With just over two months to go until the new education inspection framework comes into action, Ofsted has found its model for assessing the quality of lessons “does not fit” FE providers.
In what one adviser to a former skills minister called an “extremely worrying” admission, the education watchdog said it needs to come up with a “more suitable” approach in time for the rollout of the framework in September.
Calls have now been made for the inspectorate to delay the launch for a year.
Ofsted published research into the validity and reliability of its inspection methods this week.
The first set of reports focused on lesson visits and scrutiny of students’ work – two of the three main pillars of the new “quality of education” judgment.
Ofsted said its lesson visits “did not show the same level of reliability in further education and skills (FES) settings as it did in schools” because the model it proposed “does not fit with all delivery methods and contexts in FES” since it is “essentially classroombased”.
“Reliability was considerably weaker in the college sample,” it added. “Overall, the findings from the college observations suggest that our prototype model is not a good fit for lessons in a FES context, as it is likely to be looking at the wrong things. This requires more research.
“The FES context is likely to be incompatible with the current model design. We therefore need to develop an alternative observation model that is not associated with the school context.”
The report added that workbook scrutiny may also not be applicable to FES settings. “Students in this sector may not typically be required to bring in their work to classes (for example, sixth-form pupils), and the main written activity during lessons may be note-taking.”
As a result, Ofsted said it is working on developing a model that is more suited to FE provision.
Tom Richmond, adviser to former skills minister Matt Hancock and founder and director of think-tank EDSK, said:
“With just two months to go until the new inspection framework commences, it is extremely worrying that Ofsted has admitted at this late stage that its proposed inspection model is ‘not a good fit’ for FES providers because ‘it is likely to be looking at the wrong things’.
“Concerns about the consistency of inspectors’ judgments have been around for many years, and this new research from Ofsted shows why these concerns are entirely justified.
“The new framework should be delayed by a year to allow for a proper evaluation of Ofsted’s new methods before they are used to inspect colleges and apprenticeships because it is clear that Ofsted’s planned approach is highly unlikely to produce consistent judgments between inspectors.”
He added: “It is not acceptable to expect educators and leaders in the FE sector to have their institutions assessed when such significant problems remain unresolved.”
Ofsted did not provide a response at the time of going to press.
The education watchdog, led by chief inspector Amanda Spielman, published the final education inspection framework last month after a three-month public consultation.
At the AELP annual conference this week the skills minister, Anne Milton, outlined options being considered to restrict employer usage of their apprenticeship levy.
Given the fall in starts since the apprenticeship reforms began in May 2017, you would be forgiven for wondering why the government would be looking at restricting employer demand.
Any new restriction would also be something of a U-turn given in April the transfer funding percentage was increased 10 to 25 per cent and employer non-levy coinvestment halved to 5 per cent.
But as FE Week first reported, despite the fall in starts the overall levy budget is on course to be overspent next year.
The unforeseen problem was that the “average cost of training an apprentice on a standard is around double what was expected”.
This, the NAO reported, could be accounted for because “employers are developing and choosing more expensive standards at higher levels than was expected”.
So assuming the budget is not doubled or more in the forthcoming spending review, how should we bring the expenditure down for “expensive standards at higher levels”?
One way is to reduce the funding rates for higher-level standards, something the IfA has controversially begun to do.
For example, the management degree maximum cap has fallen from £27,000 to £25,000.
Providers are also typically setting prices at the maximum cap, something the ESFA could tackle by enforcing their rule requiring reductions to account for prior learning.
And the NAO said options could include “limiting the number of new apprenticeships or reducing the level of public funding for certain types of apprenticeship” as well as “capping the spending of levypaying employers” and “limiting the number of apprenticeships available for non-levy-paying employers”.
But all of these “measures are likely to be unpopular and could damage confidence in the programme”, the NAO pointed out.
To the surprise of AELP conference delegates, Milton said she was considering age and level caps but the most “palatable” option was to set a “pre-apprenticeship salary limit” – which would presumably kill off hundreds of £18,000 MBA apprenticeships.
Killing off the MBA apprenticeships would be welcome if, like me, you worry it is wasted public money that could have been spent on a young person. But is a preapprenticeship salary cap the way do it?
In principle, given the choice between funding a new employer or an existing one, limiting apprenticeship funding to people on low wages is attractive.
But with so many wage differentials by profession, sector and region, the setting of a simple cap could prove highly controversial.
My preference has always been to return to pre-2007 when apprenticeships were restricted to young people – aged under 25 – and there was a separate training and retraining programme for those aged 25 and over (something the National Retraining Scheme could be used for).
And as the Augar report rightly recommended, returning to the policy before May 2017 when graduates were ineligible for apprenticeship funding.
However, the first and least controversial saving would be to remove the 10 per cent levy top-up and shorten the 24 month deadline employers haveto use their levy funds.
Whatever is decided it has to be the case that with public money, “employer ownership” cannot be taken literally and before the money runs out the young job entrants need to be prioritised.
A specialist college, run by a famous private hospital which has treated the likes of Kate Moss and Robbie Williams, has been hit with not one, but two “inadequate” grades after Ofsted found damning safeguarding issues.
This week, the education watchdog has published reports into the residential and educational provision at Priory College Swindon, which caters for people with social and communication difficulties.
Inspections were conducted at short notice, after concerns were raised about student safety.
Its multi-million-pound parent company, the Priory Group, has helped famous faces including Kate Moss, Pete Doherty, Ronnie Wood, Eric Clapton, footballer Paul Gascoigne and comedian Caroline Aherne.
However, its college learners have not experienced star-studded provision, after the college was downgraded from grade two to four for both its educational provision to 37 learners, and its residential provision to 13 learners, including some under the age of 18.
Inspectors reported that “serious and widespread failures at the college mean young people are not protected and their welfare is not promoted or safeguarded”.
They found “significant shortfalls” in leadership and management in the residential provision, and that governance of the educational provision was “ineffective” because governors did not obtain findings from monitoring activities.
The college has insufficient staffing and resources, after inspectors discovered there was a lack of available tutors, art students were having to make do without sinks, and students faced difficulty setting up email accounts and using the web to look for jobs, due to restricted internet access.
The lack of tutors and internet access issues had led to a learner going missing from the residential accommodation.
Ofsted said that when a learner goes missing, the incident is not tracked or monitored well, they are not spoken to about it when they come back, and information is not shared with placing authorities – which organise accommodation for vulnerable people.
“Too many students are put at risk,” the report into educational provision found, while the residential report quoted learners saying they “do not feel safe living at this college, and feel unable to talk to staff about their concerns”.
The potential risks presented by adult learners living with under18s were not routinely assessed by managers, and both they and leaders do not consider effectively the physically aggressive behaviour of some learners.
Consequently, there was an altercation in which a learner sustained a minor injury, but staff recorded neither the incident, nor the injury.
There was also no record of when a learner was restrained by staff, which is contrary to requirements; nor was there any records on self-harm, online safety or bullying.
“Leadership and management are inadequate because of the failure to prioritise the safety and welfare of students,” inspectors wrote.
Leaders do not even meet with complainants face-to-face, and those complaints are not responded to within timescales, so one from 2017 had yet to be resolved at the time of inspection.
Ofsted has recommended the college ensure that it has an effective written policy to promote good behaviour among residential learners; and that a written risk assessment is drawn up to ensure the welfare of learners is safeguarded.
A Priory College Swindon spokesperson said they are undertaking a comprehensive review of the services, and new leaders had been appointed to improve student safety while a longer-term plan is finalised.
“We are also consulting with stakeholders about how best to provide the services in the future,” the spokesperson added.
The government’s apprenticeships quango has U-turned on plans to grade end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) without sharing the results with them.
However, the information will still be kept a secret from the public, and EPAOs will not be allowed to advertise their ratings unless they’re granted special permission.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s (IfATE) published a new framework on Wednesday that “sets the standard” for external quality assurance (EQA) and explains how end-point assessment organisations should be monitored to ensure the process is fair and consistent.
A few hours before its publication, the framework was shared with FE Week, including a “manual” that explained how “risk ratings” were to be given for each EPAO.
There are no plans to share this information publicly
It stated that the ratings “will not be published or made available to EPAOs, but will be stored on the institute’s digital system”.
The risk ratings will be 1 (low), 2 (medium) and 3 (high).
The proposed secrecy sparked controversy when reported by FE Week. One managing director of an end-point assessment organisation claimed to have successfully overturned previous EQA risk assessments and was therefore very concerned that in future these grades wouldn’t be shared.
Hours after our story went live, the institute got in touch with this newspaper to say the framework was still in draft, and the final version will in fact state that the ratings will be shared with EPAOs.
“The risk-rating grades will only be shared with EPAOs and this is reflected in more recent drafts of the manual,” a spokesperson said.
But, he added, there are “no plans to share this information publicly at this stage”.
The first “working edition” of the framework’s manual, which will “make this clear”, will be published on July 1.
“EPAO understanding of their grades is an important aspect of ensuring quality and lifting it where needed,” the spokesperson added.
He also confirmed that EPAOs will not be allowed to publicise their ratings without the institute’s permission.
The risk ratings will be determined by various factors, including data on their performance by apprentices and feedback (including complaints) from apprentices, employers and training providers.
Established EPAOs will also be graded on a four-point scale – 1 (outstanding), 2 (good), 3 (requires improvement) and 4 (inadequate) – similar to Ofsted.
Grades 1 to 3 will feed into the calculation of overall risk but any EPAO graded as “inadequate” will “automatically be assumed to be high risk”.
Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said: “Given the costs involved in the whole EPA/EQA process, employers and providers have a right to know whether they are placing their custom with the right EPAO.”
The framework, which is mandatory and must be adhered to by all EQA providers, sets out five principles that underpin “EQA functions”: relevant, reliable, efficient, positive and learning.
A senior policy advisor from the Department for Education has warned providers against using external bid writers to apply for a place on the refreshed apprenticeships register.
Sheila Sturgeon (pictured), who marks many of the submissions, has also urged applicants to not “nick” policies from other providers and claim it is their own while forgetting to change the name and branding – as some hopefuls have done.
The register of apprenticeship training providers finally reopened in December, following a year-long review with more “stringent and challenging entry requirements”.
I don’t see how anyone can fail
In addition to the new applicants, all 2,500 colleges, training providers and employers already on the register will be invited to reapply at some point this year.
Sturgeon, a civil servant working in the apprenticeships department of the DfE, talked through the do’s and don’ts for applicants during a workshop at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers national conference this week.
She would not be drawn on the success rate of reapplications from established providers, but said the RoATP guidance is “quite specific” and “I don’t see how anyone can fail” if the provider is “of the appropriate quality and has been trading for 12 months and has all the policies in place”.
But she did state that her “personal” opinion was that the application was more likely to fail if it was not written internally and a bid writer was brought in “to write it for you”.
When the old RoATP was running, during 2017, FE Week revealed how consultants were raking in thousands of pounds writing bids for training providers desperate to make it on to the new register at the second time of asking.
Sally-Ann Baker, managing director of London-based Bidright UK, said at the time she found it “incredible” how many “silly mistakes” providers had made with applications.
Her company had been approached by 25 to 30 providers on RoATP and took on 12 cases, all of which were successful. Bidright’s fixed rate is £2,000 plus VAT.
But Sturgeon cautioned providers against this, explaining: “The reason I say that is because we ask for specific examples. You need to tell us how your provider has made this policy real and live. It is really important that you find a good example and you use it, because that is probably where providers who aren’t as on the ball are likely to fail.”
The policy advisor said one shocking finding in some was providers “not having a particular policy, nicking one from somewhere else and forgetting to change the provider name”.
“I cannot count the number of those we have seen, and I am not joking,” she added.
It showed that 23 new firms have been enlisted – a smaller than expected number and strangely, all of them are only “supporting providers”.
An ESFA spokesperson explained that supporting providers are the “first portion of providers who have been added” to the register and new “main and employer providers will be added in due course”.
I cannot count the number of those we have seen, and I am not joking
The 23 are the first providers to be added to RoATP since October 2018.
FE Week reported last month that new applicants trying to get on to the strengthened register had been left hanging by the government six months after its launch.
The ESFA had planned to let providers know if they were successful 12 weeks after their bid. An agency spokesperson said last week that all providers that applied to be on the register in December, January and February have now “been notified of the result”.
The new register is expected to bring greater scrutiny, following various investigations by this newspaper that discovered, for example, one-man bands with no delivery experience being given access to millions of pounds of apprenticeships funding.
The ESFA will throw providers off the new register if they go 12 months with no delivery after joining the register.
“Applicants will be added or removed from the register as and when the full process of assessing applications has been completed,” the ESFA spokesperson said.
The percentage of colleges employing over half of their teaching staff on casual contracts has tripled to 29 per cent, according to a new report.
The University and College Union sent a freedom of information (FOI) request to all colleges and surveyed 789 staff working in colleges, adult education and prison education, which revealed many are having to rely on food banks and second jobs to get by.
Analysis of responses to the FOI showed a “shocking” 66 out of 226 (29 per cent) of colleges, reported over 50 per cent of their teaching staff were on some form of insecure contract – up from just 19 out of 202 (9 percent) in 2016.
And over two-thirds of respondents (71 per cent) to the survey said they believed their mental health had been damaged by working on casual contracts and almost half (45 per cent) said it had impacted on their physical health.
Having enough money to buy substantial and healthy food once the bills are paid is sometimes near impossible
The UCU’s head of further education Andrew Harden called the findings “damning” and said it lifted the lid on how staff without secure contracts are “struggling to make ends meet”, despite holding down multiple jobs.
Casual contracts can be fixed-term, which normally last for one year; zero-hours contracts, which do not offer a minimum number of hours; hourly paid contracts, which offer some hours; or staff can be employed through an agency.
What makes them so damaging, as reported by one survey respondent, is that if classes are cancelled, lecturers on casual contracts are not paid.
The unnamed respondent had to resort to a food bank after being told their classes had been cancelled, and has in the past had to live on cereal, crackers and water, “if I am lucky”.
They added: “Having enough money to buy substantial and healthy food once the bills are paid is sometimes near impossible.”
Sixty nine per cent of survey respondents said they had earned less than £1,500 a month, and 87 per cent earned less than £2,000 a month.
Over half said they had trouble paying their bills.
FE Week spoke to a lecturer at City College Norwich, Nicola Gibson (see story below), who said she was working an extra two jobs, and has earned as little as £600 a month at one point.
While she receives £5 holiday pay every hour she works, benefits like that are not the same for everyone, with one respondent reporting they had to return to work “too early” after being off sick with cancer, because: “I wasn’t receiving sick pay, plus I had the constant worry someone else would be given my hours.”
Teachers’ health has also been affected, with one saying they had felt “suicidal” and developed “a type of epilepsy, which may well have been linked to the stress of losing teaching hours”.
The extent of casual contracts among FE teachers creates another problem, as Harden explains: “None of this is good for staff, but it is also extremely damaging for students, as teachers’ working conditions are their learning conditions.”
Nobody should have to use foodbanks, or worry about how they are going to pay their bills
Over half the respondents disagreed that they have enough paid time to enable them to prepare adequately for their classes, nor that they have enough time left over after teaching to keep up to date with the latest scholarship in their subject.
Additionally, 84 per cent said they had considered leaving the profession; with one newly qualified teacher saying they are already looking for work outside the sector.
Asked why colleges employ staff on casual contracts, Kirsti Lord, deputy chief executive at the Association of Colleges, said: “Nobody should have to use foodbanks, or worry about how they are going to pay their bills.
“We are working with UCU and others to make clear to government that ‘the end of austerity’ must also apply to colleges.”
The UCU has recommended a number of ways to improve the security of lecturers’ employment, which includes Ofsted inspecting for any negative impact on quality of provision as a result of instability in teaching teams caused by casual contracting.
When asked if the inspectorate would consider doing this, a spokesperson said inspectors will take into account evidence of effective staff management when writing their reports “to ensure the delivery of good-quality education”.
‘I would like the security my team-mates have’
A college lecturer on a casual contract says she has had to live off £600 a month, and has not been on holiday in four years.
Creative arts teacher Nicola Gibson has worked at City College Norwich for ten years, and has joined hundreds of college teachers in speaking out against their fixed-hours and zero-hours contracts.
Nicola Gibson
Hers is a permanent, variable-hours contract, but there is no guarantee of a minimum amount of work, and as it is not a fixed-hours contract, the college was not obliged to employ her after four years.
She said: “You never know how much money you have coming in.
“I’ve gone from taking £1,200 a month, to £600 a month and I have to think about exactly how I will make ends meet.”
She is paid an hourly rate of £25 an hour, which includes £5 in holiday pay; but if she works fewer than 450 hours a year, she has less than a week to work out her hours and submit a claim to be paid the same month.
Her situation has meant Nicola has not been on holiday in four years, since a relative gifted her one.
She finds it “galling” when there are people working in the same office as her at the college, doing exactly the same job on a permanent contract and living a more regular lifestyle.
Much like teachers on secure permanent contracts, Nicola is having to prepare for lessons, teach them, and care for her ten-year-old daughter.
This is in addition to her other jobs: running freelance craft lessons and working at a technical college.
But she is determined her mental health will not suffer because of the way she works. “I think it’s very important to compartmentalise these aspects of your life because I don’t want to become a victim of this system in that sense: someone who is miserable and downtrodden and hard-done-by.
“I am happy and I want to enjoy my life and I want to enjoy what I can have based on what I can earn.”
Nicola really enjoys her work, and believes she is privileged to work with the students, but says she doesn’t feel she can bring them her best and be recognised for it.
She has considered leaving the profession, as she wants to be a “grown-up”, which she doesn’t feel she can be because of the nature of her job.
She describes her situation as like that of a student, scraping to make ends meet.
“I feel very un-grown-up as somebody who is theoretically in a professional job, and with my qualifications and is hardworking and dedicated.”
I feel very un-grown-up
Asked what she would do to improve the conditions for casual workers in colleges, Nicola says the work is OK in the short-term but people ought to be offered an ongoing role after several years.
“I would like the security my team-mates have, because if they’re entitled to it, I would like to think I was entitled to it too.”
She said it was important that people spoke out about their experiences of casual contracts. However, she understands why people did not want to speak out as, in a chilling reminder of the insecurity of these contracts, she admitted it “was very easy to not have a contract at all”.
A City College Norwich spokesperson said its use of casual or supply contracts is “minimal and are only used in emergency situations to cover short periods of unexpected absences, such as sickness”.
She added that the college is currently “reviewing the way in which permanent sessional staff are paid to minimise the impact of any changes to delivery hours that can occur each year as course requirements evolve”.
A national training provider could step-in to become the only education provider in Stourbridge, after the area’s FE college is sold-off.
Skills Training UK, which currently trains more than 2,000 learners across London, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Dudley and Brighton, said it would launch the new the centre for 16-18-year-olds “subject to demand”.
Cash-strapped Birmingham Metropolitan College announced last month that it was to sell off Stourbridge College – one of the group’s five main divisions – and transfer its 900 learners to two other nearby colleges in September, following a review from the FE Commissioner.
Dudley College of Technology will take on its apprenticeship provision, art and design, construction, equine, foundation learning, digital and ICT and motor vehicle; and Halesowen College will take over responsibility for business, early years, health and social care, public services, sport and science.
A “proposed support for Stourbridge students” page on the Skills Training UK website says “we are aware of the proposed transfer of Stourbridge College and the affect this would have on the local community … complete the short form on this page to let us know if you support our proposal to open a new Stourbridge Training Centre”.
It could offer level 1 and level 2 BTEC courses, which may be suitable for school students who had hoped to progress to Stourbridge College in September and do not want to travel to Dudley or Halesowen. Subjects include business enterprise, warehousing and storage, care, customer service and business administration.
The training provider told FE Week it “always assesses the level of local demand before opening any new centre”, and is asking school leavers, parents/carers, teachers and other community members to register their interest for a Stourbridge centre online.
Martin Dunford OBE, chief executive at Skills Training UK, who is also chair of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “Skills Training UK has been successful in the West Midlands with established training centres in Dudley and Walsall and two Academies for Business, Industry and Technology in Birmingham and Wolverhampton.
“Because of increasing demand, we are looking into growing further capacity in the whole West Midlands region and Stourbridge is one possibility.”
And operations manager Joanne Heywood added: “Our tutors help learners to develop their skills and confidence so they can progress to their next stage – further education, an apprenticeship, or employment.
“With small group sizes and bespoke mentoring support available, we can offer young people the support they need to succeed. But we need to establish local demand first.”
BMet had £5 million spent on the Stourbridge campus in 2015, which encompasses “centres of excellence” for engineering, health and social care and early years.
Stourbridge had a long-term debt of £7.6 million when it merged with BMet. The college group said it is “currently working on a recovery plan to repay the outstanding balance and will work closely with the ESFA on this”.
The University and College Union (UCU) is organising a protest this Saturday against the closure.
The union said the move would affect hundreds of staff and students, and that there had been “no meaningful consultation about the move with the local community, staff or students”.
It added that “many students have raised concerns about the cost and additional time” it will take for students to travel to Dudley and Halesowen.
The decision to sell off Stourbridge College was a “shock” to the town’s local MP Margot James, who is also the digital minister, and previously described its loss as “tragic” in an interview with FE Week.
Employers lost access to £11 million of their apprenticeship levy funds in May – the first sun-setting period for the policy, the government has revealed.
As per the levy rules, big businesses with a payroll of £3 million or more who pay into the pot have a 24-month limit to spend their funds.
Once that time is up, the funds will expire on a month-by-month basis.
Keith Smith, the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s director of apprenticeships, told the Public Accounts Committee in March that “estimates suggest in May this year, the first month [in which] we get to the two years, we’re looking at a loss of potentially £12 million, or 9 per cent of what they paid in May 2017 – a fairly small amount”.
Answering a parliamentary question from Catherine McKinnell, the MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North, skills minister Anne Milton said yesterday: “The amount of funds entering employers’ digital apprenticeship service accounts in May 2017 was £135 million, of which £11 million in unspent funds expired in May 2019. This was the first month of expiry of funds.”
McKinnell also asked what plans the government has for those funds.
“As well as funding apprenticeships in levy-paying employers, levy contributions are also used to fund training for existing apprenticeship learners and new apprenticeships in non-levy paying employers,” Milton replied.
“We do not anticipate that all employers who pay the levy will need or want to use all the funds in their accounts, however they are able to.”
Academies minister Lord Agnew revealed in response to a parliamentary question in March that the Department for Education spent £1.6 billion in 2017/18 to fulfil employers’ demand for apprenticeships, but “lower than anticipated demand” led to an underspend of £400 million.
In a subsequent webinar with FE Week, Smith admitted the vast majority of the underspend, “just over £300 million”, was taken back by the Treasury.
