Limited 12/09/2019 20/10/2019 M 3
CQM Training And Consultancy Limited 20/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 M
CSJ Training Limited 02/10/2019 21/10/2019 M N/A
Digital Telecoms Network Academy Limited 20/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 2
Education and Skills Training & Development Limited 10/10/2019 25/10/2019 M N/A
Elev8 Training Limited 01/10/2019 25/10/2019 M N/A
Eliesha Training Limited 03/10/2019 22/10/2019 M N/A
Fuel Learning Limited 27/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 M
Grey Seal Academy Limited 18/09/2019 21/10/2019 M N/A
JM Recruitment Education & Training Ltd 20/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 N/A
Lean Engineering And Manufacturing Academy Limited 13/09/2019 25/10/2019 M N/A
Mercia Partnership (UK) Ltd 20/09/2019 25/10/2019 4 2
Norman Mackie & Associates Limited 19/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 3
RM Training (UK) Limited 02/10/2019 24/10/2019 M N/A
Woodspeen Training Limited 13/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 3

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Kirklees Council Adult and Community Learning 27/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 1

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust 20/09/2019 25/10/2019 3 M

 

GFE colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Coventry College 20/09/2019 25/10/2019 3 3
The Sheffield College 27/09/2019 25/10/2019 3 3
North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College 27/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 2

 

Specialist colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Expanse Group Ltd 03/10/2019 21/10/2019 M 3
Freeman College 19/09/2019 25/10/2019 2 2
Moulton College 02/10/2019 21/10/2019 M 4

 

First Ofsted grade 4 challenged by provider

The first provider to receive grade four under Ofsted’s new inspection regime has appealed.

Independent learning provider Mercia Partnership (UK) Ltd, which delivers a range of apprenticeships and adult learning programmes, was found to be inadequate by Ofsted inspectors.

It received grade four in every assessed area except adult learning programmes, which received grade three.

A spokesperson for Mercia Partnership told FE Week the company has appealed the grade.

The report was one of the first 13 published by Ofsted today under the new Education Inspection Framework (EIF).

Ofsted would not confirm an appeal has been lodged.

A spokesperson for the inspectorate said: “We do not comment on complaints or correspondence with individual providers.”

Mercia Partnership operates from two centres in Lancashire and in East Sussex and has 147 apprentices and 51 learners studying adult learning programmes, funded through the advanced learner loan programme.

As of 2017/18 it provided training in 79 different local authorities, with over half of all provision being in health, public services and care and around one in five apprentices training in information and communication technology.

The majority of the apprenticeship delivery takes place in employers’ businesses and two subcontractors provide apprenticeship programmes in the north west and the south west of England, mainly in childcare.

Adult learning programmes take place in community venues across the country.

The critical report stated that learners and apprentices “do not experience a well-planned programme of study” and concluded the curriculum was “not fit for purpose” and “does not prepare them sufficiently for their future careers.”

The poor careers guidance and advice resulted in many apprentices facing redundancy or extensive periods of time on a lower wage, according to the education watchdog.

It claimed apprentices “receive a poor standard of training” and are “unhappy, unmotivated, and, in some cases, very angry about the quality of their training.”

The inspectorate also found that apprentices wasted their time in skills and knowledge training in topics they already knew before the scheme.

Leaders and managers were criticised for the failure to consult sufficiently with employers and industry organisations to develop appropriate content.

Ofsted found that high staff turnover had “a negative impact” on apprentices’ learning with frequent changes in assessors leaving “significant gaps” in the training programme.

The inspectors also criticised the lack of supervisory body and oversight over staff expertise and subcontractors.

Despite this, it deemed the quality of training at subcontractors as of a higher standard than that delivered by Mercia.

The report said that leaders were “culpable” and have failed to ensure programmes meet the requirements of an apprenticeship.

However, praise was reserved for the safeguarding arrangements at Mercia Partnership which were described as “effective” and “appropriate.”

All staff had received training on safeguarding and the ‘Prevent’ duty while leaders and managers also ensure that staff recruitment processes include appropriate checks on suitability.

Despite this, the report warned more links need to be nurtured with local agencies to gather intelligence and too many apprentices “could not confidently articulate” what steps to take to keep themselves safe from potential risks.

Ofsted concluded Mercia Partnership needed to urgently carry out a systematic review of the curriculum, ensure that all staff have the skills and knowledge to deliver apprenticeship programmes and rapidly improve the quality of education.

It also recommended that assessments must be fit for purpose and that the results are used by staff to plan learning that develops apprentices’ skills and knowledge and the quality of advice is improved so learners and apprentices have the knowledge required to make future choices.

This inspection of Mercia Partnership took place between September 17 and 20.

Prior to this the independent learning provider had been graded ‘good’ in the most recent full inspection in 2015, ‘requires improvement’ in 2014 and ‘satisfactory’ in both 2012 and 2008.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Mercia Partnership has been rated as inadequate by Ofsted. We are considering Ofsted’s report and will write to the provider in due course.”