The sums being handed to providers under the Greater London Authority’s adult education budget tender have been revealed.
In August, the Department for Education devolved the capital’s £306 million adult education budget to the GLA; £130 million of which is being devolved over four years.
The tender was launched in October, and the GLA said it had received 202 bids, totalling £811 million; though the results letters sent to providers shows there were actually 336 submissions.
FE Week reported in May on which providers had won the tender, after that information’s release was delayed, due to a “large number of queries raised by potential providers’ applications”.
Of the £130 million that will be shared out via the tender, £32.5 million has been earmarked for 2019/20 (see table below).
Lot one of the tender constitutes 75 per cent and is dedicated to training out-of-work Londoners; while lot two makes up 25 per cent and will go towards training Londoners who are in-work, particularly those with low-pay or a low level of skills.
Newham College of Further Education, which Ofsted rated grade two, is the biggest winning college in the tender, winning £7.5 million for lot one across 2019 to 2023. It will also receive a £12 million grant.
Grade two United Colleges Group will receive the largest share for lot one, £8.3 million, in addition to a £9.3 million grant.
While the provider which received the most for lot two was Pathway First Ltd, with £6.1 million, after it also earned a grade two from Ofsted.
Aside from the tender, the remainder of the GLA’s adult education budget will be distributed to colleges and other institutions that currently receive funding via a grant from the ESFA.
Simon Connell, the new chief executive of the Baker Dearing Trust, is on a mission to change perceptions of university technical colleges, he tells Billy Camden
Things are changing at the organisation that runs university technical colleges.
The Baker Dearing Trust’s new chief executive Simon Connell is determined that it will move from “quantity to quality” with no more of the 14 to 19 providers opening anytime soon. Instead, he says, it will “consolidate” after nearly ten years of “high growth”.
Connell, 48, took over the top position this summer from Charles Parker, who led the trust since its incorporation in 2010.
“I want people to talk about UTCs like they do about the Russell Group”
He is under no illusion that UTCs have continued to struggle and a big push is needed to get their quality and student numbers “right” to improve the programme’s reputation and win people over.
He says there aren’t many things that he and the scheme’s architect Lord Baker have a difference of opinion on, but the “size of growth for the programme in the short term” is one of them.
It is well-known that the former education secretary wants as many UTCs across the country as possible. Connell says his focus will, however, be on filling existing colleges over the next three years.
“It would be a shame to lose complete momentum in the programme by not having any new openings, but we need to get capacity up significantly from where it is at the moment – and at the same time improve the perception of the programme.
“I want the education secretary and others to talk about our group of schools in glowing terms, in the way they do about leading educational establishments, such as Russell Group universities. I want everyone to be impressed with what we do and that has to be the focus.”
Forty-eight UTCs are now open, a number that will be the same this time next year when Doncaster UTC opens after being in the pipeline for years, but South Wiltshire UTC closes – the eleventh to shut.
Dwindling learner numbers persist at most UTCs: FE Week analysis of data on the government’s “Get information about schools” website shows that numbers fell in nearly half (43 per cent) from 2018 to 2019.
And the average number of learners across all UTCs sits at 282 (46 per cent) for 2019 against an average capacity of 615.
Ofsted performance is, at least, slowly improving. Of the 16 UTC inspections in 2018-19, 11 (69 per cent) were “good” or better. But overall just 59 per cent of all inspected UTCs currently sit among the higher two grades – nearly 20 percentage points lower than general FE colleges in 2017-18.
Lord Baker
Connell is a numbers man. He has a double first in maths from the University of Cambridge and has spent most of his career in London working for big investment banks such as Merrill Lynch.
So how does he plan to improve UTC figures?
“The two big thrusts of my strategy are to ensure there is a uniform standard of employer engagement around the programme – I want every UTC to be doing as well as the top third are,” he says.
“Second is that Baker Dearing needs to be promoting student stories.
“Often they don’t start at a good place when joining the UTC, but they come out the other end a really well-rounded highly valuable member of society. And they’re employable, that is critical.”
He believes that Ofsted ratings will only get better as the watchdog’s new inspection framework will focus on the quality of education rather than “teaching to the test”.
“Over the next couple of years that will filter through to local community perception and that will help to grow student numbers.”
Looking back on the Baker Dearing Trust, Connell says there perhaps was a “little bit” of a view that it is “UTCs or nothing”.
“If we can win over the system by raising our game and integrating a little bit better with everybody else, then we have that platform for growing as we’ll have more supporters.”
One way that UTCs have begun integrating is through joining multi-academy trusts, a move that Lord Baker once said would “water down” the programme.
“Are MATs part of the solution? Yes,” Connell says, adding that half of UTCs are now part of trusts.
“One thing we didn’t expect when we launched this movement ten years ago was how hostile local schools would be to UTCs.
“There are three reasons for that: money, a focus on results and a land grab where MATs have wanted to control their local area. If that is the way it is, we don’t want to be fighting them, we want to be working with them.”
Connell is also open to UTCs changing the 14 to 19 student age range. It could be a “pragmatic” solution to those technical colleges that have struggled to recruit, he says.
But his analysis shows that it is not the starting age that determines whether a UTC is full. “If you’re in a reasonably populated area, have a good education defined by Ofsted and you have a distinct proposition with good employer engagement and great project based learning, you are going to be close to full whether you start at 14 or 11.”
However, he says it is “really important” to use “UTC” in the names of the technical colleges.
“Those that have taken it out, we want to change that,” he says. “The reason for this is because we want them to be proud of being a UTC.”
In November 2017 UTC Cambridge rebranded as the Cambridge Academy for Science and Technology after joining Parkside Federation Academies, a multi-academy trust. And in May last year Sir Charles Kao UTC changed to the BMAT STEM Academy when it joined the Burnt Mill Academy Trust.
“We don’t want to be fighting MATs, we want to be working with them”
Connell says these decisions haven’t “damaged relationships” between the colleges and Baker Dearing, but “success will come when they call us up and say ‘we were wrong to do this’”.
Many education leaders have made their views known on the UTC programme: they think it is Lord Baker’s vanity project that has wasted millions of taxpayers’ money as a result of government bailouts and rebrokerage costs to MATs.
Does Connell believe they provide value for money?
“The way I think about value for money is the return on investment,” he says.
“What we have to show is that young people who go to UTCs, if that provision of education costs more, then down the line there needs to be a larger payback to society – the reality is it is too early to say.
“Our education system needs to keep pace with the fourth industrial revolution and we need to invest in our core business, that’s a fact of economics. Investment costs more, so I think it is right and proper that the government supports the UTC programme. But it is also right that Baker Dearing works hard with UTCs to ensure taxpayer money is wisely spent.”
The government should pay an annual £100 million top-up to the apprenticeship levy so all businesses can continue to spend on learners of all ages and skill levels, the Confederation of British Industry has said.
Its new report, ‘Learning on the job: Improving the Apprenticeship Levy’, published today, states that the cash injection is needed because of growing financial pressure that is raising questions about the sustainability of the policy.
The CBI said the government must now launch its promised public consultation on levy plans after 2020 – which is only three months away – and be open to broadening the policy into a ‘Flexible Skills Levy’, which would cover a wider range of training, not just apprenticeships.
Chief UK policy director for the confederation Matthew Fell warned that without “urgent action”, the levy risks becoming a “roadblock to the government’s wider and welcome efforts to modernise the skills system”.
He added: “Businesses are confused and crying out for clarity on how their levy funds are being used. They read speculation in the papers that the levy is overspent but are themselves struggling to utilise their levy funds for training.”
One part of the policy that the CBI wants government to commit to maintaining, however, is the rate at which firms pay the apprenticeship levy. It wants the rate to sit at no more than 0.5 per cent for the duration of the next Parliament.
He told the public accounts committee this in March, following FE Week reporting the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education had estimated that the apprenticeship budget could be overspent by £0.5 billion this year, rising to £1.5 billion during 2021/22.
The association’s chief executive Mark Dawe said there was much to commend in the CBI’s report, but a £100 million annual government top-up to the levy would “only represent a drop in the ocean in terms of addressing the problems we are now facing with funding non-levy paying SMEs”.
He instead said to make apprenticeships available at all ages and levels, at least ten times that amount is urgently needed.
The AELP has previously called for all level six and seven apprenticeships, including those with integrated degrees, to be removed from the scope of levy funding.
The National Audit Office has also warned of a “clear risk” to the financial sustainability of the apprenticeship programme, due to the cost of training hitting double what the government had originally predicted.
The cause of this is another issue with the levy system the CBI report picks up on: “There has been significant growth in older apprentices on higher-level courses.
“Higher-level provision represented 13 per cent of all apprenticeships in 2017/18, up from just over five per cent in 2015/16.”
Between May 2017 and July this year, 82 per cent more people aged 25 and over are doing higher-level apprenticeships at levels 4 and above; while starts at level 2 have plummeted by 51 per cent and starts by 16- to 18-year-olds have dropped by 23 per cent.
FE Week analysis revealed earlier this year a higher-level apprenticeship, the level 7 accountancy/taxation professional standard, would have sapped up £70 million of levy funds in 2017/18 owing to the 3,250 starts on the programme from when it was approved in November 2017 to July 2018.
In June, then-skills minister Anne Milton told an AELP conference a pre-salary cap on apprenticeships was the “most palatable option” as a means of addressing this age and level disparity.
In response to the CBI, a Department for Education spokesperson said: “The apprenticeship levy means more money is available than ever before for training, giving employers of all sizes the freedom to invest in the skills they need.
“We have introduced additional flexibilities to help employers spend their levy funds and continue to work with them to ensure they take advantage of the benefits apprentices can bring to their businesses.
“Our next steps are to look carefully at the future priorities for the apprenticeship programme and what more we can do in this important sector.”
Grappling with new political strategies takes precious time and resources, so we should stay focused on the quest for the best education
Part of the lifecycle of any organisation is to revisit the strategic plan, reconsider the vision, rethink the mission and ponder the values and culture required to keep moving forward. If the current political climate can teach us anything, it is surely how important it is to take this work seriously.
Yet the current zeitgeist is that vision and mission are old hat, and organisational purpose is where it’s at. But if we allow excellence to become a means rather than an end, do we stand to lose more than we realise?
Institutional leaders grapple with the development of new strategies and plans, and that is hard enough in itself. But the continual work of seeking to tie these in with the latest direction in government policy or industry trend – be it employability, wealth creation, social cohesion or economic rejuvenation – is as thankless as it is intensive, and it is not clear that it leads to real, sustained progress.
The problem with this approach is that policy in the world of further education and skills moves as quickly as social change, and not always in the same direction.
Trying to align one’s organisational strategy and vision to reflect the hot political issue of the day runs the risk of losing sight of what really matters.
Current thinking would suggest that educational excellence is a means to an end, namely the creation of a highly-skilled workforce that will aid the productivity of UK Plc. But what about seeing the provision of educational excellence as an end in itself for every person in our organisation, from learners’ experiences to staff CPD?
The mission of achieving excellence seems an impossible and nebulous one, but it outlives the vast majority of the policy fancies that come and go.
It can aid organisational stability, keep staff focused and enable leadership teams to develop clear and identifiable purpose that can be effectively communicated to others. For that to happen, we must define our own excellence as a sector, and as organisations.
Placing our primary focus on high-quality education as an end in itself means our provision becomes wholly inclusive by default – as relevant to Learners with Learning Difficulties or Disabilities (LLDD) as to higher education students.
Putting educational excellence front and centre also avoids questionable debates as to why certain provision is offered, because the question is no longer one of short-term decision-making but of breadth and depth of curriculum.
We must define our own excellence as a sector.
It secures the confidence of staff in what they are delivering, and provides a very clear set of principles that everyone can get behind.
Striving to provide our learners with the best possible educational opportunities has obvious benefits. An educational climate focused on building and enhancing learner confidence can only result in a strong local and national reputation for the college. Teaching and mentoring that support employability skills in young people and adults ensures that employers’ needs are met.
And if reputation and impact aren’t enough, high-calibre educational providers in the FE sector can also reap benefits through strengthening learner numbers, new and profitable relationships with employers and attracting the highest-performing staff.
Educational excellence as a means to other ends – that are never truly under our control – is a recipe for instability. It leaves us at the mercy of others’ priorities, policies and pet projects, chasing often-unattainable goals.
With a general election looming, we face the prospect of new ministerial faces and new policy ideals. By keeping our eyes on the prize of educational excellence, by embracing it as the reward in itself, our college-level strategies can remain constant amidst the policy turbulence and prove a true enabler of organisational resilience, success and prosperity.
Could the football transfer process work in the regulated world of FE? It’s worth a try, says Sam Parrett
Watching my husband glued to the TV for 24 hours during the last few days of the football transfer window made me think about how different further education might be if our employment law framework was similar to that of a football club.
The football transfer process, with its last-minute medical checks and signings, are usually a twice-yearly marital endurance test in the Parrett household. But last month we were on a cruise around the Baltics and Scandinavia, and an interesting debate took place about the wage bills, transfer costs, strengths and weaknesses of players, teams and the future prospects as the new season began.
As an FE principal who came up through the human resources route, I began to wonder what lessons we could learn for my sector.
In football, high-performing players are transferred to different clubs to strengthen their forward or defensive teams. How could that translate in FE? Could we have a more open culture where staff were able to change jobs more easily during “transfer windows”? If we had flexibility over salaries and the ability to pay our highest-performing staff more, recognising and rewarding them for exceptional performance as they do in football, a market-led model might improve retention and outcomes.
Similarly, just as football players are loaned to other clubs, could we send staff out on loan, or perhaps a secondment, to another college to broaden their skills and experience and add strength and experience to weaker organisations? Or maybe allow free transfers – in the same way that football clubs transfer a player out or recruit a free transfer on a swap basis.
Imagine if we principals could talk to each other in the same way; for example, if our demand for English and maths teachers is reducing at a time when we need business lecturers. Could we approach a neighbouring college with a reverse problem and, through consultation and negotiation with the individuals concerned, transfer staff so that each college has the staff with the right expertise?
Senior management could swap roles to support career development.
The benefits are not just the obvious reductions in employment agency and placement fees, but also to staff and organisational development.
The similarities between the world of football and FE include league tables, constant press speculation and regulatory interference.
The possibility of a more dynamic and voluntary arrangement with genuine brokering and movement of staff, cooperation between colleges, college groups and even schools could be hugely beneficial to individuals and local communities.
We could see less restructuring and redundancy through better brokerage of employment at a local level and more stability in our backyard. This sort of collaboration and brokerage system within and across the sector could even work at principal level, giving senior management the opportunity for role swaps to support career development, such as deputies trying out the principal role.
As I pondered this approach while watching a sunset, I also considered the potential drawbacks: the manager and player commodity market is much more transient and less stable than the employment protection and security of our current employment terms and conditions. For example there would also be a risk of pay costs escalating, although this is something we could control in a more dynamic market environment.
It’s an idea worth trying. So I’m throwing down the gauntlet to see if anyone else would like to join my college in seeing if we can create a more dynamic systems-led approach to staff recruitment that helps our staff development too.
Apprenticeship schemes should be at the heart of social, educational and economic policy
The apprenticeship system in its current state isn’t working. This isn’t simply a gnarly policy issue, or a practical concern for businesses and learning providers. It is a profound economic and social justice issue, which disproportionately affects the most disadvantaged and perpetuates inequalities.
There are many reasons why apprenticeships and skills are important, but the moral imperative to ensure that we support people into work and enable those in low-paid and insecure work to progress is paramount. Through a collaborative approach, we can make an impact.
There is no shortage of proposals as to how apprenticeships and skills policy should change. However, there is a need for more immediate, collaborative action. Last year, a study published by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that businesses need support to make the system work better for them, and to better support the progression of low-paid, low-skilled workers.
While the 60 London employers in the study indicated enthusiasm for making the apprenticeship levy work better, no business can act effectively alone. Similarly, neither local government nor sector experts can make an impact in isolation. We face a collective action problem. Collaboration is key.
Why? The UK suffers a longstanding ‘progression gap’, with just one in four adults moving out of low pay over the decade to 2012. We also face low and declining investment in continuing vocational training compared with the EU average, while the adult skills budget is undergoing cuts amounting to 45 per cent in real terms in the decade to 2020/21. It is adults with the lowest levels of qualifications, in lower-paying occupations and in lower socioeconomic groups – those least likely to participate in learning – who bear the brunt.
Meanwhile, employers cite significant skills gaps in many sectors. For example, 53 per cent of construction employers responding to a recent Build UK survey reported having found it difficult to source skilled workers in the last quarter, while 50 per cent of employers surveyed by the Open University in 2018 reported digital skills shortages.
There’s a real opportunity for government, civil society and businesses to come together.
Apprenticeships can help to address these challenges as part of a broader approach to skills development, but we’re a long way from success. Employers spent just 14 per cent of their pot in the first 18 months of the apprenticeship levy policy. This week, the Department for Education announced that the amount of funds expiring in employers’ apprenticeship accounts was £44 million in July. In August, it was £52 million. By August this year the DfE reported just 610 apprenticeship starts resulting from levy transfers between large employers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in their supply chain or local area.
In the capital, mayor Sadiq Khan quoted a survey of employers which suggested that 47 per cent didn’t intend to use their levy funds in the next year. IPPR analysis found that London has a significantly lower rate of apprenticeship starts than the national average, and a lower rate of progress from low- to mid-skilled work. The need for further support at all stages of the employers’ apprenticeship journey is clear.
This week’s spending review was silent on both apprenticeships and adult education funding, but that’s no reason to despair. There’s a real opportunity for government, civil society and businesses to come together with innovative solutions that benefit individuals and employers without requiring large-scale policy change.
The launch of the London Progression Collaboration (LPC) – an initiative being delivered by the IPPR and the Greater London Authority, with the support of over 40 employers and the financial support of J.P. Morgan – exemplifies this. The LPC will offer free business support to help London employers navigate the apprenticeship landscape and offer high-quality, sustainable opportunities for progression. It will broker and facilitate the levy transfer process and ensure SMEs can access hands-on support at every step.
It’s the kind of practical solution employers told us they need – one which works with their businesses and has the interests of low-paid Londoners at its heart.
The government’s announcement of extra funding for FE is welcome, but the sector must ensure it is invested sustainably, says Richard Atkins as he sets out his office’s three key priorities for the new academic year
With everyone else in the sector, I was very pleased to read about the significant increase in FE funding in last week’s spending review. While using resources well is critical, ultimately the level of funding underpins our ability to employ excellent teachers and deliver for our students.
Within the Department for Education, there is real optimism about the future opportunities for colleges. Our new secretary of state is clear that improving technical education is an overriding priority for him. As a huge believer in the transformative effect of FE on the lives of learners, I welcome this renewed focus.
I and my FEC team are expecting another busy year supporting individual colleges to develop a sustainable and successful sector. My team now has three roles – to support colleges in improving to good and outstanding; to engage where there is a risk of failure either on quality or financial health; and to support ministers in feeding practitioner insight into policy-making.
We have recently taken big steps in the first area. The 80 colleges that participated in the recent Strategic College Improvement Fund (SCIF) programme have reported that it helped them to boost the quality of teaching and learning and encouraged meaningful collaboration that would not have happened otherwise. They have also raised aspirations and supported college-wide improvements in culture and leadership.
We have been supported in this work by outstanding sector leaders. National leaders of FE colleges (NLFEs) and national leaders of governance (NLGs) are in place to offer mentoring, encouragement and share best practice. We have received very positive feedback about their work. We will be recruiting further leaders this term and I want to encourage experienced chief executives/principals and chairs of good or outstanding colleges to apply. As a sector, it is essential that we learn from
each other.
The second area of work for my team is to visit colleges where risks have been identified, often following an Ofsted assessment or an analysis by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). I have also been pleased to see increasing numbers of colleges approaching us proactively, as leaders recognise that they need support.
Most frequently I and my team undertake a diagnostic assessment of the college’s strategy for improvement. We visited 33 colleges last year in this role. These visits usually produce supportive recommendations and enable colleges to access a wider range of advice – including NLFEs and NLGs. We conduct fewer of the more serious full intervention assessments than we do diagnostics; critical failures occur where leadership teams have allowed problems to fester and become crises.
Common factors lead to intervention, such as the lack of a sustainable, costed curriculum plan. There is a belief that problems can be put off by selling an asset, expecting that the college will secure an increased share of the learner market next year, or that funding rates will significantly increase. In some cases, there are hopes that entering a new or novel type of provision will bring in income.
The announcement around funding is welcome, and it will achieve most impact if it is invested as part of a costed curriculum plan within a sustainable long-term structure, not as a way of putting off necessary decisions. Colleges must be honest about problems and open about risks. Your local ESFA team, the FE commissioner team, NLFEs and NLGs are all there to help and work with you.
Colleges must be honest about problems and open about risks.
The new FE insolvency regime has been introduced and used for the first time this year. The objective is to protect learners and enable smooth transitions. My team has been heavily involved in the first case, working closely with the ESFA and the administrator, and our experience is that it will achieve these.
Nonetheless, it is an intensive, costly process, and the objective must be for colleges not to need it. In 2018-19 my team was involved in 20 solvent structural changes. An encouraging and increasing number of colleges have recognised that the best way to secure high-quality provision for learners is to have a facilitated structure and prospects appraisal (SPA), where my team can work with existing leadership to identify the best solution.
The third aspect of my role is to feed practitioner insight into policy. I chair the Principals Reference Group – seven of the most experienced and successful principals in the sector, selected through an open process – and the College Improvement Board, made up of a mix of senior civil servants and college principals/chief executives. Both of these boards have a role in feeding user insight into policy development. I am encouraged that the department shares thinking early and is keen to get expert input to ensure effective implementation.
Our own FEC team has just recruited three recent and experienced FE leaders to join us. Martin Sim has joined as a deputy FE commissioner, whilst Laraine Smith and Nigel Duncan will take up FE adviser roles. They replace John Hogg, Lynne Craig and Phil Frier who all stood down in July after five years’ excellent work.
I hope that your college has a stable, enjoyable and successful year. Colleges remain brilliant places to work because you are transforming the life chances of your learners every day. Creating a good or outstanding college while managing tight budgets requires governance and leadership of the highest quality, sometimes helped by a little luck! If your college is facing challenges, help is available and it is better to approach other colleges, the regulator or ourselves rather than hope that heroic leadership will carry you through.
A college’s future is in doubt after officials demanded it pays up to £20 million back to the government following investigations into a major subcontracting scandal, FE Week can reveal.
Brooklands College has been told to pay the funding clawback owing to its dealings with mysterious training firm SCL Security Ltd, owned by Andrew Merritt.
The pair have been involved in multi-million pound subcontracting deals for years whereby SCL Security supposedly trained hundreds of apprentices, mostly aged 16 to 18.
“The college is unable to comment on any confidential details about ongoing ESFA investigations”
Questions began to mount over the arrangement when, in November 2018, FE Week discovered the subcontractor employed fewer than 10 staff and no evidence could be found that the courses were advertised, who the apprentices at SCL Security were, or where it trained them.
Once the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s boss Eileen Milner became aware she launched one of the agency’s biggest ever investigations, hiring three different audit firms to conduct simultaneous inquiries of different organisations involved in the subcontracting arrangement.
Apprenticeship starts were suspended at SCL Security while inquiries were made.
FE Week can now reveal that amongst many findings, the ESFA investigation discovered that the apprenticeship funding was being used to pay the wages for the 16 to 18-year-olds, which is very clearly not permitted in the agency’s funding rules.
It is understood that a recruitment agency called Workforce Staffing Ltd, part of Workforce Solutions Group Limited which is headed up by two brothers – Paul and Joe Alekna – who were at the centre of an FE Week exposé in 2016, were involved in this.
As a result, the auditors view up to £20 million of ESFA funding to be at risk.
Brooklands College said it was unable to comment on “confidential details” about the ongoing ESFA investigations.
“We continue to work closely with the ESFA Territorial team and have an excellent working relationship,” a spokesperson added.
The ESFA declined to comment. Merritt and the Aleknas failed to respond to numerous requests for comment.
Gail Walker, who worked her way up to principal of Brooklands after joining in 2011, resigned from the college in March 2019 following the launch of the ESFA’s investigation.
The college claimed at the time that this was “part of her long term personal plan”.
The chair of Brooklands used to be Jerry Tapp, who stood down as planned in September 2018, two months before FE Week first reported on the subcontracting arrangement with SCL Security.
The new chair is Terry Lazenby, who had been vice chair since 2014 and was a member of three committees including audit.
Brooklands is a relatively small college, with total income during 2017/18 of £18.6 million and a £558,000 deficit.
The college had £3.4 million in cash (down from £4.6 million the year before), a £3.4 million long-term bank loan and £25 million in fixed assets in the buildings and land.
A clawback of £20 million could therefore put the college at risk of insolvency, something the college has declined to comment on.
SCL Security secured its first direct ESFA contract this year, which totalled £1 million and included apprenticeships and adult education budget cash, bringing it in scope for Ofsted inspection.
SCL Security has worked with other prime providers in the past.
Catch 22 were one such prime provider. A spokesperson told FE Week they were audited earlier this year following the ESFA’s investigation into SCL Security, but “we’ve have had no further information requests since”.
Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College also subcontracted to SCL Security, with deal worth £1.7 million in 2018/19, which covered basic English, maths and IT skills for learners whose first language is usually not English.
The college terminated this relationship earlier this year following FE Week’s revelations.
At the time, EHWLC’s principal, Karen Redhead, said: “I understand from speaking with the ESFA that the issue was with regard to apprenticeships and contracts of employment. We do not subcontract to SCL Security Ltd on apprenticeships.”
She declined to comment this week on whether her college has since been audited by the ESFA.
Whilst the ESFA has investigated and taken action against Brooklands, it is unclear, at this time, if any action has been taken against SCL Security.
