A funding rule that is preventing large employers from transferring levy funds to smaller employers to train 16 to 18-year-old apprentices is being reviewed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.
Keith Smith, the agency’s director of apprenticeships, revealed this was an area he hopes to address “quite soon”, during today’s Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference.
Under apprenticeship funding rule E189, it states that a “transfer of funds will not take place where the receiving employer is eligible for full government funding, because they have fewer than 50 employees and the apprentice is: 16 to18 years old; or an eligible 19 to 24 year old”.
We would be delighted to see it out there in the market from the beginning of April
One provider that has been lobbying to get this changed is the London Hairdressing Apprenticeship Academy.
Its co-founder and director, Trevor Luker, told FE Week: “In the levy transfer system, giving employers can’t pass their funding over to receiving employers if the receiving employer has less than 50 employees and intends to employ a 16 to 18, or a 19 to 24 supported EHCP apprentice because the funding rules don’t permit that transfer.
“In essence we’ve been trying to lobby to get that rule changed because we work in a particular sector where there is a large levy paying employer who wants to benefit and give their levy money to supply chain partners, but can’t do if that partner is a micro employer.
“Their only recourse to having funding for 16 to 18 and 19 to 24 apprentices will be to go to a training provider with a non-levy contract and fund it in that way.”
He added that there was “clearly there is an issue in the market with non-levy funding contract values at the moment”.
When asked why this was the case and whether it could be changed by AELP chief executive Mark Dawe, Smith said: “I was talking to a colleague someone in the audience about this earlier today and they asked the same question, and on that I think that is absolutely fair, I think we need to look at that.
“What we was trying to do before was to, and what policy was trying to say was ‘look these people get no monetary gain, so why put it into the system’. And actually looking at the wider view it makes the system work better and it creates more younger apprentices, so why not.
“So I think we’re looking at it, it is one of those things again which I’m hoping quite soon we’ll come out with something.”
Luker said he was “delighted” to hear this.
“They are looking at that possibly because the rule sets about that dichotomy between levy contribution and the employer making the contribution, and small employers not having to make it,” he told FE Week.
“I think it was an unintended consequence that led about in essence a clash in real rule terms.
“They’re making a change, or going to look at it, and we would be delighted to see it out there in the market from the beginning of April because we have got large levy paying employers that want to help supply chain partners.”
A college that is dependent on government bailouts to survive has been hit with a fourth consecutive grade three rating from Ofsted.
Lambeth College finally merged with London South Bank University in February after a two-year delay and leaders were praised by the inspectorate for working “hard” since then to “change the culture of the college to one that supports learners and staff to achieve”.
There has been other “significant change since the previous inspection when all aspects of the provision were judged as requiring improvement”, including the appointment of a new permanent executive principal in late 2018 and a new senior leadership and middle management team.
We recognise that there are still areas for development
The education watchdog was impressed with improvements in adult education courses, high needs learning, and personal development, behaviour and welfare, with all three areas individually receiving ‘good’ ratings.
However, the impact of the college’s work in addressing areas of weakness identified at the previous inspection “is not yet consistent across all aspects of provision”.
Ofsted found that “too few” study programme learners, of which there are around 1,200 aged 16 to 18, achieve their qualification.
The proportion of apprentices who achieve their qualification within the agreed timeframe is also “too low”.
Teachers “do not routinely support learners well enough to develop their English and mathematical skills in their vocational subjects”, and they “do not use the information they have about learners’ prior educational experience or achievements consistently or effectively enough to plan and teach lessons”.
Overall it trains just over 9,000 learners every year.
Fiona Morey, executive principal of Lambeth College, said: “We are delighted that the hard work and dedication of staff at Lambeth College, and the high aspirations we hold for all our students, have been recognised.
“It is extremely pleasing that the inspectors could see that ‘the college’s mission to ensure access to learning that raises the aspirations and skills of residents in South London’ is central to all that we do.”
Until recently, three or more consecutive grade three Ofsted reports would automatically have qualified the college for a grade four.
Ofsted’s chief inspector Amanda Spielman told FE Week in November that she had changed this rule when she took on the top job at the inspectorate in January 2017 “because I thought it was flawed in conception”.
Morey said Lambeth “recognises that there are still areas for development, and we are working hard to address these”.
Lambeth College was previously rated ‘inadequate’ until it improved to a grade three in 2013.
It has been in big financial trouble since 2016, when a “significant deterioration” in its cashflow prompted an intervention by the former FE commissioner Sir David Collins.
We are delighted that the hard work and dedication of staff at Lambeth College has been recognised
His report, based on a visit that September, found problems with the college’s finances that were so severe it was “no longer sustainable” unless it merged.
According to its 2017/18 accounts, it owes almost £15.5 million in exceptional financial support, and has agreed a support package from the restructuring facility worth £15.8 million.
“The college made a further large loss in 2017/18, it remains dependent on exceptional financial support from the government and its financial position is accurately described as ‘inadequate’”, the financial statements said.
Staff have been on strike at the college for a total of 10 days since November in a row over pay.
But the latest walkouts planned for June were called off after union members managed to negotiate a 3 per cent pay rise, additional leave and a reduction in teaching hours.
T-levels policy is the latest example of “institutional bias” from the Department for Education that “ignores all evidence”, the chair of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers has said.
Martin Dunford (pictured) delivered one of the opening speeches at the association’s annual conference this morning, in which he elaborated on its 10-point sustainable investment plan that has been put forward to the Treasury ahead of the government’s spending review.
He told delegates there has been “nine years of austerity” and yet the “story for our sector has been punctuated with reports of endless FE College bailouts, programme underspends, duplicating initiatives and failed policies resulting from dogmatic beliefs that were far from evidence-based”.
“There have been a couple of high profile failures on the independent side although public money still flowed to those organisations even when the warning signs would have been there,” he said, adding that is “why we fully encouraged and supported the proposals for a more robust account management system that will help both the government and good robust providers, sitting in this room, equally”.
He said a “key competitive advantage for any organisation, in this case the ESFA, is fully understanding its suppliers” and the “lesson is that the DfE and its agencies must be deadly serious about delivering value for money from the limited funding that the Treasury does make available for FE and skills and the outlook for 2020 accentuates this need”.
Dunford continued: “We would argue that such serious intent has not been demonstrated in recent years and too often policymakers have fallen back in reaching for institutionalised solutions rather than searching for what works best for the employer and/or the learner.
“Sadly despite the silver linings you might hear about tomorrow afternoon, T-levels are just the latest example of this institutional bias, bias that ignores all the evidence.”
The AELP’s “shopping list” for the spending review covers apprenticeships, traineeships, adult education, the national retraining scheme and replacing the European Social Fund, but makes no mention of the new post-16 technical education qualifications set to be rolled out from 2020.
“In putting forward its policy proposals, AELP wants to make sure that programmes are available to the maximum number of employers and learners who want them, irrespective of who is delivering them, providing that the quality of delivery is good and recognising that budgets are finite,” Dunford said.
“If all these components are being considered properly at the same time, then the odds on delivering value for money must be high.”
He continued: “Volumes are important, especially when there are still nearly half a million young people unemployed and automation poses real challenges for those already in work. But measuring positive outcomes is more than just counting numbers.
“AELP agrees with those that say that skills programmes must be about supporting social mobility and progression whilst having a demonstrable positive impact on productivity.”
Dunford told delegates the timetable for the upcoming spending review has “slipped again” and is likely to now be “beyond the autumn”, adding: “I’m told at the moment we’re more likely to get a one-year carry-over rather than a three-year settlement.”
The government’s apprenticeship quango needs to start viewing training providers as their “clients” and become “far more responsive” to their needs, the skills minister has said.
Speaking to FE Week ahead of today’s Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference, Anne Milton called for a more “collaborative relationship” from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
FE Week also understands that providers will soon be invited onto review groups to work closer with the institute on areas such as deciding funding rates for apprenticeship standards.
Milton, who has just reached her two-year anniversary as skills minister, explained how apprenticeships “was quite hard work” when she first came into post as she had to deal with businesses who were “still very grumpy about the levy” and a “quite clunky” IfA.
“So it was quite difficult in that first year, making clear to business that the levy wasn’t going to change, that this is it, and working with the institute to make sure they got up and running,” she said.
“And I think in two years it got into quite a good place. I can’t remember how many standards we had two years ago and now there are over 400 and employers are much happier.”
Milton added that the institute has now got to the “next phase of work”, which is about “making themselves far more responsive to training and provider needs”.
“In the beginning they were a regulator” and while “maintaining the regulating role, they have got to become a facilitator”.
“I think it’s seeing training providers and employers as their clients,” she said.
“That’s not to say they have to do everything it’s asked of them. But has to become much more: how can we help you?”
Asked what the IfA can do to help training providers more, Milton said: “I think starting working closer, understanding their market is the start of it.
“It’s a terribly diverse market. They’ve got to be receptive. They have been quite defensive. Now it has got to be: well this is our decision, we will review it, and we will look at it. A much more collaborative relationship.”
Milton will be delivering a keynote speech on day two of the AELP’s annual conference tomorrow. FE Week is media partner, follow us on Twitter for live updates, using the hashtag #AELPAnnual19.
Why is UTC Reading successful while other colleges are shutting or struggling? It has a grade one Ofsted rating, but that’s only one secret to its success
If Lord Kenneth Baker could take a blueprint for the beleaguered university technical college (UTC) and multiply it across the country, it’s likely that he would choose UTC Reading.
Baker, who served as education secretary under Margaret Thatcher and who has pushed the UTC model of vocational education within the Department for Education (DfE) since 2010, would no doubt cheer UTC Reading’s successes. Of the 34 of 50 UTCs still open that have been inspected so far, Reading is the only one to gain a grade one, have a quality Career Mark and a “World Class Schools” certificate.
As chair of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust that supports UTCs, Baker struggles to defend the UTC model in light of ten closures following under-recruitment or low results; for others, poor Ofsted ratings have damaged their reputation. But the model survives, with the DfE warning just last week that academy trusts that take over UTCs must preserve their technical and vocational “ethos” – or not call it a UTC.
We can give a clear career pathway into STEM
Baker might do better to recommend trust bosses visit UTC Reading to see why this ethos is worth preserving. Specialising in engineering and computer science, it is expanding its learner numbers to meet parental demand; this year it increased its admission numbers in year 10 from 100 to 120 – and next year it is oversubscribed for year 10 and year 12 entry.
Four years after its Ofsted grade and under new leadership, how has it kept up momentum? Jonathan Nicholls, who took over as principal in June 2017, says getting local schools on side was crucial – as was coupling with employers such as Microsoft.
“Relationship-building is critical in a local area for a UTC to build up strength,” he says. “It should not be seen as [being] in competition with other schools, but providing opportunities for them.”
Nicholls learnt the lesson from Joanne Harper, the former executive principal and now the deputy chief executive of the UTC’s sponsor, the Activate Learning Education Trust. He meets regularly with secondary school heads about the UTC’s curriculum offer, and his staff visit local years 9 and 11 to speak to potential recruits. The schools understand that some learners would benefit from vocational qualifications offered by the UTC, such as the NCFE level 2 technical award in business and enterprise in key stage 4, and the level 3 BTEC extended certificate in computing in key stage 5. “They know it’s not about us taking students from somewhere else, it’s about recognising we can give them a clear career pathway into STEM,” he says.
It’s a far cry from the desperate measures of UTC Warrington, as reported in FE Week and FE Week last year, which angered local schools when it encouraged learners to move earlier than expected. It’s about us understanding what industry needs
Persuading learners to join the UTC at 14 is tricky, but even recruiting to year 12 is tough because of competition from further education (FE) colleges.
Another relationship, this time with employers, is the solution, Nicholls says.
Principal of UTC Reading, Jonathan Nicholls
“There’s no doubt we experienced the same challenges as other UTCs, but what set us off on a good footing were the large industry partners behind us.” UTC Reading is partnered with Microsoft, which has offices in the nearby Thames Valley Park, as well as Japanese technology company Fujitsu and IT company Cisco. Others include engineering consultants Peter Brett Associates and Network Rail. Open days are held at the employers so it “already starts to feel different to what students might be experiencing in a traditional school”.
This year the UTC has tightened its industry partnerships by introducing the “Pipeline Programme”, in which post-16 learners have eight days on site with their preferred employers over two years.
The programme, launched in September, replaces employability days at the UTC and instead brings learners face-to-face with professionals. “It’s like having eight days of interviews to impress that employer,” Nicholls says. “It means when they submit an application for an apprenticeship, they can say, ‘you remember me?’”
If the good relationships with employers and schools put the UTC on a steady footing when it opened in 2013, the Ofsted grade cemented parental confidence. “There’s no doubt that really great outcome from Ofsted helped us to build a reputation,” Nicholls says. “Parents would look at us on the basis of being an ‘outstanding’ provider.” He appears to have made the UTC brand one of its strengths unlike some providers. For instance in 2017 Cambridge UTC renamed itself an “academy”.
It was this “outstanding” grade that made UTC Reading eligible for that World Class School status, which it won in 2017 with 15 other schools.
You have to give these things time to breathe
It is the only UTC to holdthe title, which assesses learners against a framework of skills and competencies. And in May it won the Career Mark, which appears to be even harder to meet than the Gatsby careers benchmarks, if the enormous application portfolio that Nicholls shows me is anything to go by. Both standards were achieved in response to the Ofsted grade, he says. “It was about, how do we build on the pinnacle of an Ofsted grade? We wanted to continue to stand out.”
And it’s worked. There are 224 applicants for 120 year 10 places in September, and 465 applicants (including those already at the UTC) for 160 places in year 12. These are figures many UTC principals can only dream of. Nicholls says in “a year or two” the UTC should have 560 learners on roll, bringing it almost to its 600-pupil capacity.
The success has also given the senior team the confidence to innovate; apprenticeship routes were dropped in 2017 because FE colleges had the option covered. This year a new A-level in three-dimensional design and architecture was introduced to offer more “creative” qualifications that it is hoped can help to increase the number of girls enrolled by 1 per cent a year (currently the figure is 16 per cent).
Nicholls believes this ability to adapt sets UTCs apart from other providers. “The concept of the UTC is to provide a response to the needs in their region,” he says. “It’s about us understanding what industry needs.”
Year 13 learners in an engineering lesson working on lathes
But he is one of the lucky ones. His belief in the model is clearly shared by his sponsors: Harper sits on a “You have to give these things time to breathe” national group of “core principals” of UTCs. The trust has four UTCs, two mainstream secondary schools and a studio school, meaning it can draw on the expertise of staff whilst making it unlikely the UTCs ethos will be lost. The trust is supported by Activate Learning, a wider group that includes FE colleges, adding another layer of expertise.
At a national level, the picture does not look so rosy: only 16 UTCs have a grade two, 12 a grade three and five a grade four, as of April. Even at UTC Reading, the data appears to be mixed: of those enrolled to study mainly academic qualifications, only 63 per cent of key stage 5 learners completed their programme compared with a local authority average of 90 per cent. At key stage 4, the -0.74 progress score might cause concern.
But Nicholls is adamant. “I absolutely believe in the concept of the UTC model and what it can do. You have to give these things time to breathe.”
Dr Chris Jones sets out the focus of the watchdog’s new framework, which will be in place from September
It is always a great pleasure to attend, deliver workshops and speak at the AELP conference, especially now, as we all prepare for the new inspection framework that comes in this September.
The new Ofsted framework has four key judgements. It seeks to rebalance what we look at on inspection by focusing on the substance of the curriculum and supporting leaders and teachers who act with integrity; namely, those who do the right thing for their learners and apprentices and who resist the temptation to take shortcuts.
The framework puts the curriculum back at the centre of inspection to ensure young people and adults receive the high-quality training and support they need to improve their knowledge and skills, get a new job or promotion, or gain the qualifications they need to go to university or higher levels of training.
A new quality of education judgment will evaluate the education and training that providers offer to all their learners and apprentices. Previously, we looked at the curriculum as a small element of leadership and management, and not through a teaching and assessment lens. With this framework, we will look in greater depth at what the provider chooses to offer, how well the curriculum is ordered and structured, and whether it is taught well.
“The framework puts the curriculum back at the centre”
With that focus, it is also important that we look at what happens to learners and apprentices after their education and training. Did they gain the qualifications or apprenticeship they were working towards? Did they develop the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed for their next steps? Did they progress to their intended destination?
A separate behaviour and attitudes judgment will allow inspectors to consider how effectively providers and employers set expectations for a calm and orderly environment for teaching, training and work. Central to this is a strong focus on attendance and turning up on time for learning and work. Simply put, if a learner or apprentice is frequently absent and often late, they are not developing the employability skills they need.
On our personal development judgment – this is about looking at the things that affect all of us at every stage of our lives: mental and physical health, equality, diversity, British values and the prevention of radicalisation and extremism in all its forms. It is also about effective careers information and guidance. For apprentices, it means covering more than just the “job” they are doing and giving them chances to learn about the range of occupations and wider skills that their training prepares them for.
Finally, the leadership and management judgment focuses on how well leaders and managers support teachers, trainers and assessors to improve their subject knowledge, teaching and assessing skills and the integrity with which they select the subjects they teach and run the organisation.
Central to the leadership and management judgment are questions about who helps the provider to develop a clarity of vision, ethos and direction. Governance is a challenging principle in further education and skills, especially in small, independent training providers. This is why, in our handbook, we focus on the process of governance and not on people called “governors”. Who holds leaders to account for performance? Who makes sure that public money is well spent?
I would also like to address the issue of safeguarding and keeping young people and vulnerable adults safe. It is about understanding local risks relevant to where your learners and apprentices live and work. If, for example, knife crime, sexual exploitation or far-right extremism are issues that your learners could face daily, then these are risks facing all learners and apprentices, regardless of age. Leaders, managers and teachers must ensure that the curriculum provides learners with access to the support they need to deal with those issues.
Ian Ross explains why he has asked the education select committee to launch an inquiry into adult education budget funding
It is now two years since the Education and Skills Funding Agency launched its procurement exercise for adult education budget (AEB) funding. While colleges and local authorities receive an annual automatic funding allocation, colleges can bid to procure more through an open process.
The element of procured funding is consequently put under pressure as colleges, who already have AEB funding, have an additional opportunity to bid for more against independent training providers (ITPs) who do not have the luxury of automatic AEB allocations. This creates an element of unfairness: I have always argued that those institutions with automatic AEB allocations should not be permitted to participate in the procured AEB process too.
My second concern is that many colleges underspend their AEB funding year-on-year. In 2016-17 £200 million was unspent. Last week new FE Week analysis revealed that colleges underspent their original procured adult education budget funding allocations by 26 per cent.
“I am not pitting colleges against ITPs”
In January my organisation exhausted our 2018-19 AEB funding for adult classroom provision as our successful courses in Brighton and Hove attracted more learners than forecast. From September 2018 to January this year we effectively spent our allocation, offering a variety of vocational courses with English and maths qualifications. Many of the adult learners we enrolled had few or no qualifications. We have high completion and attainment rates (97 per cent) with 75 per cent progression into work or further learning at a higher level. Of the students who took part in our latest level 2 support work in schools, 60 per cent went on to find jobs straightaway.
I approached 20 colleges in January to enquire about opportunities for sub-contracting and every one said their enrolments and spend was on track. This was no surprise as they always respond along similar lines, yet year after year we witness huge AEB underspends while adult learners miss out on popular courses elsewhere. This is the same story across England. One of the advantages of ITPs is that we do not have rigid start dates, unlike the colleges who tend to only start courses in September, January and April. We can start new courses monthly to meet local learner need.
The third frustration is what happens when we get to the summer; despite colleges saying all year round that their AEB funding is fully committed. Come June many suddenly discover that they have underspends. Many of us are all too aware of offers of AEB funding that has to be spent in the next two months to the end of July. However, if colleges were more efficient and better at monitoring their enrolments and draw-down, ITPs could have been given the opportunity to deliver provision earlier in the year with a bigger impact. I know of one funding broker who is expecting £500,000 of AEB funding to become available during June for the remainder of the academic year.
After grumbling about these issues with other ITPs for the past few years I decided to call on the education select committee to launch an inquiry. I have never engaged with a Commons committee before, so this is new to me. Change is long overdue and I hope my call builds up support and momentum across the sector. This is not about pitting colleges against ITPs, but about creating a more fair and efficient sector to benefit adult learners across the county, especially at a time when AEB funding is so scarce.
The subject causes heated arguments, but surely the newly professionalised world of college governance would benefit from paying those with oversight, says Sue Pember
There is a long history in the UK of the voluntary principle for the governance of public services and charities and, until recently, this has worked well in most instances. The concept of unpaid governors has been one of the defining characteristics of the charitable and college sectors and contributes greatly to public confidence in their governance.
That said, governors are entitled to have their expenses met from college budgets, but the idea of taking this further and paying governors for their attendance at meetings, or giving them an annual salary, divides governors and senior leaders.
Everyone agrees that good people should be supported to attend meetings by claiming for travel and other expenses, such as childcare; but whether college governance is improved if the chair and governors are paid has yet to be evaluated and the subject causes heated debate.
College governing bodies are subject to charity law, and governors are the equivalent of trustees. They should not profit from the office they hold unless authorised by the governing document (Instrument & Articles, Statute or Principal Regulator).
“Governors are being asked to do much more than before”
But there are circumstances when payment is allowed, and the Charity Commission (CC) and the government have produced joint guidance on how boards can apply to the CC for permission. The guidance covers three specific areas where a governor could be paid: expenses and compensation; payment for services or extra work – for example, contributing to area reviews; and payment for professional board leadership.
Although this guidance has been around since 2013, only a handful of colleges have applied. On the positive side, most that have done so have been successful. The main reasons for applying have been to do with the complexity of a merger and/or taking a college from “inadequate” to “good” and needing to attract outstanding people for the role.
In Northern Ireland, colleges have been able to pay their board members for the past eight years and a recent evaluation found that the Department of Education reported a perception of an improvement in the range and calibre of applicants competing for chairs since the implementation of payment. They also reported an increase in applications for governor vacancies from women. Also, clerks thought attendance and engagement was improved.
Over in England? It is interesting that there have not been more colleges applying to introduce payments, but when I have talked to governors, they express concerns about whether this will open the door to external criticism and their motives for being a governor put in doubt. I think this worry is misplaced. NHS trusts and the police commissioners pay their trustees, many local authorities have an attendance allowance for councillors and some cabinet members are paid.
College governors are being asked to do much more than they were before colleges were incorporated in 1993 and are expected to do this without the type of support and reporting the previous funding bodies provided. As the funding agencies have shrunk in size, many of their assurance responsibilities have been transferred to the actual governing body. Some will say that’s the right place for them but, as seen in the past two years, governors struggle to take on that role without being trained and the concept of governance professionalised.
It is important that the proper procedures are put in place. For example, when deciding to apply to pay a governor, the governing body must manage any possible conflict of interest and ensure that this governor takes no part in any meeting or discussion affecting their own payment or potential payment. It must also be satisfied that paying the governor for services would be in the interests of the charity and that the level of payment is reasonable.
Finally, a written agreement, including specifying the exact (or maximum) amount to be paid, should be produced.
The professionalism of governance and the role of governors is changing significantly. If boards of colleges are reporting difficulty in competing with other organisations for governors, they should consider whether payment of chairs and other board members would help alleviate their recruitment problems, and apply.
