Great Debate on apprenticeships: time for stability, or major change?

The motion: This house believes the fall in apprenticeship starts since last May and the unspent levy proves urgent policy changes are needed

The first in a series of FE Week and Pearson Great Debates was held in parliament this week, with nearly 300 sector leaders arguing over whether further reforms are needed to the apprenticeships system.

It was chaired by Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week publisher LSECT. Leading the call for action was Sue Pittock, chief executive of Remit Training, while FE Week editor Nick Linford was against.

They were joined by skills minister Anne Milton, who listened in, and chair of the education select committee Robert Halfon, who delivered an impassioned speech.

The debate focused on the impact of the apprenticeship reforms one year in. Hotly discussed were the reasons starts were down 52 per cent in March compared with the same period in 2017, and why employers have used just 10 per cent of their levy funds in the first 12 months since the levy was introduced.

The vast majority of the audience voted for change at the start of the debate, but Mr Linford managed to win over two individuals by the end. Here’s our summary of what happened:

For the motion

“Enhancements not wholesale changes” in three main policies are urgently needed to address the fall in apprenticeship starts and the unspent levy, argued Sue Pittock.

The chief executive of Remit Training, a private provider that delivers apprenticeships in a range of industries from automotive to hospitality, called for “flexibility” on the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement.

She also backed dropping the 10 per cent co-contribution, and wanted “some consistency” in end-point assessment.

Sue Pittock

She said these shifts are needed because small businesses are “dropping fast and disengaging” with apprenticeships, noting that two years ago her business had 90 per cent penetration among small and medium enterprises, but it has dropped to 40 per cent, with the rest being levy clients.

The 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement is one of the main causes of the drop, according to Ms Pittock, who called it a “huge commitment” not only for smaller employers, but for larger ones too.

“We need flexibility around how much is delivered in paid time and how much of a commitment the apprentice puts in,” she told the audience.

“An employer puts their skin in the game by giving people the opportunity to do an apprenticeship and that chance of training.”

She added that apprentices should also have some skin in the game by being allowed to have self-study time count towards the 20 per cent.

In terms of the 10 per cent fee that small businesses must pay when taking on apprentices, Ms Pittock wants it scrapped for level two apprenticeships for 16- to 24-year-olds.

“We are seeing level twos at 16- to- 18 really suffer, so our social mobility is really taking a hit,” she said.

“We are seeing a 500 per cent increase in management programmes. Do we want a society that ends up delivering management programmes as opposed to giving our young people coming out of the schools system a foot on the ladder to do a level two programme?”

And lastly, on end-point assessment, Ms Pittock called for consistency.

“I have one employer group that has a six-day EPA for a level two programme,” she said.

“You could be 17, get in a car and pass your driving test in one afternoon; potentially if you were the wrong person and not competent, you could kill somebody. But we are going to take six days to assess somebody on a level two programme.

“There needs to be consistency, and the IfA needs to provide that framework so we don’t end up with massive EPAs that disadvantages learners.”

Also calling for change was Karen Bailey, head of competence development at Volvo Group UK.

There is a level of bureaucracy that colleges and private providers are used to working with, but large employers aren’t

She said she doesn’t know many employers that can cope with the complexity of FE-level funding rules and regulations on apprenticeships.

“It is exceptionally difficult, it is exceptionally time-consuming, and I would argue that a lot of employers do not see it as good value and would rather not bother with apprenticeships,” she claimed.

“We currently have over 400 apprentices and five different ways they can be funded. The complexity is absolutely ridiculous.”

Ms Bailey also thinks that having a levy pot is encouraging employers to behave “exceptionally badly”.

“I’ve heard a lot about employers who have removed their training budgets and have instead put in an apprentice levy pot manager whose only job is to spend that levy,” she said.

“To me that is not the idea. People are seeing it as their pot; it’s not their pot. It’s not your money, it is a tax and we need to treat it as a tax and look at it for the good of our economy.”

Final speaker for the motion on the panel was Cindy Rampersaud, senior vice-president for BTEC and apprenticeship at Pearson.

She agreed with Ms Pittock that although no “wholesale change” is needed, some refinement is, particularly where the levy is concerned.

“I spent 20 years working in industry, and I look at the levy and think if I was back in one of my older roles in the media, how easy would this be as an employer to implement?” she said.

“There is a level of bureaucracy that colleges and private providers are used to working with, but large employers aren’t.”

 

Against the motion

 

Nick Linford called for a much-needed period of stability.

Wearing his “author of an apprenticeships book hat”, he urged Ms Milton to stand firm on the reforms already introduced, mainly because there is not yet enough evidence on the causes of the drop in starts.

“Many of you in the room continue to complain about change and you want the S word; you want stability,” he said.

“It is interesting to hear Sue [see page 8] suggest that nobody wants wholesale change. I’m not sure that is true.

“We just heard from Karen saying she wants a complete rethink from an employer’s perspective of this tax in terms of the levy pot.

Nick Linford

“We have a long list from organisations such as the AELP that want to scrap co-investment for 16- to 24-year-olds at level two and three, or to increase framework rates at level two where there is no alternative standard.

“They want a ring-fenced budget for non-levy, they want to increase functional skills funding to be double where it is now, plus sector-by-sector 20 per cent off-the-job changes.”

However, there are many other organisations saying they want opposite changes, Mr Linford continued.

“The AoC for example says scrap the three million target.

“Then we have employer body groups such as the CBI pushing for much of the apprenticeship levy funding to be spent on things that aren’t apprenticeships, which sounds like wholesale change to me.

“Then the Federation of Small Businesses want a more generous employer incentive, and then the metro mayors are saying ‘unspent levy – give that to us; we’ll spend that on other things’.

“Talking about more wholesale change, the Lords economic affairs committee have come out and said, scrap the Institute for Apprenticeships.”

On top of this, the Department for Education is demanding that the Institute for Apprenticeships review and change 30 of the most popular standards because funding for those standards is said to be too high.

“My argument boils down to this: there is a huge amount of pressure on the minister at the moment from all corners, but I think more time is needed,” he said.

“Possibly the most important message is that if you change things you lose the confidence of the employers. You lose the confidence of the training providers.”

He added that there is only 11 months’ worth of evidence since reforms were introduced last May, and in that time there has been 309,000 starts, an average of nearly 30,000 a month.

“I would argue relative to 10 years ago, this is an incredibly buoyant programme,” Mr Linford said.

For me stability and investment is what is needed

“For me stability and investment is what is needed.”

Sean Williams, chief executive of Corndel, backed Mr Linford’s argument.

“We need to look back at why the changes were made in the first place,” he said.

“It was first and foremost to make apprenticeships employer-led.

“The market has changed. I hear a lot in this room about providers who haven’t noticed that the market has changed.

“I think we need stability in order for the market to move to those high quality employer-led apprenticeships which really deliver. I plead for stability because it is only stability that will give us time to move forward.”

Fiona Aldridge, assistant director for research and development at the Learning and Work Institute, also agreed with the need for stability.

“I am conscious that if we continue to change the system, we will have young people, parents and teacher who don’t know what it is and therefore won’t engage,” she said.

“A Sutton Trust report said two thirds of young people are actually thinking about apprenticeships now, but only a third of teachers are promoting that opportunity. Lots of them say that is because they don’t have the right information and don’t know what the benefits are.

“My concern is that while we absolutely have to get the system right, constantly making big churning changes means people will not think this is worth speculating on for their children.”

 

Halfon in the middle

 

Admitting he “sounds like a politician”, Robert Halfon struck a note of compromise in his speech.

The former skills minister agreed there isn’t enough evidence for major apprenticeship changes, but significant problems cannot be ignored.

“I think it is right to talk about the number of starts and right that perhaps after 11 months we don’t have the whole picture about what is going on,” the chair of the education select committee said.

“It is also right that we shouldn’t change the levy into just a general skills pot because I think there would be huge gaming of the system.”

However, Mr Halfon conceded that the “package does need some change”, particularly where the levy is concerned.

Robert Halfon

From next month large employers will be able to transfer up to 10 per cent of their unspent apprenticeship levy funds to multiple businesses. Mr Halfon wants this proportion drastically increased.

“I am sympathetic to the idea that you increase that to 50 per cent because I think it would benefit a lot of non-levy payers,” he said.

Under current rules, levy payers must spend their levy pot within 24 months. Mr Halfon wants the government to also look at extending this “to possibly 36 or 48 months”.

But overall he believes the levy was never going to transform apprenticeships in England alone, as there are many other “deep rooted” issues that need fixing alongside it.

“I think the apprentice levy should have been accompanied by much wider reforms in general,” he told the audience.

“The problem is the levy is seen as the answer to everything when actually there are deep rooted problems in terms of having more disadvantaged apprentices, and there are deep rooted problems around careers advice in our country – it is not skills focused.”

He also touched on issues with the government’s three million starts target.

“In terms of the three million target, I always thought it was a good thing because I thought it concentrated the mind of the Treasury,” he said.

“My one fear having thought about it a lot is that what it means is that it is a substitute for quantity over quality. I want to see a lot more quality and progression.”

In conclusion, Mr Halfon said, the “apprentice ladder of opportunity only works if the levy is included in a whole load of things and not just seen as the answer to everything.

“I hope we make some changes to the levy but not to the foundations. If you imagine it was a house, I’d like to make changes to some of the rooms.”

DfE should be concerned about rip-off subcontracting fees

Just when you think the government is finally going to act to stop the practice of rip-off subcontracting fees, they provide a statement expressing “no concern”.

I’d be lost for words, if it wasn’t for the fact this editorial demands I write them.

FE Week has been reporting on the huge topslices ever since we launched in 2011.

And we are regularly contacted by subcontractees, complaining of the impact on quality when funds are withheld, but fearful of going on the record to bite the hand that feeds them.

It did seem the government recognised the poor value for money, introducing a series of measures over the years to limit subcontracting, and to make the management fees more transparent.

In April, the Education and Skills Funding Agency announced they were reviewing “subcontracting fees and charges; so that we can be assured that our funding is being used for recognised costs”.

At the time they also said they “believe it is important that government funds are not diverted away from training and assessment in the form of fees and other charges, and so the intent of the rules is to make sure that the main and subcontracted providers both add value to the employer’s apprenticeship programme”.

Skip forward a few months and the DfE tell FE Week they’ve looked at the latest figures and found that the total sector topslice was 20 per cent last year.

So, according to the DfE, everything is tickety-boo, nothing to see here, fine and dandy.

No problem with Learndirect keeping close to £19 million in fees (34 per cent), including a single deal with a £4.7 million (40 per cent) fee.

No problem with 28 per cent of prime providers charging more than 20 per cent, and 12 charging more than 30 per cent.

The DfE argument seems to be that if the average is 20 per cent, then the outliers don’t matter.

What an appalling conclusion – that if the majority are acting responsibly, then there is no need to stop those that fail to.

It is clear that the education select committee, led by former skills minister Robert Halfon, will heavily criticise subcontracting fees in its forthcoming report.

The National Audit Office will also be taking a look as part of an apprenticeship reform review, as will the Mayoral Combined Authorities during the transition to devolution of the Adult Education Budget.

And FE Week will challenge both Anne Milton and Damian Hinds on their “no concern” conclusion at the earliest opportunity.

My hunch, as well as hope, is that the DfE defending the indefensible won’t hold forever.

But so far I’ve been proven wrong, so I won’t be holding my breath.

Read the story: Ex-minister calls subcontracting fees ‘scandalous’ but DfE has ‘no concerns’

Ofsted watch: Bad week for providers – especially UTCs

It was a poor week for providers who received full inspections, as one failed to improve its grade three and two university technical colleges were hit with damning grade four reports.

People and Business Development Ltd, an independent provider based in Suffolk, was rated ‘requires improvement’ across the board – which was worse than its inspection in October 2016 when it achieved ‘good’ in one headline field.

“Leaders have not effectively dealt with the weaknesses identified at the previous inspection because they have not taken effective action or directed staff well enough,” inspectors said.

“Leaders do not effectively assess the quality of teaching, learning and assessment. Consequently, they have not ensured that assessors improve their practice, to enable learners to make rapid progress.”

Ofsted found that the proportion of apprentices who achieve their qualifications was “too low”, and “too few” achieve their apprenticeships within planned timescales.

To improve, inspectors said PBD must ensure that employers are “routinely involved in the planning of learning programmes and in the reviews of progress with apprentices”.

Meanwhile, hugely critical ‘inadequate’ reports were handed to UTC@Harbourside and Health Futures UTC.

Bullying – some of it racial – was rife at Harbourside, which announced closure last week.

Some pupils in year 10 have a “miserable time” at the UTC “due to bullying, some of a persistent nature and which results in a few pupils being isolated”.

It was also accused of “too often” breaking “too many promises”.

Leaders and governors at Health Futures UTC, based in West Bromwich, were deemed “ineffective”, having missed “significant” teaching weaknesses, according to inspectors.

“Teaching has been weak and consequently, students have made very poor progress,” the report said, adding that the top team had failed to recognise these failings until exam results were released in August 2017.

There was one monitoring visit of a “new” apprenticeship provider published this week, which produced a positive report.

Impact Futures Training Limited is based in Berkshire and delivers training to over 150 apprentices in industries including health and social care, management and customer service.

“Senior leaders and managers are very committed to providing a high and improving standard of training for all apprentices,” inspectors said.

They’ve also “set and communicated a clear strategy to address training skills gaps in the business, and health and social care sectors”.

Inspectors added that tutors ensure that apprentices “develop new skills, knowledge and behaviours that allow them to carry out their work roles more effectively”.

As a result, “apprentices are able to show how their learning has improved the quality of service that they offer their clients”.

Lastly, three short inspections were published this week, in which Wiltshire College, Cheyne’s (Management) Limited in London, and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council maintained their ‘good’ ratings.

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
People and Business Development Ltd 05/06/2018 04/07/2018 3 3
Impact Futures Training Limited 05/06/2018 06/07/2018 M M

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Health Futures UTC 22/05/2018 03/07/2018 4 NA
UTC@harbourside 22/05/2018 04/07/2018 4 NA

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
Wiltshire College 23/05/2018 04/07/2018
Cheyne’s (Management) Limited 05/06/2018 05/07/2018
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 05/06/2018 06/07/2018

Why we are planning to use a single licensing approach for T-Levels

Choosing awarding organisations in open competition will not only give the new technical qualifications the greatest chance of success, but clarify the landscape for students, promises Anne Milton

I was recently interviewed by Nick at FE Week, who wanted to know why we are planning to use a single licensing approach for T-levels. I thought I’d put my thoughts down here to explain more fully why we have decided to do this.

T-levels are a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the way technical education works in this country, putting it on a par with the very best available in other countries. In the past, technical education courses were of variable quality and not always valued by employers. And that’s exactly what we want to change. Single licensing has an important role to play in doing that.

The Sainsbury Report, which was published in 2016, recommended that for each occupation or cluster of occupations, there should be one high-quality qualification for 16-19 year olds that meets employer-set standards. The report also recommended that a single body or consortium should deliver each qualification under an exclusive licence. This would be awarded for a fixed time period following an open competition.

So why did the report recommend this approach and why have we followed the advice? Well, the key reason is that we want to protect the standard of T-levels. T-levels must be high quality and those taking them must know that they represent the gold standard — that’s what introducing T-levels is all about. Making sure all T-levels are of the same exemplary standard also means that they will be valued and easily recognisable by employers.

Of course, procurements are never easy

Awarding organisations (AOs) play a vital role in our education system, and for me there are two key benefits that stand out when it comes to single licensing. By selecting one AO to work on each T-level, it means they will have been successful against other competitors in demonstrating their vision to us, making it a shared vision to give our T-levels the greatest chance of success. Another reason is that we want to make the options as clear as possible for students wanting to do T-levels. With thousands of qualifications at level 3 and below, the current landscape can be confusing for students. We have a chance to change this and a single-licence approach will make choices much easier.

Of course, procurements are never easy – there are always losers and disappointments, and the process can be challenging. But they are often necessary if we want to make sure we are getting the best. So we are being completely open and transparent with the market about how we intend to run this procurement. We held events in June to meet with awarding organisations to talk about our procurement plans, with further activities to come, and we are reflecting on the feedback we have heard from the Federation of Awarding Bodies, the Joint Council for Qualifications and others. We are working hard to think about how we can make the procurement more attractive, create lively competition and make sure we get value for money for the public purse. This approach means we should retain the best elements of the competitive market and still get the stability we need to make sure standards are properly understood and kept up.

We’ll also be putting in place rigorous monitoring arrangements to minimise the risk of failure – and we will make sure there are effective exit arrangements at the end of each licence to enable smooth transfer from one awarding organisation to another.

The Sainsbury Report’s recommendations are now in law – in the form of the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 – and we are proud to have followed them.

The single licensing model for T-levels means learners, employers and parents know exactly what they will be getting, and have a clear choice between excellent technical and academic routes. T-levels are a fantastic opportunity for everyone – providers, employers and young people – to get the technical education that they deserve, and the country needs.

Ex-minister calls subcontracting fees ‘scandalous’, but DfE has ‘no concerns’

The government has for the first time concluded they have “no concerns” about subcontracting fees, despite more than 10 providers charging an average of over 30 per cent last year, FE Week can reveal.

This is completely at odds with the view of the last skills minister Robert Halfon, who now chairs the education select committee, and who called the latest figures “absolutely scandalous”.

Last week the Education and Skills Funding Agency published, also for the first time, the result of a subcontracting data collection completed by all prime contractors in receipt of funding last year.

But it looks like a recently announced review of charges will not lead to any tightening of policy, as the Department for Education thinks there’s nothing to worry about.

“We have no concerns on the level of subcontracting fees being paid by providers.

“Our recent data shows that approximately 80 per cent of funding goes straight to the front line, supporting learners, apprentices and employers to get the training and skills that they need,” a DfE spokesperson said.

FE Week’s analysis of the 2016-17 figures showed that the total level of charges by 407 prime contractors on subcontractors was £110.6 million (see tables below).

Just under a third of primes were charging above the 20 per cent best-practice threshold agreed by key sector bodies in March, with Learndirect and John Ruskin College among those taking the biggest cut.

The level of these subcontracting fees is absolutely scandalous

“The level of these subcontracting fees is absolutely scandalous,” said Mr Halfon. “Money should be going to deliver high-quality front-line training, not paying off middlemen.

“When government funding ends up the lining the pockets of companies taking a hefty cut and delivering little value, then both apprentices and the taxpayer are being let down.”

His successor as skills minister, Anne Milton, also agreed with education committee MPs in May that huge top-slices in subcontracting concerned her and that it amounted to “wasted money” in some cases.

However, she claimed it was “too soon” for the government to take action in specific cases.

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers took to Twitter to criticise “unacceptable fees” soon after the subcontracting charges were finally published on June 29.

FE Week analysis also showed that 12 providers charged an average top-slice – which is the common term used for subcontracting fees – in excess of 30 per cent.

At 39 per cent, John Ruskin College – which disputed the accuracy of the figure – appeared to have the highest average top-slice percentage.

The biggest single deal was a £4.7 million (40 per cent) Learndirect top-slice taken from the £11.9 million of the adult education budget that went to training delivered by Go Train Limited. The provider declined to comment.

Top-slicing describes the amount that prime providers charge subcontractors in so-called management fees when they run training on prime providers’ behalf.

Concern has mounted in recent years that certain lead providers were charging excessive rates as an easy way of supplementing their incomes.

The ESFA had revealed in April that subcontracting fees and charges would be reviewed to ensure government funding is being used for “recognised costs”.

“In the coming months, we will be reviewing aspects of the subcontracting funding rules,” it said.

This will include looking at “subcontracting fees and charges, so that we can be assured that our funding is being used for recognised costs”.

Any subsequent changes to subcontracting rules are expected to come into force from August.

Individual lead providers used to have to publish their annual figures on their websites by the end of November every year.

This changed starting in 2016-17, when new rules dictated that providers had to inform the ESFA of their figures, which would henceforth be published centrally.

But the agency came in for heavy criticism as November passed without any indication of when the full figures would be revealed for the past academic year.

The sector finally got its answer in April, after Gordon Marsden, the shadow skills minister, lodged a written parliamentary question asking when the government planned to publish the fees data.

The education minister Nadhim Zahawi confirmed that they would be available by the end of June.

See FE Week editor NIck Linford’s editorial on subcontracting fees here.

‘Comprehensive’ new guidance coming soon

“Comprehensive” new subcontracting guidance agreed between key government education agencies and FE bodies will be published within weeks, FE Week can reveal.

But the Association of Colleges has indicated it will not come with tougher limits on top-slicing fees. 

A 20 per cent recommended limit was agreed in March by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, Holex and the Collab provider group.

This was conspicuously missing a sign-off from the AoC, which insisted at the time it was developing other guidance “properly” with the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the University Vocational Awards Council.

FE Week asked them how this was progressing, considering that latest figures have showed how many primes are still charging a level considered by many to be excessive.

A spokesperson said it is still developing a “comprehensive guidance document” with the ESFA and UVAC, as well as other organisations including Ofsted, the Institute for Apprenticeships and AELP that “considers subcontracting from all angles relevant to a provider”.

This should be out within “the next few weeks”.

Teresa Frith

Teresa Frith, senior AOC policy manager, indicated they want primes to retain control of setting their own charges.

“We are not condoning overcharging in subcontracting, quite the opposite, but want providers to be free to determine how much it costs them to support subcontractors effectively within the new apprenticeship market and within the new rules.”

“We advocate for complete transparency in the process of determining the fees imposed by a lead provider,” she added.

“The relationship should be a partnership where both sides can see value. It is the quality of the offer in general that should be the focus of concern, not the price attached to that quality.”

AELP boss Mark Dawe reiterated his defence of the 20 per cent recommended limit.

“In signing up to our joint guidance, the members of AELP and Holex and Collab’s college members are by implication struggling to identify where fees in excess of 20 per cent might be justified whatever services are being offered,” he said.

“We would argue that by denying so much money to frontline provision, it is very much the quality of provision received by the learner which is being endangered.

“The ESFA data suggests that there are too many institutions where the funding is actually being used to prop up the general accounts.”

3aaa inspection ‘incomplete’ as whistleblowing sparks review

An investigation is being carried out by government officials into apprenticeship giant Aspire Achieve Advance, after claims made by a whistleblower.

FE Week revealed last week that Ofsted’s latest inspection of 3aaa – which holds the largest ESFA apprenticeship allocation – had been declared “incomplete” following intervention from the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

We can now reveal that 3aaa had been expecting a grade 1 outcome and the inspection has been classed as incomplete owing to an ongoing investigation led by the ESFA.

FE Week also understands that the provider is facing an employment tribunal claim from a former employee who does not wish to be named.

The employee raised concerns that now form part of the ESFA investigation after they were set out in a letter to 3aaa bosses, seen by FE Week, dated February 28, 2018.

A response from Di McEvoy-Robinson, co-founder and director of 3aaa, also seen by FE Week, stated that this had sparked an “internal review”, and that the allegations had been referred to the ESFA.

Neither 3aaa nor the ESFA would confirm to FE Week whether the allegations were shared.

Ofsted originally confirmed on June 20 that it had inspected the provider in May and nothing was amiss.

“The report is currently going through our normal processes and will be published in due course,” a spokesperson said at the time.

And FE Week can reveal that 3aaa held a staff conference at Derbyshire County Cricket Club where it is believed they celebrated the expected outstanding grade (see picture).

And co-founder and chief executive Peter Marples took to social media to describe an “amazing week – challenging but back to back 1 it could be”.

But there was a change of position shortly before the report was published and the inspectorate released a second statement to FE Week mentioning “new information”.

“Given new information that has come to light, we have decided to declare our inspection of Aspire Achieve Advance Limited incomplete,” a spokesperson said.

“In due course, pending further information from the EFSA, we will decide whether we need to return to the provider to gather further evidence.”

The provider has seen significant growth under the leadership of Marples and McEvoy-Robinson, its chief executive and director respectively. In 2015 the provider was awarded an “outstanding” grade by Ofsted.

Its allocation for non-levy apprenticeships now stands at nearly £22 million, which is up from £5.5 million at the start of the academic year.

Direct ESFA funding increased from just £390,000 in 2012-13 to £3.6 million the following year. It rose again to £12.5 million in 2014-15 and to £21.7 million a year later.

Its apprenticeships include IT, software, digital marketing, accountancy, financial services, business administration, customer service and management.

3aaa, at the time of going to press, has not provided a comment on Ofsted’s decision, the ESFA investigation, or accusations made by the whistleblower.

The ESFA would say only that it never comments on whether investigations are taking place.

Three ‘inadequate’ UTCs in a week as Lord Baker blames Ofsted

Ofsted has dealt a series of devastating blows to university technical colleges this week, with three of the 14-to-19 technical and vocational institutions rated “inadequate” in a week.

Inspectors were damning in their criticism of UTC@Harbourside, Derby Manufacturing UTC and Health Futures UTC in grade 4 reports published between June 28 and July 4.

The latest verdicts mean that over a quarter of the UTCs inspected to date have been given the lowest possible overall grade.

This is sure to be an embarrassment to the Conservative party, which pledged to have a UTC “within reach of every city” in its 2015 manifesto.

Nonetheless, Charles Parker, boss of the Baker Dearing Trust, which backs UTCs, insisted it was “absolutely not” time to admit the experiment had failed.

“We are disappointed at our current Ofsted records, which we are working hard to improve,” he acknowledged.

“However, the excellent destinations of our students and the satisfaction of parents and employers mean it is much too early to say that standards are bad.”

UTCs’ destination data is “the best of all schools in the country”, yet this is not taken into consideration by the education watchdog, he said.

Lord Baker, the trust’s co-founder and architect of UTCs, also told FE Week that he believed the current inspection regime was unfair for this reason.

“A UTC is not a school or a college, it is a hybrid animal,” he said in an interview in May.

“Ofsted takes no account of employability in inspections and that is a big test for us.”

However, a spokesperson for the watchdog rejected these claims.

“Inspectors take into account the destinations of UTC pupils, but as we set out in our handbook, no single measure determines the outcome of an inspection,” he said.

Ofsted inspects UTCs as schools “because that is the legal status they have”, and all schools are inspected against the same criteria.

“Clearly some UTCs manage to meet these requirements,” he added.

In the same FE Week interview, Lord Baker hit out at schools that refused to comply with their legal requirement to open their doors to technical and vocational education providers, including UTCs – as set out in the Baker clause amendment to the Technical and FE Act.

And in an interview with The Times newspaper in 2017, he blamed “poor governance and mistakes made” where UTCs had failed.

Thus far, 10 of the 36 UTCs inspected by Ofsted, or 28 per cent, have received a grade 4 verdict.

A further 13 have been rated “requires improvement”, meaning a massive 64 per cent are rated less than good.

And to date eight UTCs have closed after failing to attract enough pupils, owing in large part to the difficulty in persuading them to change schools at 14.

David Russell, the chief executive of the Education and Training Foundation who formerly led on vocational education reform at the Department for Education, took to Twitter to vent his anger at the latest reports.

“This was the 100 per cent inevitable outcome of UTCs’ policy, as many inside DfE said at the time,” he tweeted.

“This hideous experiment in ‘technical education’ policy must stop.”

The most critical of the three reports was for UTC@Harbourside, published on July 4 just two days after the school announced it would close in 2019 after failing to recruit enough pupils to make it financially viable.

According to 2018 school census figures, it has 130 pupils on register in 2017-18, down from 141 in 2016-17.

Bullying – some of it racial in nature – was found to be “frequent”, which led to some pupils having a “miserable time” at the school.

“Adults do not act decisively enough to stop it and prevent repetition.”

Pupils and learners at the school, which opened in 2015, are “hugely disappointed” with its “failure to live up to their expectations”, the report said.

The school’s governors said they “fully accept the findings of the inspectors and are committed to implementing the recommendations” for its remaining pupils.

The UTC@Harbourside report came just a day after Health Futures UTC in West Bromwich was branded “inadequate” across the board.

Leaders and governors at the school, which also opened in 2015, were deemed “ineffective”, having missed “significant” teaching weaknesses, according to inspectors.

“Teaching has been weak and consequently, students have made very poor progress,” the report said, adding that the top team had failed to recognise these failings until exam results were released in August 2017.

However, Ofsted acknowledged that the school’s new interim principal, Ruth Umerah, was starting to turn things around.

Leaders and governors at Derby Manufacturing UTC drew criticism for their “over-generous” view of quality, which “prevented leaders and governors from taking appropriate action to secure the required improvements”, according to the June 28 Ofsted report.

‘Incredible’ that DfE unsure which of its apprentices were already civil servants

The Department for Education has drawn criticism for not knowing whether more than a third of its apprentices were new or existing civil servants.

As of May 10, the department had 186 employed apprentices.

Through a freedom of information response, the DfE revealed that 76 of these were existing civil servants and 36 were new entrants to the government.

However, for 74 of them the department admitted it did not know whether they were new civil service employees or not.

It said this was because the department gathers data on apprentices via a voluntary questionnaire and not all questionnaires are returned.

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (pictured), who has a keen interest in apprenticeships and often brings the topic to debate in parliament, expressed his shock.

He called the situation “ridiculous” and said it did not “inspire confidence” for employers dealing with the complexities of the apprenticeship levy.

“I find it incredible that any employer would not know how many apprentices are new appointments or existing members of staff,” Lord Watson, Labour’s education spokesperson in the House of Lords, told FE Week.

“That is particularly so when the employer in question is the department overseeing the whole expansion of apprenticeships and the apprenticeships levy.”

He promised to table a parliamentary question to “probe this matter further”.

“To have this left hand right hand situation does not exactly inspire confidence in other employers, many of whom are struggling with the levy system, as they find it bureaucratic and impenetrable,” added Lord Watson

“What this doesn’t do is give the DfE any firm footing on which to question other employers that they are not satisfied with how they are proceeding with the levy.

“It is a question of getting their own house in order first. They don’t just need to do that, but need to be seen to have done that, to inspire confidence.”

If colleges are not careful, HE will muscle in on their territory

The FE sector is already beleaguered, but market forces will soon see universities trying to carve themselves out a bigger slice of the pie, writes Ewart Keep

A research project about to be published by the FE Trust for Leadership on the marketisation of further education points to the growing competition that colleges face from both schools and universities. There is a danger that the FE sector may be about to be caught in a pincer movement.

With the current demographic downturn in older pupils, English secondary education is currently suffering from local overcapacity, a situation exacerbated by the government’s school choice agenda and its sponsorship of new market entrants such as UTCs, studio schools and free schools.

Moreover, between 2011/12 and 2014/15, about 260 school sixth-forms entered the 16-to-18 arena, and the number of approved apprenticeship providers or with an AEB allocation registered as in scope for Ofsted inspections rose from 1,043 in 2011/12 to 2,543 in April 2018. The 14-to-18/19 marketplace that has been created as a result of these developments is a brutal one, with FE colleges, UTCs and other new forms of school, apprenticeship providers, sixth-form colleges and traditional school sixth-forms all fighting for “market share”.

On the other side of the fence, HE has been seen by all mainstream parties as the chief means to deliver higher technical and vocational skill and promote social mobility. It has many political allies and has attracted increased resources through fees.

However, at present there is overcapacity in HE. This is partly driven by the current decline in the volume of 18-year-olds (which is set to last until 2020), and partly by increased competition for students between the Russell Group universities which are expanding their student numbers, and lower-tier institutions which have seen applications fall.

Some universities are already searching for new markets and customers in order to sustain themselves

Empty places are not an easy option to live with, because since fees went up, universities have spent £28 billion, much of it borrowed from banks, on new teaching infrastructure, halls of residence, cafes, social spaces and refurbishment programmes aimed at attracting students. A fall in cashflow from fees is dangerous as the financial performance in many institutions is weakening. Some universities are already searching for new markets and customers in order to sustain themselves.

One route is to expand foundation years, and put tight limits on the validation of degrees in FE, particularly where the university is seeking to build its own degree-apprenticeship provision. The other is to move directly into what have hitherto been seen as part of the FE marketplace, such as access courses and level three vocational qualifications, as some universities already have. This suggests that battles will loom over who fills the gap in technician level or sub-degree courses.

These are not new problems. Back in 2005, the Foster Review noted that “FE colleges are more and more drawn and squeezed into roles that are defined by demography and policy changes and the emerging roles of HE and schools”. The issues have simply been heightened by a funding squeeze, increased marketisation of the different areas of FE provision, and the increased pace and scale of the marketisation of schools and, more latterly, HE.

What should FE’s response be? One clear message is that colleges need to stake their claim, as publicly as possible, to a large slice of the new sub-degree technician action. The virtues of HE delivered through FE also need to be publicised (not least to local MPs) – colleges, not universities, are the main provider of lower-cost degree courses, and they are the ideal provider if policymakers want to try to revive part-time and adult participation.

Finally, as a medium-term goal, it is surely not beyond the wit and imagination of a powerful mayor and combined authority to seek to bring together local FE and HE providers in some kind of more integrated local tertiary partnership or alliance, particularly in areas where colleges have themselves learned to operate more cooperatively.