The new boss of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has called for an additional £750 million of government money to prop-up small businesses’ apprenticeships.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Jennifer Coupland said the apprenticeship levy has meant small businesses have cut their training by ten per cent, while levy-payers have increased theirs by 20 per cent.

“It is time for the government to lean in more to support small and medium-sized businesses, to plug that gap,” Coupland said.

The institute’s chief executive, who started late last year, wants an extra £750 million, which she says would cover the cost for about 85,000 apprenticeships which non-levy payers cannot fund, in order to reach parity in the number of apprenticeships started by large and small employers.

FE Week was first to report, in 2018, the IfATE’s predictions that the levy would be overspent.

Coupland’s comments follow repeated warnings from organisations like the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) that the levy shortages meant small to medium enterprises were being cut out of apprenticeship funding.

Most recently at the beginning of this month, when an AELP survey found more than half of non-levy providers said their funding allocation was not sufficient to cover both the cost of existing apprentices and of new starts from an SME.

The Department for Education’s permanent secretary Jonathan Slater told the Public Accounts Committee last March that “hard choices” would have to be made in the face of the imminent overspend

And today Coupland admitted: “There is not sufficient money available for these small and medium-sized businesses and that’s what we need to improve upon.”

But the former director of professional and technical education in the Education and Skills Funding Agency appears to oppose attempts to stop levy-payers spending the cash on higher-level apprenticeships, which the AELP wants taken out of the scope of levy funding.

This is because she believes they fill skill gaps that have been identified by employers and IfATE is an “employer-led organisation” which wants to give employers “what they need out of the apprenticeship programme”.

And she said it would be “wrong” to broaden the scope of the levy to smaller businesses, or increase the percentage businesses pay.

The government has already put forward its own solution to the problem of SME apprenticeships by allowing small employers on to the digital apprenticeship service to access funding; until now, this had been open only to levy-payers.

Ofsted’s chief inspector is still “not happy” that some colleges steer too many of their students towards “superficially attractive” arts and media courses where there are limited job opportunities.

Amanda Spielman reiterated this concern, which she first raised at the 2018 Association of Colleges’ conference, during her speech at the watchdog’s annual report launch this morning.

She said the minority of colleges simply try to “fill their rolls and attract funding”, whether or not the programmes they offer “open doors for the students that take them”.

“This doesn’t mean that the courses the young people are taking are completely worthless, but flooding a local job market with young people with say low-level arts and media qualifications when the big growth in demand is for green energy workers, will result in too many under-employed and dissatisfied young people and wind turbines left idle,” Spielman told the audience.

“So we need a clearer focus on matching skills to opportunities not just for Brexit. Many FE providers operate in places the government says it wants to level up, what better way to level up than to radically improve the quality of vocational and skills education in our towns.

“But it does also mean tackling the small minority of our colleges that have under-performed or been stuck for years.”

She added that the government must think “strategically” about skills and how the FE sector is funded and “encouraged to provide the right courses of the right quality”.

When Spielman first spoke out about the “mismatch” between the numbers of students taking arts and media courses and their “future employment in the industry” in November 2018, she said the qualifications give learners “false hope”.

Her controversial comments made headlines in The Guardian, The Times and the Daily Mail.

In Ofsted’s annual report, the watchdog said high levels of management and health apprenticeships are a “mismatch” compared to the government’s industrial strategy and needs to be addressed “urgently” (full story here).

After today’s speech, she told FE Week: “There is always a balance in the system.

“It is very important to have a level of local autonomy in decision making but the funding of post-16 education is, there is a strategic and tactical alignment to it.

“I am encouraging government to make use of the powers that it has to decide where and how to channel money to help make sure that overall we do the best job we can for young people.”

High levels of management and health apprenticeships are a “mismatch” compared to the government’s industrial strategy and needs to be addressed “urgently”, Amanda Spielman has said.

In Ofsted’s annual stock take of education, the chief inspector revealed that performance in the FE sector has “remained static this year”, but the “rapid growth” of apprenticeships is a concern.

Out of every 100 apprenticeships started in 2018/19, the watchdog found that 15 are health apprenticeships, 12 are business management, only six are in construction, five in ICT and five in engineering.

Business management and health accounted for almost half of all higher-level apprenticeships started last year.

“This does not appear to align well with our grand challenges as a country,” Spielman said.

She explained that the latest update to the industrial strategy highlighted four “grand challenges” that need to be met for the country’s future economic prosperity: artificial intelligence and data, ageing society, clean growth and future of mobility.

However, the industrial strategy “fails to recognise that the skills our nation needs may depend on the scale of apprenticeship delivery, particularly at higher levels”.

The FE sector needs to work “much more in tandem with the government’s industrial strategy”.

The chief inspector added that too many training providers are “not clear on the purpose of an apprenticeship” and as a result, their provision can “lack adequate sequencing or attention to education outside the workplace”.

“The gap between knowledge and skills required for our country and future and current provision remains, in particular in relation to a lack of training for low-skilled workers.”

Spielman concluded: “The apprenticeship funding system needs to target levy money more directly to skills shortages.”

Today’s annual report also confirmed what FE Week had revealed in October: 78 per cent of all general FE colleges were rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ as of August 31, 2019, up from 76 per cent in 2017/18.

It went on to show that the proportion of private providers placed in the top two grades has fallen from 78 per cent to 76 per cent.

Meanwhile, the proportion of ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ community learning providers increased from 88 per cent to 91 per cent.

Overall, 81 per cent of inspected FE and skills providers are in the top two grades.

 

 

Sector bodies have hit back at Ofsted’s chief inspector for “encouraging government” to restrict course choices made by colleges and employers.

One leader said putting restrictions on how firms can spend their cash risks “further reducing training opportunities in lots of workplaces”, while another warned that Whitehall “choosing winners” has a “very chequered history”.

The education watchdog’s 2019 annual report, published this morning, urged for the “mismatch” between apprenticeships currently being delivered and the industrial strategy to be “urgently addressed”.

Whitehall ‘choosing winners’ has a very chequered history

Amanda Spielman then said during her speech she is still “not happy” with some colleges “flooding” the economy with students on “superficially attractive” arts and media courses where there are limited job opportunities.

Speaking to FE Week after the event, the chief inspector said it is “very important to have a level of local autonomy in decision making” but there should be a “strategic and tactical alignment” to post-16 funding.

“I am encouraging government to make use of the powers that it has to decide where and how to channel money to help make sure that overall we do the best job we can for young people,” she added.

Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s lead on FE and skills, added: “Government needs to think, does it need to have more of a role in prioritising provision through its leavers, through funding for example, about what courses are funded, what sectors are funded and more about prioristing exactly what is needed.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, insisted that colleges are “experts at offering people the chance to succeed, no matter their circumstance or background” and any intervention by officials “must not come at the expense of this”.

“The relationship between course subject and employment outcomes is a complex one, as we know from the numbers of students who learn broad-based skills, confidence and self-esteem which support their careers in a variety of sectors,” he told FE Week.

“It would be wrong to suggest that we can simply match every student into a course which leads directly to a job, not least because the labour market changes rapidly, requiring skills and the ability to learn new things and to adapt.”

Hughes added that colleges would “welcome” discussions about what success looks like, but the “purpose and role of colleges is not static and cannot be defined purely by how many students in a discipline go directly into jobs in that sector.

“Many will study further, at higher levels or will use their skills transferable in other sectors and be very successful as a result.”

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said the government “already uses two major levers” to incentivise education providers to follow a preferred policy pathway: accountability and funding.

He added: “As the majority of their [sixth form colleges] students go on to higher education, colleges consider the long term prospects of their students alongside the immediate needs of the local labour market to ensure they are on the right courses with the right career plan.”

Encouragement and incentivising is one thing; curtailing choice is quite another

Defending apprenticeship choices, Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “If the transition of small and medium-sized employers on to the digital apprenticeship service goes smoothly and is supported by additional and urgently needed funding from the government, we believe that government should not be interfering in employers’ choice of apprenticeships.

“Whitehall ‘choosing winners’ has a very chequered history and at a time when business is already facing uncertainty over which way Brexit will land, the last thing employers need across different regions is being told how to spend the levy.

“Encouragement and incentivising is one thing; curtailing choice is quite another.”

And Matthew Percival, the Confederation of British Industry’s director for people and skills policy, said: “It’s important to every business that they are able to invest in training their workforce. The apprenticeship levy was supposed to help, but it has forced firms to focus on one form of training above all others.

“Putting more restrictions on how firms can spend their funds risks further reducing training opportunities in lots of workplaces.

“That’s why it’s vital that the government starts a consultation on the future of the system in the budget, including turning it into a flexible skills levy that will support higher levels of investment in training.”

The Social Mobility Commission has urged government to create a “what works” centre to advise on where the FE sector needs extra investment.

The plan would cost £20 million over the next five years and the centre would be embedded within an existing organisation.

It would “translate the best available evidence and test a variety of approaches to ensure resources for poorer students, who make up the bulk of students in FE, are targeted more effectively”.

There’s a good case for a more sustained effort to research what works in FE

The Social Mobility Commission (SMC) is the latest organisation to call for such a body: the City and Guilds Group last year said an independent Skills Policy Institute should be created, which would be similar Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) – a research organisation established with £120 million of public money.

The SMC said its recommendation has been put forward because of the “complexity” and “poor” evidence base in FE.

A new evidence review into the attainment of disadvantaged students, led by the Learning and Work Institute for the SMC, reported that FE “lacks a structured approach to boosting research, experimentation and evaluation to fill the evidence gaps” compared to other policy areas.

It found just 63 studies that met the “minimum standard of quality”, which is in stark contrast to the schools sector: it is anticipated that over 3,000 studies will be included in EEF’s new teaching and learning toolkit.

Despite “increased efforts” to build the evidence base across other policy areas there are “still comparatively few trials run in the FE sector”.

The report went on to claim that the current evidence base on what works in FE and adult learning is “fragmented”.

It said there are mechanisms for sharing best practice, such as the Education and Training Foundation’s Professional Exchange Networks, but these “tend to be limited to particular approaches or parts of the sector”.

Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executiveat the Association of Colleges, said there’s a “good case” for a more sustained effort to research what works in FE.

He added that a “what works centre might be a good idea because it would involve funding on a slightly longer term basis to an organisation that would then be able to work out what it needs to do”.

Fay Sadro, head of evidence at Learning and Work Institute said: “Against the backdrop of continued funding pressures on further education and adult learning, there is an urgent need to share knowledge across the sector, improve judgments about investments through the use of evidence and support an increase in research and experimentation.”

The Social Mobility Commission said the “what works” centre would have greatest impact if it develops as a consortium model, working with other organisations active in FE and adult learning research, policy and practice.

It would “collaborate with others to support the translation, dissemination and implementation of existing evidence about what works”.

Activities would fall into six core areas: synthesising evidence; translating evidence; disseminating and implementing evidence; evaluating and improving practice; and producing primary evidence.

In years one and two, the SMC said the centre should have an annual budget of £2 million to focus on synthesis and dissemination, building strategic partnerships, coordinating the sector, gaining access to data sets, and agreeing research priorities.

In years three to five, it should have a budget of £5 million to begin trials to generate new evidence.

The Department for Education was approached for comment.

An investigation has been launched after betting companies were “wrongly provided access” to an education database containing the information of 28 million children.

The massive breach was revealed through a Sunday Times investigation which found the Learning Records Service had been accessed by data intelligence firm GB Group – whose clients include 32Red and Betfair among other gambling companies.

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

The Department for Education (DfE) has referred the breach to data regulators the Information Commissioner’s Office and disabled the database.

An ICO spokesperson said: “We have received a report from the Department for Education and we will be making enquiries.”

Education secretary Gavin Williamson reportedly told the department to “leave no stone unturned” during its investigation.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We have not shared any data with GBG.

“An education training provider wrongly provided access to this data and broke their agreement with us. This was completely unacceptable and we have immediately stopped the firm’s access and ended our agreement with them. We will be taking the strongest possible action.”

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has since begun a full investigation of access to the data “to make sure this doesn’t happen again”.

The spokesperson said any provider found to be in breach of their contracts will “have their agreements terminated”.

According to the Sunday Times report GB Group had a confidential contract through another company to access the database.

The group then used this information for age and identity verification services for its clients.

The Sunday Times reported the government had provided access to the Learning Records Service to employment screening company Trust Systems Software (UK) – which trades as Trustopia.

It is now investigating whether this firm provided access to GB Group.

Steven Hewitt, a management information system expert, explained the LRG is primarily a data checking tool “for colleges to work out what GCSE grades people are turning up with”.

He said: “It’s clearly personal information and information collected for an entirely different purpose than that for which it is being used.

“This is definitely something the ICO should be investigating.”

Trustopia has denied providing the GB Group with access to the database and founder Ronan Smith said it “placed the highest possible premium” on the lawful handing of data.

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

A 32Red spokesperson said: “Allegations that 32Red, among other betting companies, has access to the Learning Records Service database are untrue and unfounded.

“As a responsible betting operator we have zero tolerance on under-age gambling. We are legally required to verify a number of criteria, including the age of people who wish to enjoy our services to ensure that they are over the age of 18.

“The only information 32Red has access to is confirmation or rejection that the person requesting to open an account with us is over the age of 18, and not specific details about that person.”

Tributes have been paid to college lecturer and University and College Union president-elect Nita Sanghera, after she died last week.

The union said Sanghera passed away following a short illness on 16 January, adding that it was a “tragedy that we have lost her”.

She worked as an Access to HE lecturer at Bournville College for 11 years, and after serving on the west midlands regional committee, the black members’ standing Committee and the national executive committee, she was elected UCU vice-president for the FE sector in 2018.

The union said Sanghera would have become their first black woman president at the end of May this year.

Jo Grady, UCU general secretary, tweeted: “I was very sad to learn this evening that UCU president elect, Nita Sanghera has passed away. Nita was formidable, tenacious, a gifted orator, and impeccably stylish. She inspired others to fight against injustice, and will never be forgotten.

“Rest in power, Nita.”

UCU vice president Vicky Blake said: “Utterly devastated. So sad to say we have lost Nita Sanghera, our union’s president elect for FE.

“I last saw Nita passionately defending Dave Muritu at a demo in the pouring rain, from which she rallied troops to a meeting to plan the next phase of the campaign.”

Bournville College merged with South and City College Birmingham in August 2017. Principal Mike Hopkins said: “We are all very shocked and saddened by Nita’s passing.

“She worked at Bournville College for 11 years, making a valuable contribution as a teacher and a union representative.

“She will be missed by both staff and students at the college.”

An ex-deputy director of the government’s skills funding agency has called for a return to “supportive” contract management for providers.

Writing in FE Week, Tony Allen has criticised the way the Education and Skills Funding Agency manages funding contracts ahead of an imminent report by Dame Mary Ney (pictured) into oversight of college finances.

Ney’s review is expected to heavily criticise the ESFA for the calculations it uses to determine the financial health scoring and grading; as had it been more robust, it could have intervened in failing providers sooner.

Allen said when he worked at the then named Skills Funding Agency: “We had a much better sense of what was going on.

“We advised and supported, managed risks and dealt with issues as they were arising. Face-to-face support by individual and group methods headed off many early problems.”

Allen worked in government for 13 years in a variety of roles including director of the SFA’s Large Companies Unit, before starting his own apprenticeship consultancy in 2016.

The SFA replaced Learning Skills Councils in 2010 and handled funding for the FE and skills sector before being replaced by the ESFA in 2017.

As part of Department for Education staffing cuts in 2016, the ‘supportive’ approach was dropped in favour of what Allen summarised as “a service desk approach” that is unusual in the public sector for allowing organisations to be given millions of pounds and told to “get on with it”.

“It was made clear that giving advice and support to colleges, and especially independent training providers, was not part of a ‘funding body’s’ role,” he says.

“Nobody was interested in the positive side of contract management or the benefits that could accrue, such as promoting apprenticeship growth.”

The agency now calculates financial health with a scoring system which allows providers to self-grade themselves by inputting three measures: one based on cash, another on debt and then margin.

This set of metrics then formulates an overall financial health grade of ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’.

Allen believes there is a “clear correlation” between the government’s abandoning the supportive approach and the number of high-profile financial failures among providers, including First4Skills, 3aaa and Hadlow College.

He is the latest sector leader to go public with criticism of the ESFA’s approach to overseeing college finances: Association of Colleges deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt said last week that the ESFA’s current approach was in need of change.

Aside from Ney’s report, it is also expected the National Audit Office’s value for money review on the management of colleges’ financial sustainability will be published in the summer.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The ESFA operates a risk-based approach to the oversight and monitoring of colleges, so that those at risk get regular contact with ESFA staff.

“Last year the department announced an independent review into how the government monitors colleges’ finances and financial management. Results of the review will be published in due course.”