Ofsted watch: Private provider straight in with grade one

It’s been a week of mainly highs for FE as one provider was rated ‘outstanding’ in its first ever inspection, while another was found making ‘significant progress’ across the board in an early monitoring visit.

The week wasn’t without its lows, however, as several providers scored ‘insufficient progress’ ratings in their own monitoring reports.

White Rose School of Beauty and Complementary Therapies Limited went straight in with a grade one after winning an adult learning and apprenticeships contract in 2016.

The provider has trained more than 700 learners over the last year, and its report recognised how the principal has “successfully implemented an ambitious strategic vision to provide outstanding training in beauty and complementary therapies that meets the needs of local and national industries”.

“Well-qualified tutors have extensive industry experience,” inspectors found.

Learners make “very rapid progress in the development of their vocational skills; the very large majority go on to achieve their qualifications”.

Another private provider, Development Manager Limited, which has 171 apprentices training in computer software development, technical support and engineering, or digital marketing, made ‘significant progress’ in all three areas of an early monitoring visit.

“Senior managers and governors, led by the chief executive, have a very distinct and positive approach to the delivery of apprenticeships,” inspectors wrote.

“They are clear that the development of positive behaviours and attitudes is as important as the development of new knowledge and skills.”

Two providers that were rated ‘requires improvement’ last year – Newcastle upon Tyne City Council and Learn Plus Us – were also found to be making ‘significant progress’ in at least one field judged.

Things are not so rosy at Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, which made ‘insufficient progress’ in two areas of a monitoring visit.

“Most trust employees who become apprentices already have the practical skills, knowledge and behaviours needed for the apprenticeship,” inspectors wrote.

“Consequently, the apprenticeship is of little benefit and does not develop or extend the apprentices’ knowledge, skills and behaviours.”

WDR Limited was found to have made ‘insufficient progress’ across the board after inspectors found staff at an employer were being forced onto their apprenticeship programme. You can read FE Week’s full story about this report here.

Meanwhile, the Paddington Development Trust, a private provider, was hit with a grade three in its first Ofsted inspection.

Inspectors found that trustees and senior leaders “do not have a secure enough oversight of the quality of provision and do not use the data available to them well enough to bring about improvement where needed”.

Chadsgrove Educational Trust Learning Centre, an independent specialist college, also received a grade three in its first inspection.

Ofsted said directors, managers and staff are “not suitably experienced in working with students in further education settings”.

The centre opened to provide provision for young people aged 19 to 25 with a physical disability and/or complex medical need in 2016.

Senior leaders were criticised for focussing too much on securing funding and seeking off-site accommodation away from the main site, and not having “sufficient focus on the quality of teaching, learning and assessment”.

Greater Peterborough UTC also received a grade three from its first inspection.

In the first year of the UTC accepting students, “too much emphasis was placed on maximising pupil numbers and too little attention was given to matching pupils’ interests and aspirations to the UTC’s curriculum,” according to Ofsted.

“This contributed to the first set of results last summer being very poor.”

Meanwhile six providers – Central Training Academy Limited, JGW Training Limited, Trainingplatform Ltd, Linden Management (UK) Limited, Complete Lean Solutions, and Herefordshire, Ludlow and North Shropshire College – all made ‘reasonable progress’ across the board in their various monitoring visits.

Babington Business College Limited retained its grade two in a short Ofsted inspection.

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade  
Herefordshire, Ludlow and North Shropshire College 06/03/2019 22/03/2019 M M RRRRRR

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade  
Central Training Academy Limited 30/01/2019 18/03/2019 M 3 RRRR
Learn Plus Us 27/02/2019 20/03/2019 M 3 SRRR
The White Rose School of Beauty and Complementary Therapies Limited 12/02/2019 22/03/2019 1 N/A  
The Development Manager Limited 20/02/2019 21/03/2019 M M SSS
JGW Training Limited 13/02/2019 20/02/2019 M M RRR
Trainingplatform Ltd 12/01/2019 21/03/2019 M M RRR
Linden Management (UK) Limited 20/02/2019 18/03/2019 M M RRR
WDR Limited 19/02/2019 18/03/2019 M M III
Complete Lean Solutions Limited 27/02/2019 18/03/2019 M M RRR
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust 29/01/2019 21/01/2019 M M IIR
Paddington Development Trust 06/02/2019 20/03/2019 3 N/A  

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade  
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council 13/02/2019 19/03/2019 M 3 SRRRR

 

Specialist colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Chadsgrove Educational Trust Learning Centre 27/02/2019 22/03/2019 3 N/A

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Greater Peterborough UTC 12/02/2019 18/03/2019 3 N/A

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
Babington Business College Limited 06/02/2019 19/02/2019

‘Urgent actions’ needed at two cash-strapped colleges, FE Commissioner warns

Two colleges in severe financial trouble have been told by the FE Commssioner and skills minister that “urgent actions” are needed to secure their long-term futures.

North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College, which has experienced historical cash issues since its merger in 2016, and Macclesfield College, which had its financial health rated ‘inadequate’ earlier this year, each had a report from the FE Commssioner Richard Atkins published today.

North Warwickshire’s said it “should be able to avoid insolvency for the time being” but only if it improves  the  way  its “costed curriculum plan is monitored in year and adjustments made accordingly”.

It warned there is “much to do” at the college if the “significant risks” it currently faces are to be managed. Skills minister Anne Milton agreed with the report in a letter also published today, saying it is clear “urgent actions are now required”.

According to North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College’s 2017/18 accounts, it generated an operating deficit of £2.9 million, up from a deficit of £612,000 the year before.

Its total comprehensive income fell from £6.3 million to £2.7 million.

The FE Commissioner said the college, which five months ago received a financial health notice to improve after the government assessed its monetary situation as “inadequate”, is at risk of a “cash crisis” this year. However, it stressed it is “not currently in crisis”.

The current financial situation was driven by poor forecasting, an overall decline in apprenticeship contract and provision, failure to attract enough students to deliver the adult education budget contract, an “over dependence” on a late increase in distance subcontracting and the requirement to accommodate in excess of 100 unfunded 16-18 year olds, which cost £1 million.

The college was accused of being over optimistic in its forecasting and of having “overly complex, expensive” staffing costs to income ratio.

The chair and vice chairs of the board as well the principal will now need to act quickly to “avert a cash crisis in 2019 and to secure the college’s long-term future”.

The report said the college now needs to review its organisational structure, which Milton says it appears to be “unnecessarily complex”, as well as develop an accommodation strategy. An extensive review of its management information also needs to be carried out in order to enable the college to quickly identify and manage risks.

Principal Marion Plant said: “We welcome the findings of the FE Commissioner’s report from their visit last November and have made rapid and significant progress against all the recommendations.

“This was confirmed by the FE Commissioner’s team at their follow-up visit earlier this month.”

At Macclesfield, the FE Commissioner found “ambitious” income growth targets were the main cause of the college generating a “very significant deficit” of £2 million in 2017/18.

Another cause was the college’s decision in October 2017 to subcontract up to 225 16-18-year-old learners, at a considerable distance from the college, in order to increase 16-18 funding in the 2018/19 financial year.

This decision was made because of a shortfall in the college’s learner number allocation target and subcontracting meant the funding allocation could not only be met, but exceeded.

After the ESFA slapped the college with a financial health rating of ‘inadequate’, the college appealed and self-assessed its financial health as ‘satisfactory’.

“The main thrust of the judgment from the college is that 2017/18 was a one-off occurrence and that the budget plan for the current year will rapidly improve financial health,” the commissioner wrote, adding that this assessment was not accepted by the funding agency.

More board members with financial expertise are being sought by the college, something the commissioner called a “priority”.

But following the appointment of two new vice principals, Macclesfield College has a “well-balanced and appropriately skilled and experienced” senior leadership team, the commissioner added.

The FE Commssioner also reported that the quality of provision at Macclesfield College is ‘good’ as judged by Ofsted in 2017, and the Qualification Achievement Rates in 2017/18 “continue to improve and be strong”.

He recommended his team carry out a monitoring visit within six months to check all the recommendations have been fully implemented.

A spokesperson from Macclesfield college said: “We welcome the recognition of our hard work and continuous improvements over the past three and half years.

“We  have seen the quality of teaching and learning improve significantly and were delighted that Ofsted and the commissioners team recognised this during their visits.

“Macclesfield College financial health is forecast to return to good at the end of this academic year.”

Milton has written to the college’s chair of governors Mark Sharples, saying she has accepted all the commissioner’s recommendations.

 

 

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 275

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

Lorraine Hill, Chief finance officer, City College Plymouth

Start date: March 2019

Previous job: Director of business and finance, Treviglas Academy

Interesting fact: She loves to watch cookery programmes, but her husband is in charge of cooking at home.

Koen Lamberts, Chair of the board of trustees, UCAS

Start date: September 2019

Concurrent job: President and vice chancellor, University of Sheffield

Interesting fact: He enjoys mountain biking in remote places.

Stephanie Bridgeman, Board member, Nelson and Colne College.

Start date: December 2018

Concurrent job: Founder, Experienced Media Analysts

Interesting fact: She loves aerial yoga and can often be found hanging upside down in classes on a Tuesday afternoon.

Neil Bates, Chair, Edge Foundation

Start date: March 2019

Concurrent job: Managing director, Technical Professional Education Limited

Interesting fact: He used his inheritance to build a school in Burma.

Employers having control over UK skills policy is ‘rhetoric, not reality’

The government should move away from its “unhelpful” mantra of “employers in the driving seat” in UK skills policy because this is “more rhetoric than reality”, new research has suggested.

The phrase was coined with regard to further education in the latter years of the Coalition government – 2010-2015. However, the study has found that instead, the state remains “stubbornly” in the driving seat, particularly as far as apprenticeships are concerned. It adds that the key players – government, employers and providers – are out of balance with one another.

The research, exclusively shared with FE Week, was conducted by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and the Further Education Trust for Leadership via a series of nine roundtable discussions with 81 sector leaders across the country.

It explored what effect the “employers in the driving seat” mantra has had on their business and decision-making, but found that it has “not had much of an impact at all”.

“It is not clear what employers are supposed to be in the driving seat of, as policy is set by the state, funding is held and released by the state, and the quality of delivery is monitored by the state,” the report said.

“Certainly not a driving seat – [it’s] lucky if it is passenger seat, possibly rear seat or a backwards-facing baby seat.”

It added: “Only the content of delivery is in any way led by employers, but even this is heavily bounded by the state.”

The report said the “emphasis” in the skills system is “too heavily on the state imposing a top-down structure than on the relationships between them that could result in the outputs that are aimed for”.

While employers “in general do not want so much involvement”, providers feel that their expertise and achievements are “under-recognised”.

“There is certainly no desire to sideline the state or to deny its influence and importance in the provision of a skills strategy suitable for the economy as a whole, but there is a strong feeling that if the state viewed the system less as a hierarchy and more as a process of relationships, a wider range of objectives could be simultaneously successfully addressed,” the report added.

Mark Dawe (pictured), chief executive of AELP, explained that, in particular, employers are not in control of the development of apprenticeship standards and of the funding band reviews – which have seen some of the most popular apprenticeships, including the chartered manager degree standard, have their funding slashed despite strong appeals from the employer groups who develop them.

“Some employers have told me they have been working on a standard for four years, they know what they want, they submit it to the Department for Education and then [government] comes back and says ‘no, you cannot have it’,” he told this publication.

 “They are not listening. It’s almost ‘keep asking employers and when they ask for the right thing we will let them have it. And the right thing is what we define, not what [the employers] define’.”

Dawe added that the frustration of the providers and colleges present at the roundtables was that they knew how they should be working with employers, but government red-tape, restrictions and a lack of funding are not allowing them the “flexibility” to do it.

“It’s almost as though, if we got rid of the government, then people could just get on with it,” he continued.

“Government saying that employers are in the driving seat is simply not the case, and it annoys employers because they keep getting sold that they are in control and they don’t feel in control.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Employers have been at the heart of our reforms to the apprenticeship programme right from the start.

“We will continue to work with employers to help them take advantage of the levy and wider funding changes, so they can invest in the long-term skills needs of their business.”

The numbers expose the truth – level 6 and 7 is mostly ‘dead weight’ and unaffordable

This week the Association of Employment and Learning Providers called on the government to stop subsidising all level 6 and 7 apprenticeships.

Their proposal is radical because big employers have lapped up the opportunity to develop and have subsidised many expensive professional level apprenticeships to replace existing training schemes.

Take the level six accountancy / taxation professional standard with a £21,000 funding cap for example, developed by firms including KPMG, Ernst and Young and PWC. 

In less than two years since being introduced there had been 5,790 starts on this standard (2,080 of them coming in just the first four months of 2018/19), representing two thirds of all the starts on non-degree level 6 and 7 standards with a maximum cost coming in at over £120 million.

Take the level 6 Chartered Manager standard with a £22,000 funding cap for example, developed by firms including Barclays Bank, Santander and Virgin Media.

There had been 4,250 starts on this standard up until the end of November 2018 (1,300 of them coming in just the first four months of 2018/19), representing nearly half of all the starts on non-integrated degree level 6 and 7 standards with a maximum cost coming in at over £100 million.

Take the level 6 Digital and Technology Solutions Professional standard with a £21,000 funding cap for example, developed by firms including Accenture, GSK and Fuijitsu and assessed by over 20 universities.

There had been 3,020 starts on this standard up until the end of November 2018 (840 of them coming in just the first four months of 2018/19), representing three quarters of all the starts on integrated degree level 6 and 7 standards with a maximum cost coming in at over £50 million.

And overall, up to the end of November 2018 the 41 standards at level 6 and 7 have already secured up to half a billion of funding.

In addition, there are 38 standards at level 6 and 7 approved for delivery but with no starts as at the end of November 2018 and a whopping 87 more in development.

So a total of 168 standards at level 6 and 7 that the AELP says should no longer be funded by the levy, but instead by the employer or apprentice with a loan.

In light of the fall in participation at the lower levels, it is not hard to agree with the AELP, even if such a radical idea simply serves to push for a more honest debate about what the levy should be spent on.

The levy should not be ‘dead weight’, defined as public subsidy replacing employer spend on ongoing staff development at degree and graduate level.

The levy should be spent on supporting people that would not otherwise be assisted, primarily young people entering trades and professions at level 2 and 3.

Simples.

Brooklands principal resigns amid investigation into mysterious £16m subcontractor

The principal and chief executive of a college that gave £16.5 million over the last three years to a mysterious subcontracting partner currently subject to a government investigation has resigned.

Gail Walker (pictured), who has worked her way up to the top job at Brooklands College since 2011, has stepped down “as part of her long term personal plan”, according to the college.

The college has not revealed the date for when the 55-year-old will leave, but said role will be split between two people when she does: deputy principal Christine Ricketts will take over as principal and vice principal Shereen Sameresinghe has been appointed chief executive.

A spokesperson for Brooklands did not deny that Walker’s abrupt decision to resign was related to an Education and Skills Funding Agency investigation into SCL Security Ltd, which has turned its head to Brooklands in recent weeks.

As revealed by FE Week in November, the college has given substantial amounts of public funding to the provider, which is run by Andrew Merritt, to deliver hundreds of level-three IT apprenticeships every year, for mostly 16-to-18-year-olds.

This was despite the provider employing fewer than 10 staff. It is also not known exactly where the provider trains its apprentices, as Merritt has repeatedly refused to share his delivery addresses.

The ESFA acted following our exposé, and starts were suspended at the provider last month while it carries out an investigation into is operation. A subsequent Ofsted visit found SCL Security making ‘insufficient progress’ in a monitoring visit.

It is understood that the ESFA commissioned three external auditor firms to conduct an investigation into the subcontracting arrangements with SCL Security – and one of these firms focussed on the role of Brooklands College.

FE Week understand the auditors have in recent days fed back their findings.

Brooklands has remained tight-lipped on its relationship with SCL Security ever since FE Week started making enquiries last year.

According to the college’s latest self-declaration subcontracting data, the private training provider has cashed in over £16.5 million between 2014/15 to 2016/17 from deals with Brooklands, with £3.4 million top-sliced and retained by the college.

Commenting further on Walker’s resignation, the Brooklands spokesperson said: “Gail joined the college in 2011 and has overseen extensive developments during that time including; building a new campus in Ashford and major refurbishment works on the Weybridge Campus.

“Inspected in 2013 and 2017 by Ofsted, the College has maintained its rating of a ‘good’ provider of education and training for all.”

Terry Lazenby, chair of governors at Brooklands, said: “We are delighted that the current deputy and vice principals have agreed to take on the leadership of the college. This will ensure consistency for all staff and students as we enter the new academic year.”

Public Accounts Committee to quiz top civil servants from DfE, ESFA and IfATE

An influential House of Commons committee will grill officials on the future affordability of the apprenticeships programme on Monday.

The Public Accounts Committee will hear from the Department for Education’s permanent secretary Jonathan Slater, the Education and Skills Funding Agency chief executive Eileen Milner, the agency’s director of apprenticeships Keith Smith, and the chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education Sir Gerry Berragan next week.

The hearing, which will focus on “the value” of the apprenticeships programme and the effectiveness of its “oversight”, follows a recent National Audit Office report on the progress of the programme since the levy reforms in 2017.

Among its main findings, the critical report hit out at the ESFA for having limited assurance that apprentices were spending 20 per cent of their time doing off-the-job training – an issue that PAC chair Meg Hillier then singled out in her reaction to the report.

MPs are also expected to quiz the top civil servants on apprenticeship starts after the NAO found not enough potential recruits had been encouraged to start an apprenticeship by the DfE, and the number of starts fell “substantially” after the levy was introduced in 2017.

Between 2015-16, the last full year before the levy system kicked in, and 2017-18, the first full year after the system came into force, there was a 26 per cent drop in the number of starts.

The NAO also found that, although DfE has improved its performance measures, it is still not clear how it demonstrates the impact of the programme on economic productivity – something the PAC has criticised the government for in the past.

The future affordability of the apprenticeship system will arguably form the committee’s main line of questioning.

As revealed by FE Week in November, modelling by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education showed the apprenticeship budget could be overspent by £0.5 billion this year, rising to £1.5 billion during 2021-22.

The NAO report warned there was a “clear risk” the apprenticeship programme’s budget was unsustainable, after the average cost of training an apprentice in 2017-18 hit £9,000 – double the cost that had been predicted when the programme’s budget was set in 2015.

The PAC might also revisit its own apprenticeships report from 2016 during the hearing, which concluded there was a risk the levy system may encourage stakeholders to “behave in ways that work against the objectives of the programme” by, for example, artificially routing other forms of training into apprenticeships.

In her annual report for 2018, Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman warned of this problem when she said graduate schemes were being “rebadged” as apprenticeships.

The officials are due to appear before the committee at approximately 4.45pm.

At 4pm, MPs will question Derby College’s deputy principal and head of apprenticeships April Hayhurst, ACE Training’s head of business development Paddy Patterson, Sunderland College’s director of apprenticeships Jane Thompson and Utility Warehouse’s resourcing business partner Daniel West.

The committee will be exploring the impact and effectiveness of government policy at the frontline, including the government’s relationship with employers and providers.

Degree apprenticeships must be funded through the levy

Not funding level 6 and 7 apprenticeships through the levy would utterly destroy the productivity and social mobility focus of apprenticeship, says Adrian Anderson

As ministers have repeatedly said, it is employers, not training providers, who are best placed to decide how to develop and use apprenticeships to raise the productivity and performance of their organisations. Yet in a bizarre and ill-judged paper, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, a body that predominately represents independent training providers delivering level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, has called for a withdrawal of levy funding for level 6 and 7 and degree apprenticeships. As chief executive of UVAC, the representative organisation for 90 universities delivering degree apprenticeships, I would be remiss not to point out the flaws in their argument.

The apprenticeship levy was introduced to raise the level of employer investment in skills and tackle the UK’s productivity gap. Rather than wanting, through apprenticeship, to develop a high-skill, high-productivity and high-wage economy, AELP want to prioritise funding for apprenticeship on lower-level skills. So as China and India focus on moving up the value chain, AELP want to stop funding raised by government, through an apprenticeship tax, for level 6 and 7 engineering and digital technology apprenticeships and instead prioritise levels 2 and 3.

Sure, we need more of a focus on level 4 and 5 apprenticeship where there are real skill shortages, but far less focus on level 2, where I’m not aware of significant skills shortages that are having an adverse impact on UK productivity. Will the UK suffer because there are fewer level 2 business administration, customer service or retail apprenticeships?

On social mobility, AELP’s proposal is just as weak

AELP’s arguments look even more bizarre when applied to the public sector. Are AELP really saying that the NHS shouldn’t spend on registered nursing degree apprenticeships and police forces on police constable degree apprenticeships? Do AELP want levy funds paid by the NHS and police forces to be used to fund, as examples, level 2 hairdressing or catering apprenticeships in small private businesses? 

The standard arguments against higher-level apprenticeships tend to criticise management apprenticeships such as chartered manager. But on this issue we agree with the Institute for Apprenticeship and Technical Education (IfATE): the government’s industrial strategy made it quite clear deficiencies in management skills are a key factor explaining the UK’s productivity gap. Look at most labour market intelligence reports and management and leadership skills are seen as a key concern. As apprenticeship is a programme aimed at increasing productivity, is it not a good thing that employers choose to focus on management skills?

On social mobility, AELP’s proposal is just as weak. Firstly, the introduction of degree apprenticeships has demonstrated apprenticeship can be an aspirational programme and not just the good choice for other people’s children. Degree apprenticeship will help ensure new progression opportunities are opened up to the professions for new cohorts of learners. In the public sector we’re seeing police forces use degree apprenticeship to recruit more women and BME entrants and help ensure police forces better reflect the communities they serve. Nursing degree apprenticeships will open up nursing opportunities to many individuals doing lower level healthcare roles. Good news? Apparently not to AELP. 

AELP often quotes Ofsted statements that seemingly support its position on the prioritisation of lower level apprenticeships. I think Ofsted’s argument that the priority for apprenticeship should be 16–18-year-olds without a level 2 should be analysed critically. In the first place, why should employers be forced to fund apprenticeship programmes they don’t really need for the third of young people who, after 11 years of compulsory education, do not achieve a full level 2?

May I politely suggest to Ofsted that they focus on improving school standards rather than telling private businesses, NHS trust chief executives and police chief constables how to spend their apprenticeship levy. Does Ofsted really object to the NHS and police forces using their levy payments to train, through degree apprenticeships, the nurses and police officers society needs?

And for young people without a full level 2, failed by the schools system, I’d suggest there are better options than apprenticeship; traineeships for example. Indeed, as I recall, part of the policy approach was to use and develop technical training options where employers were not using apprenticeships.

So in terms of the way forward? Ministers need to stick with the policy. The IfATE can use the levers it has at its disposal to manage any potential overspend – but let’s start the debate on how this is done now. Can Ofsted stick to the day job of raising school standards? As for AELP and its independent training provider members: accept the decline in apprenticeships at level 2, it’s a good thing, and focus on the apprenticeships employers want to use and the economy needs. The bad old days of provider-led fully-funded level 2 provision in dubious occupational areas are over.

Given all I’ve said, it will come as no surprise that UVAC are calling for the IfATE, the Department for Education and the Treasury to dismiss AELP’s proposal.

Apprenticeship quango launches Quality Strategy with aspiration that no apprentice starts without an assessment body

Employers should have access to at least one end-point assessment organisation (EPAO) before apprentices start their programme, the body responsible for apprenticeship standards and assessment has said today.

The “best practice” recommendation, made in a new ‘Quality Strategy’ unveiled by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education today, has been made despite there currently being 120 apprenticeship standards ready for delivery without an EPAO in place.

It also comes after the institute repeatedly rejected concerns about apprentices being unable to graduate because they are on standards without an organisation to assess them at the end of their course, and accused those who raised them as being “inflammatory”.

The Quality Strategy was developed by the institute with its partners on the Quality Alliance, which includes the Education and Skills Funding Agency, Ofsted, Ofqual, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the Office for Students.

It states that before starting an apprenticeship, there should be: “Assurance that employers have access to at least one end-point assessment organisation possessing the relevant experience and access to sufficient, suitably qualified assessors to develop valid, reliable and manageable assessments, drawing on clear, implementable and employer-approved end-point assessment plans.”

When asked to clarify if this statement meant the institute believes providers and employers should not start apprentices on a standard when there is no EPAO in place, the institute declined to comment.

A spokesperson would only say: “The Quality Strategy is a shared ambition. All members of the Quality Alliance will be working together towards achieving this.”

But Mark Dawe, the chief executive of Association of Employment Providers, believes the answer is obvious.

“It is in black and white from in the IfATE’s own quality statement,” he told FE Week.

“There should be an EPAO ready to deliver EPA before any apprentice starts, something AELP has said from day one.”

In April last year Sir Gerry Berragan (pictured), the chief executive of the Institute of Apprentice and Technical Education, was reported to have told an event in London that neither apprentices nor their employers consider it a problem if there is no EPAO in place for a standard they’re on, and that AELP was “being inflammatory in consistently raising the issue”.

Dawe continued: “I am sick and tired of hearing about the IfATE’s ‘ambition’ while they continue to let down employers and apprentices every single day for the last two years with a non-existent quality system, with little change in sight.”

FE Week was first to report the issue of a lack of end-point assessments back in 2016, and has since exposed cases where apprentices had to wait more than a year for someone to test them and others who missed out on a pay rise because there was no EPA ready for them.

And last month, this publication found there was “serious concern” among universities that the government had still not found an organisation to assess over 1,000 apprentices on the level five nursing associate, some of whom had six months left on their course.

Analysis carried out by this newspaper found there are currently 120 standards approved for delivery without an end point assessment organisation assigned. Of these, at least nine have had people start on them.

In relation to the nursing associate standard, a spokesperson for the institute said it was working on finding an EPAO for the apprenticeship.

“The ESFA and the institute have been working very productively with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, Department for Health and Social Care, Health Education England and Skills for England to align robust end-point assessment requirements with professional, regulatory requirements for the nursing associate standard,” he explained.

“This work is geared towards ensuring that apprentices have the best assessment experience. We are confident that there will be an EPA organisation in place for all apprentices.”

The institute said its new quality strategy sets out “best practice expectations before, during, and after apprenticeships”.

“The Quality Strategy amounts to a comprehensive commitment to ensuring that apprenticeship training and end point assessments are first rate,” Berragan said.

“This is a major step forward for establishing the highest level of quality we expect from all apprenticeships.”

You can read the Quality Strategy in full here.