Colleges fail to win any OfS mental health funding

All three college bids for a £6 million fund to help reduce student mental health problems have been rejected.

Instead, ten universities have been chosen to share the cash on offer from the Office for Students, along with co-funding of £8.5 million to develop “innovative” projects.

The call was open to both universities and colleges, and a total of 48 submissions were made.

The OfS wouldn’t name the unsuccessful colleges, but pointed out that, of the successful projects, two include FE colleges as partners.

They are Keele University, which will work with Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group and Stoke on Trent College; and Lincoln University, partnered with Lincoln College.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said he was “disappointed that this investment does not seem to have reached many colleges”.

“But,” he added, “I am not surprised, because the funding was only for higher education, which is an important but not major part of college provision.

“I’m pleased that some colleges are part of winning projects and I expect them to play a formative part in those partnerships, sharing their good practice with universities.”

According to the AoC, one in five young people aged 16 to 24 experience a common mental illness, such as anxiety or depression, every year; and 75 per cent of adults with a diagnosable mental health problem experience their first symptoms before the age of 24.

The proportion of full-time UK undergraduate students reporting mental health concerns when they enter higher education has more than doubled over the past five years, the OfS said.

Hughes said student mental health is a “big priority for colleges” and has had “welcome coverage in recent times”.

His association launched a mental health charter last month to challenge mental health stigma, and 24 colleges have “enthusiastically” signed it so far.

The OfS’s competition was aimed at generating new approaches which could be used across higher education. Focuses include new forms of mental health awareness training to staff and students, and developing an integrated approach between university- and collegelevel support services.

Denise Brown, principal at Stoke on Trent College, told FE Week that via the project they are working on with Keele University, “we aim to improve support and opportunities through the college to university transition, working collaboratively with local colleges, universities, NHS partners and the local authority to develop a multi-agency ‘transitions toolkit’”.

“Our commitment to this project includes creating a provision for staff training and education programmes that aim to increase awareness of mental health issues and their impact,” she added.

“We are looking forward to dedicating staff time to help develop this transitional toolkit and delivering essential training targeted specifically at benefiting young Colleges fail to win any OfS mental health funding people in our community.”

The eight other universities that will share the £6 million funding are: Newcastle, University of Derby, University of the West of England, Northumbria University, University of Liverpool, University of Nottingham, University of Birmingham and University of Sussex.

Universities minister Chris Skidmore said: “I am pleased the Office for Students is driving forward action on this vital priority, and these innovative projects will help to improve mental health support by allowing institutions to find what really works to help those students in need.”

Is the Prime Minister planning farewell budget hike for FE?

Theresa May is pushing to announce a huge programme of investment to overhaul schools and colleges in England before she leaves office, according to reports.

However, the current Prime Minister is said to be locked in a row with chancellor Philip Hammond over the plans, as the Treasury fears they could cost more than £10 billion.

As reported on the front page of the Financial Times today, funding rates for 16 to 19-year-olds is one main area that May wants to throw money at.

It comes after she said further education had been “left overlooked, undervalued and underfunded” by successive governments, who have “failed to give it the support it needs”.

She made the comments at the launch event of the post-18 education Augar report, which was commissioned by May in February 2018.

Its “core message” was that the disparity between the 50 per cent of young people attending higher education and the other 50 per cent who do not “has to be addressed”.

The report’s recommendations included an increase in the funding base rate for 16 to 19-year-olds and a £1bn capital investment in colleges.

At the launch event, FE Week editor Nick Linford asked May, if she was so determined that funding for further education should be increased, then why hasn’t it happened before now and why is the government waiting for a spending review to make any announcements.

She didn’t answer the question directly, but said: “We are looking.

“Much has been done for FE but this [report] says more needs to be done and I think it is right that we absolutely make sure that the education for every young person is what is right for them.”

May steps down as Conservative leader on Friday. It is expected that her successor will not act on Augar’s recommendations and implement them as policy as was first thought when the review was announced. The Department for Education has already rejected one of its proposals, as reported by FE Week today.

According to the FT, the Treasury claimed the Augar report could cost £6 billion a year — although Augur said that savings in the scheme would substantially cut that figure.

May has also reportedly urged Hammond to release cash for a three-year school funding settlement. This would include more money for failing schools, teacher training, higher pay for teacher retention, and a review of the way the national schools budget is allocated.

The FT said May wants to use her remaining weeks as caretaker prime minister to “deliver parts of her domestic agenda that were crushed by the pressures of Brexit”.

“There have been several high level meetings on this,” said one person close to the negotiations, according to the newspaper. “Philip has made it clear that the headroom is there as a cushion against a no-deal exit.”

May is expected to take her plans to cabinet for approval.

The prime minister apparently wants to make “an announcement every week” before she leaves.

Number 10 has been approached for comment.

While many of the Conservative leadership candidates have pledged more funding for schools if they’re elected, only one, Esther McVey, has promised extra cash for further education.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 283

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

John Westhead, Director of training services, St Helens Chamber

Start date: May 2019

Previous job: Head of operations and learning, Training 2000

Interesting fact: He coaches children’s football in his spare time

Jo Grady, General secretary, University and College Union

Start date: Summer 2019

Concurrent job (on a leave of absence): Senior lecturer in employment relations, University of Sheffield

Interesting fact: She has a personal alcohol licence, so she could run a pub

Jacqueline O’Donovan, Vice-chair of diversity and inclusion group, Strategic Transport Apprenticeship Taskforce

Start date: May 2019

Concurrent job: Managing director, O’Donovan Waste Disposal Ltd

Interesting fact: She took part in Channel 4’s The Job Interview in 2016

Corrie Harris, Principal, Moulton College

Start date: July 2019

Previous job: Vice principal, Bedford College Group

Interesting fact: She enjoys a game of golf, as well as a cycle ride

Over 1,300 apprentices left without any provider, 7 months after 3aaa collapse

Nearly one-third of the apprentices who were training with disgraced apprenticeship firm Aspire Achieve Advance had still not been found a new provider seven months after its collapse.

Furthermore, questions are likely to be raised about some of the firms the transferred apprentices have moved to, after one was slammed by Ofsted in an ‘insufficient’ monitoring report, four have been rated ‘requires improvement’ and three have never been inspected.

The company, better known as 3aaa, went into administration on October 11 after the government pulled its skills funding contracts following a fraud investigation. The police have since launched a formal criminal investigation.

A total of 4,229 apprentices were left without a place to complete their training, so the Education and Skills Funding Agency immediately began work to find them alternative provision at “high-quality” providers.

FE Week has now learnt, through a Freedom of Information request, that 1,321 of them, or 31 per cent, had still not been found new providers as of May 10.

Of the affected apprentices there were 1,835 non-levy funded. Of these 1,615 have had a transfer “facilitated”, while 210 have either completed their programme or withdrawn, and 10 are “still being supported”.

In terms of levy-funded apprentices, of which there were 2,394, and where the responsibility to find them a new provider is the employers, 1,073 transfers have been facilitated.

Transferring 3aaa’s apprentices proved controversial earlier in the year after FE Week revealed that a few providers had attempted to poach staff and learners using underhand tactics. This led to the ESFA warning that they could withdraw funding from any firms found doing this.

An investigation by this newspaper found that some training providers were “misrepresenting their position” in an effort to recruit those affected. Tactics included alleged false claims that the ESFA and 3aaa had asked the providers to take on hundreds of people affected.

Among them was Prospects Training International Limited, which trades as Geason Training. At the time, it was understood Geason had taken on 3aaa’s former quality director and was trying to recruit around 40 other former staff.

The provider, which was allowed to recruit over 1,000 apprentices before being inspected, was found making “insufficient progress” by Ofsted in a heavily critical monitoring visit published this week.

The FOI obtained by FE Week shows Geason took on 238 of 3aaa’s apprentices.

Babington Business College Limited, a large provider with government-funded skills contracts worth nearly £10 million in 2018-19 (according to ESFA data), was also one of the providers accused of poaching apprentices.

It took on 3aaa’s former operations director, and FE Week’s FOI shows it has taken on 347 affected apprentices – the most out of all providers.

Estio was another provider that formed part of FE Week’s investigation, and the figures show they took on 113 apprentices.

Elsewhere, Ofsted grade three providers Kaplan Financial Ltd, South Staffordshire College, Skills Edge Training Ltd and Chesterfield College took on 69, 28, 16 and 10 of 3aaa’s apprentices respectively.

Presidency London College Ltd, Learnmore Network Ltd, International Correspondence Schools Limited have never been inspected by Ofsted but took on 48, 45 and 29 of 3aaa’s apprentices respectively.

FE Week revealed what was behind the government and police investigations into 3aaa in November.

The company, which had 500 staff before it went bust when the ESFA pulled its £16.5 million skills contract, allegedly manipulated Individualised Learner Records to artificially inflate achievement rates by a huge amount and misused employer-incentive grants.

A previous ESFA investigation into 3aaa, carried out by auditing firm KPMG in 2016, had found dozens of success rate “overclaims”.

3aaa was co-founded by Peter Marples and Di McEvoy-Robinson in 2008, but the pair stepped down in September during the ESFA’s second investigation.

In March, Derbyshire police launched a formal criminal investigation into the provider.

At the time of going to press the police said investigations were ongoing.

It is easy to conclude that the DfE are not serious about apprenticeship quality

This week we report that the Department for Education will announce that the Office for Students, not Ofsted, will inspect the quality of all level 6 and 7 apprenticeships.

It comes after FE Week exposed the fact that thousands of apprentices were at providers where Ofsted had to exclude them from inspection because they were on standards at level 6 and 7 with no degree element, and therefore had no regulator responsible.

It was a situation that irked the chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, who recounted a story of joining an inspection where these learners were off-limits.

But despite Ofsted wanting to take responsibility for monitoring the quality of popular apprenticeships, such as the level 7 accountancy at providers like Kaplan Financial, the DfE has seen fit to call on the Office for Students – even if the provider offering them is not on its HE register.

Given the timing, in that the announcement has not yet been made, this appears to be the first major rejection of a recommendation within the Augar Review.

The high-profile report published last week recommended that “Ofsted become the lead responsible body for the inspection of the quality of apprenticeships at all levels”.

And for good reason, describing the Ofsted and the OfS sharing of responsibility as “wasteful”, that it risks providers being overlooked and fails to ensure consistency.

They rightly go on to say that “a sole inspection body is vital when new and untested providers are entering the market and offering provision at a variety of levels”.

Without wanting to sound unkind, the OfS seem completely out of their depth in the non-degree market, which might explain why they have so far been reluctant to actively take up their apprenticeship responsibilities.

And the only argument I have heard so far against Ofsted taking the responsibility is that “this may not be welcome by some higher education institutions”.

If the government is serious about a high-quality apprenticeship system then it is blindingly obvious they should not burden the OfS with responsibility for something they are totally ill-equipped to manage.

Rejection of this Augar Report recommendation makes a mockery of common sense.

Let’s not make this a case study of poor policymaking, worthy of featuring in the level 4 policy officer apprenticeship standard.

The sector and apprentices deserve better than policies that simply seek to save the blushes of some university vice chancellors.

Ofsted watch: Airports apprenticeship provider slammed by Ofsted – again

A new apprenticeship provider that was suspended from recruiting learners last year has been rated ‘inadequate’ in its first full inspection, in what was otherwise an average week for the FE sector.

The only other bad report came in for Prospects Training International Limited, which trades a Geason Training and was bought out in a multimillion pound deal in December by Speedy, one of the UK’s leading tool hire services company.

It was allowed to recruit over 1,000 apprentices before being inspected and when Ofsted went knocking they found it making ‘insufficient progress’. Read the full story here.

Mooreskills Limited was the provider hit with a grade four this week, following a highly critical ‘insufficient’ monitoring visit report published in May last year.

Its full inspection report found “too many apprentices do not develop substantial new knowledge, skills and behaviours and make slow progress on their apprenticeship programmes, having passed their planned end date”.

Apprentices are “often already skilled and very experienced in their role”, inspectors added.

The company had 177 apprentices at the time of the visit. The vast majority are enrolled on new standards, mainly on retailing and wholesaling, administration, team leading, business management or leadership apprenticeships.

They are based airports and businesses around the country including London Heathrow.

This week’s report said directors at the Birkenhead-based provider failed to deal with the issues raised in the earlier visit, with too many apprentices still not receiving their entitlement of time away from their job role to complete training.

The provider is now expected to be kicked off the government’s register of apprenticeship training providers and banned from delivering apprenticeships.

In better news, T.M.S Learning and Skills Support Limited received a follow-up monitoring visit after being found making ‘insufficient progress’ in its safeguarding provision in a report published in January. Ofsted has now found the provider making ‘significant progress’, with the director being “highly effective” in improving arrangements to safeguard apprentices.

And Alpha Care Agency Limited, a London-based provider of health and social care apprenticeships, has been recognised for making ‘reasonable progress’ after being given a grade three rating in March last year.

The watchdog said senior leaders have since expanded the membership of the board and secured new members with expertise in training, education and the care industry. They have also put in place more comprehensive arrangements to identify where improvements in teaching, learning and assessment are needed.

Elsewhere, independent learning providers Train 4 Limited, DiVA Apprenticeships Limited, Hybrid Technical Services Limited and Acacia Training and Development Limited were all found to have made ‘reasonable progress’ across all their provisions during their first-ever monitoring visits since they started delivering apprenticeships.

Equally, employer provider Jet2.com and University of Leeds were found to have made ‘reasonable progress’ in their first Ofsted visits.

Jet2.com, which offers four-year aircraft maintenance fitter/technician apprenticeships at level 3, was recognised for having leaders with excellent knowledge of, and experience in, the aviation industry, which they use to very good effect. Ofsted said they plan a “coherent and highly relevant” on- and off-the job training.

The watchdog said learners at the University of Leeds gain the new skills, knowledge and behaviours that they need in their job roles as healthcare assistant practitioners and nursing associates, profiting from “effective teaching and learning in well-resourced classrooms and laboratories”.

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Prospects Training International Limited 25/04/2019 05/06/2019 M n/a
Train 4 Limited 26/04/2019 05/06/2019 M n/a
DiVA Apprenticeships Ltd 27/04/2019 07/06/2019 M n/a
Mooreskills Ltd 10/04/2019 03/06/2019 4 n/a
T.M.S Learning And Skills Support Ltd. 09/05/2019 07/06/2019 M n/a
Hybrid Technical Services Limited 01/05/2019 07/06/2019 M n/a
Acacia Training and Development Ltd 02/05/2019 05/06/2019 M n/a
Alpha Care Agency Limited 25/04/2019 07/06/2019 M 3

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Jet2.Com Limited 09/05/2019 03/06/2019 M n/a

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
University of Leeds 08/05/2019 03/06/2019 M n/a

Four-letter verdict on colossal European Social Fund blunder

In what one ESFA official is alleged to have called a “f*ck up of epic proportions”, all 80 training providers in receipt of around £300 million of European Social Funding are being investigated after funding claim “discrepancies” were discovered.

As a result, contract compliance for the 2014 to 2020 ESF programme has been thrown into doubt.

In early April the ESFA wrote to providers with concerns that evidence was missing from learner files. FE Week has seen a copy of the ESF contract which states that where a learner is enrolled on to a course involving a regulated qualification, then the “evidence requirement” for a start payment is registration to an awarding body.

On 1 April, the day after contracts had ended, the ESFA wrote to all providers as part of a “nationwide exercise across all ESF contracts” with concerns that this evidence was missing from learner files.

We have become aware of discrepancies

They requested that a small sample be checked within two weeks because: “We have become aware of discrepancies with the evidence held to support the claiming of a start payment for a Regulated learning aim.”

In April the ESFA did in fact find a significant amount of non-compliance which led to a follow-up email in early May requesting “further investigation at all providers.”

“You are now required to complete a 100 per cent check of the aims and record what evidence you have available for Awarding Body registration, along with the date of that registration,” providers were told in an email dated May 2, with a May 28 deadline to complete the exercise.

Despite the highly unusual nationwide compliance checking of all records, the DfE told FE Week: “As part of our business-as-usual closure checks we validate data and sample compliance check the providers claimed activities.”

And initially the DfE said the checks were not about funding compliance, claiming: “The purpose of these checks is not to cancel funding for any providers and we do not anticipate receiving any money back from providers.”

However, the DfE appeared to backtrack when FE Week shared the ESFA email sent to all ESF providers in early May in which it said “where the evidence is not available you will need to remove these claims.”

Having reviewed the ESFA email, a DfE spokesperson added: “When we finalise the contract for closure we do not anticipate we will need to claw back any funding as we have worked with providers to try and ensure this is not the case. However, if an external audit confirms irregularities we will of course claw back funds.”

FE Week has spoken to several providers affected, who claim the ESFA had not been clear enough in the contracts or previous audits that they would need awarding organisation registration evidence to justify startpayments.

The ESFA has since strengthened the wording in contracts starting April 2019 ensuring that learners are registered with the awarding body prior to the start claim being made.

But it is understood that for the contracts to March 2019 there are likely to be millions of pounds of start payments for thousands of learners who did not finish their course and for whom they were not registered with an awarding organisation.

The ESFA said in their communication with providers in early May that they would need to remove these claims and it remains unclear whether this has been done and, as a result, what scale of funding claw-back could follow.

Growth Company denies conflict of interest in European Social Fund tender

A provider with directors on the board of a local enterprise partnership has refuted conflict of interest allegations after winning nearly all of the £32.6 million available for the area in a recent European Social Fund tender.

The Growth Company Limited, which won £27.6 million in the Greater Manchester area, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and its LEP.

The provider has six directors who hold various roles at the organisations it is accountable to.

For example, its chair, Richard Topliss, is a member of the Greater Manchester LEP, while one of Growth’s directors, Michael Blackburn, is the chair of the LEP.

The provider won all three ESF contracts that it applied for to deliver training in the Greater Manchester LEP.

Multiple providers have been in touch with FE Week and complained to the Education and Skills Funding Agency, which ran the tender, to raise concerns about what has been described as a “blatant” conflict of interest.

One college director, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “Issues have been raised with the ESFA about the openness and transparency of the processes, and the potential for bias, as several directors sit on both boards, and executives hold portfolios in both organisations.”

They claimed that the LEP would have been involved in developing the tender specification and ultimately in awarding the tenders with the ESFA for the Greater Manchester area.

“Despite the ESFA claiming there were adequate confidentiality arrangements in place to prevent any information sharing and conflicts of interest, it does raise questions about the bias and favour,” they added.

The Growth Company and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which is the accountable body for the LEP, strongly denied the allegations.

“This was an EFSA-run process in which the Combined Authority had limited involvement,” a spokesperson for GMCA and the LEP said.

“Officers were required to sign and abide by the EFSA’s Conflict of Interest declaration and, in common with other areas, provided a short local narrative based around Greater Manchester’s clear strategic priorities to support the specification. 

“None of the GMCA members involved in the Growth Company had access to tender specification information, nor were they involved in any way in the contract letting process. GMCA were not involved in the appraisal of bids and were only notified of the ESFA’s intention to award contracts once the ESFA had made its decisions.”

A spokesperson for the Growth Company said it believes the results of the European Social Fund tender come from “our strong track-record in delivering high-quality skills, employment and business support services across the North of England”.  

“This exercise was competitively tendered and managed nationally by the ESFA,” he added.

“Each proposal submitted achieved an identical and consistent quality score irrespective of the geography. With 63 per cent of contract wins and 50 per cent of potential funding coming from outside of Greater Manchester, we are confident that there was no bias in the ESFA ESF tendering process.”

The spokesperson said its board members had “no access to any of the information listed and had no involvement in the national ESFA commissioning process”. 

A Department for Education spokesperson said it had “no evidence to suggest that there was any sensitive information shared throughout this process”.

We are confident that there was no bias in the ESFA ESF tendering process

The European Social Fund is funding that the UK received, as a member state of the EU, to increase job opportunities and to help people to improve their skill levels, particularly those individuals who find it difficult to get work.

Winning providers in this tender, of which there were 47, will help to deliver the training in 38 LEP areas.

The Growth Company win wasn’t the only controversial part of the procurement.

The ESFA delayed issuing contracts several times, after multiple providers claimed that the government broke tender rules, namely by excluding the “track record” section when marking bids, while the ESFA has admitted to “errors”.

Further questions were asked in March after FE Week discovered an “unprecedented” amount of tie-breaks in the procurement.

One aggrieved provider threatened legal action against the ESFA, but decided to drop this because of the likely cost and a fear of repercussions from the agency.

College accused of ‘everyday racism’ after sacking lecturer

The new Universities and College Union general secretary has accused the leadership at Sandwell College of “everyday racism” after it sacked lecturer Dave Muritu.

In an interview with FE Week, Dr Jo Grady said there is “everyday racism in colleges”, and that “we have seen that just this week with someone being dismissed at Sandwell”.

Muritu was fired by the college last week for writing the word “racist” on a poster promoting the Prevent strategy.

Despite admitting to drawing on the poster and apologising for his actions, the lecturer was dismissed for gross misconduct on the grounds of “serious damage to college property”, “bringing the college into disrepute” and “use of inappropriate language”.

The lecturer agreed with Grady’s remarks, telling FE Week there is “clear sign of institutional racism” in the college.

“Anecdotally, the amount of case work that we do on members of staff being disciplined shows the people who gets the harshest disciplined are generally black, and generally black women,” he said.

Muritu also claimed that, while the college does quite well in terms of diversity among lecturing staff, “if yougo any higher into management, it’s totally white”.

A college spokesperson said: “As with all colleges, Sandwell takes its government statutory safeguarding and prevent duties very seriously and has the same high expectation of its staff. We pride ourselves on promoting our core values of respect, tolerance and promoting diversity in a positive manner.

“The college is dismayed with recent comments made by Mr. Muritu reported in the media, however it does not comment in detail on internal procedural matters.

“The college has and continues to support the contribution of all recognised unions.”

The union planned a protest outside the college’s grounds on Friday (June 7), demanding the reinstatement of the lecturer.

A petition calling for his reinstatement had reached more than 4,800 signatories at the time of going to press.

Last year, the college and its staff agreed on a new “sector-leading” pay deal – amounting to more than 6 per cent over three years, avoiding a threeday strike.

UCU pointed out that Muritu is the union’s local branch secretary, and played a key role in negotiating the landmark pay deal for staff last May.

The maths lecturer is also the former chair of the UCU black members standing committee.

He told this newspaper that the college has been trying to “victimise” him for several years. “I think if any other member of staff would have done this they wouldn’t dismiss them.”

Muritu claimed his dislike of the Prevent programme was well known at the college.

Prevent, which promotes “British values”, requires FE providers to put policies in place to stop the potential radicalisation of learners and exposure to extremism.

The programme has received widespread criticism, and in January this year, security minister Ben Wallace, announced an independent review into the strategy.

Muritu explained that when the programme was made a duty on public sector organisations, the UCU objected to it because it felt it was “targeting Muslim students”.

“We felt the definition of extremism within the [Prevent] duty is really problematic,” he said.

“It’s such a loose definition it could be levelled at anybody who shows dissent against government policy or who does not fit the current predominant narrative.

“It could be used to target anybody: trade unionists, people from the left, from environment groups. We just felt it was not appropriate for education because education is a place where ideas are discussed in an open, democratic and trusting environment and I think it destroys the trust because it turns educators into spies on students.”