Let’s embrace a four nations approach to skills

The new Four Nations College Alliance will help colleges go beyond their borders to learn more about best practice and common issues, says Ewart Keep

Last month FE Week covered the launch of the joint report by the UK’s four college associations – Developing a Four Nations College Blueprint for a post-Brexit economy. The report is important because it results from partnership working and co-production by college leaders from across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in response to what are perceived as shared challenges.

As the case studies demonstrate, there is much that colleges in each country can learn from one another in terms of best practice and approaches to common issues, such as how to further excellence in vocational education and training (E&T).

Moreover, the report marks a decision by the national college associations to create a Four Nations College Alliance that will develop thinking on the future development of vocational education and its closer integration with industrial policy, economic development and innovation. The alliance will also seek to lead public debate on the role, funding and governance of colleges.

This is a timely development. Although E&T policy is now fully devolved and each country is empowered to do its own thing, there are good reasons for colleges across the UK seeking to learn from and influence policy development beyond their own borders. For instance, the UK government sometimes acts unilaterally on E&T issues in ways that directly impact on the other three nations. Examples include the decision to stop funding the sector skills councils (SSCs), the abolition of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, university funding and tuition fee policies (which have knock-on effects in the other jurisdictions), and the apprenticeship levy, which was treated as tax measure by HM Treasury and therefore an undevolved matter.

Plus we now possess (by accident rather than design) the opportunities afforded by a policy learning laboratory, where the UK nations share an integrated economy, a set of large national and multinational firms, and a common labour market and employment regulation framework. As skills policies diverge between the four, a close comparison of policy performance is possible because other structural factors are broadly held constant and in common.

As skills policies diverge between the four, a close comparison of policy performance is possible

For example, policy learning can embrace the relative performance of a market-based versus a systems-based approach to delivering E&T. England has favoured a marketplace in schooling, higher education, apprenticeship and further education.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have remained wedded to a systems approach. Scotland has also introduced a joined-up policy framework that embraces economic development, business support and improvement, job quality and fair wages, skills and innovation. This policy model may be of interest to some English combined authorities.

Scotland has also created an over-arching board to superintend the work of the two skills agencies (Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland) and the economic development agencies (Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise). In Wales, the existing higher education funding council will be abolished and a new tertiary education body created to fund HE, FE and ultimately school sixth forms.

In all four countries, FE and the college sector face major challenges, but the kind of tumult and turmoil that now regularly fills the news pages of FE Week as colleges’ finances collapse, large independent training providers go to the wall due to fraudulent behaviour, and providers cry foul as competitive funding bidding systems deliver unexpected and unwanted outcomes are largely confined to the English marketplace. Comparing the relative costs and benefits of system and market across the UK nations will be an interesting exercise that is liable to gather pace as more data becomes available.

The Four Nations Alliance will soon be launching a commission to review and advise on the long-term role of colleges. The aim is create a vision for the development of colleges across the UK over the next decade.

If it works for apprentices and employers, it works for Ofsted

Over a six-year period, our college rating for apprenticeships improved from ‘inadequate’ to ‘outstanding’ – and we weren’t even focusing on inspections, says Jacqui Canton. Do the right things for the right reasons and good results will follow

It’s not often that I gain management inspiration from cult films of the 1990s, but Ofsted definitely makes me think of the Brad Pitt classic, Fight Club, although perhaps not for the reasons you might think. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. And, for me, the first rule of becoming ‘outstanding’ is: you do not talk about Ofsted.

Preparing for Ofsted feels much like pushing a heavy boulder up a steep mountain, and it is all too easy to get bogged down in folders of evidence, examples of impact and reams of data. We know inspectors don’t want to see folders of evidence now, but I’m sure many of us keep our own files anyway, if only to organise our thoughts. Using the common inspection framework (CIF) criteria as a checklist can feel like a security blanket (and you should probably take more than a cursory glance at the criteria every now and then), but, honestly, don’t focus too much on Ofsted.

Abingdon and Witney College was graded inadequate for apprenticeships in 2011. Six years later we had grown exponentially, engaged with hundreds of amazing employers and positively changed the lives of hundreds of apprentices. We had delivered the highest general further education college timely achievement rates in England for 16-18s in 2013/14, and the second highest in England for all apprentices in 2016/17. We had won numerous awards and our apprentices had been recognised nationally. Ofsted agreed that we were outstanding.

We did this by doing the right things, for the right reasons. We weren’t seduced by big-name employers, by potential gaps in the market or by national contracts. We designed programmes that worked for local employers, and that gave apprentices the skills they needed. We used initial assessments to make sensible decisions about whether programmes were right for applicants. We tracked and monitored progress well, and worked hard to improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment on and off the job, and in and out of the classroom. We were obsessive about paperwork and admin (we all should love our Management Information System teams a little more than we do), and adapted college systems where they didn’t work for apprenticeships. We invested in expertise through a stand-alone apprenticeship unit and ensured senior team commitment for apprenticeships was clear. And, despite aiming for growth, we didn’t take on employers who weren’t committed to training or applicants who weren’t ready for an apprenticeship. We didn’t talk a lot about Ofsted.

We weren’t seduced by big-name employers or national contracts

But, we ticked the Ofsted boxes anyway. Amazing provision that works for apprentices, employers and the teams delivering the provision, also works for Ofsted. It certainly did under the CIF, and I am sure will work even more so under the proposed new Education Inspection Framework (EIF). The key drivers of intent, implementation and impact that are central to the EIF are, I think, in keeping with my (admittedly less sophisticated) description of “doing the right things, for the right reasons”.

Of course, you have to keep doing the right things, for the right reasons. If you’ve pushed that boulder to the top of the mountain and achieved outstanding, the hard work doesn’t stop. No one wants a quick trip down the slippery slope on the other side of the mountain. We had a celebratory debrief the morning after the inspection, and, only five minutes in, my team started talking about the areas that they still wanted to improve. It’s that truly embedded (slightly obsessive) culture of continuous improvement that ensures they continue to deliver outstanding outcomes. We don’t get it right all the time and are far from perfect, but we always strive to do better for our apprentices, employers, ourselves and the college. If your team can do that then, we can all follow Tyler Durden’s lead in Fight Club: stop talking about Ofsted and just be outstanding.

ESFA delays European Social Fund tender contracting for second time after ‘error’

A fresh 10-day standstill period has been issued by the Education and Skills Funding Agency for European Social Fund contracts in some areas after it admitted to making an “error” in its tender.

FE Week revealed last week that multiple providers alleged that the government broke tender rules in the procurement that is worth £282 million in total.

The original date for handing out ESF contracts to the winners was January 29, but the ESFA delayed this while it handled the complaints which mainly protested about the exclusion of the “track record” section in bids which led to providers like Serco Limited winning big despite an Ofsted grade three and financial losses of £29.5 million in 2017.

I’m not sure how they can legally commit to awarding contracts when they acknowledged an error has been made

Now, the ESFA has told providers who bid the areas that Serco won in that a new standstill period will begin on February 11 following an “error” with its name in its tender.

“It has come to our attention that the standstill letter incorrectly named the successful tenderer as ‘Serco Regional Services Limited’,” said an update to an ESF bidding provider, sent by the ESFA yesterday and seen by FE Week.

“In fact, the successful tenderer was ‘Serco Limited’. This occurred as a result of an error in using the ESFA’s e-tendering system, Bravo.

“However, the ESFA confirms that a valid tender was submitted by Serco Limited and that the selection questions, the tender evaluation and due diligence were all completed on this basis.”

It continues: “In view of this error, the ESFA will be issuing fresh Standstill Letters on Monday 11 February 2019 and observing a fresh 10 day Standstill Period.

“We regret any inconvenience caused, but stand by the outcome of the tender.”

The ESFA told FE Week that the new standstill period will only apply to those providers that bid in an area where Serco won.

“This is unprecedented,” said one provider that lost out to Serco but wished to remain anonymous.

“I’m not sure how they can legally commit to awarding contracts when they have acknowledged that an error has been made, especially when it involves something so critically fundamental as a company’s name.

“They are insisting that an error was made by ‘Serco Regional Services Limited’ being listed as the successful bidder. How did they even know about the existence of ‘Serco Regional Services’?”

Prior to the first delay FE Week asked Serco if it did bid as Serco Regional Services but a spokesperson denied this: “We bid for this work as Serco Ltd not Serco Regional Services.”

We regret any inconvenience caused, but stand by the outcome of the tender

Documents about the ESF winners, seen by FE Week, show that Serco won contracts in at least six different regions totalling more than £37 million.

These included the Black Country, Stoke on Trent and Staffordshire, Coventry and Warwickshire, Derby and Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and Leicester and Leicestershire.

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

The current funding round is worth about €3 billion (£2.3 billion) across England over the period from 2014 to 2020.

England’s fund is administered through the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Big Lottery Fund, which each provide match funding.

Ofsted watch: Another positive week for providers

It has been another positive week for new apprenticeship providers, with many scoring encouraging results in their early monitoring visits from Ofsted, while a university technical college was rated ‘good’ in its first inspection.

The only poor report came in for Bishop Auckland College which fell from a grade two to a three.

UTC South Durham, which opened in 2016, received grade twos across the board.

Ofsted reported that learners attained “above-average” standards in vocational subjects, and last year over half of the 80 learners on 16-19 programmes secured places on apprenticeships and two-thirds went into STEM-related careers when they left.

Brooke House Sixth Form College made good progress in its latest monitoring visit, making ‘significant progress’ in two out of three areas after receiving a grade three last year.

A new principal and senior management team have been appointed, the latter of which has established a long-term financial plan for the college.

Employer provider Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust received three ‘reasonable progress’ findings from their first monitoring visit since it opened.

The inspector wrote: “Leaders, managers and governors have an ambitious vision for apprenticeships at the trust.

“As part of the trust’s ambitious vision for apprenticeships, the number of apprentices has been increased to meet the challenges of an aging workforce increasing staff numbers in areas of shortage.”

First time pass rates are “high”, and apprentices who are falling behind are identified and appropriate measures are put in place to get them back on track.

Ntg Training Ltd scored three ‘reasonable’ ratings from its monitoring visit, with the inspector reporting it has good relationships with subcontractors and employers.

But the report highlights tutors do not give enough attention to making sure learners understand questions and answer them effectively and overlook the importance of grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Personal Track Safety Limited also made reasonable progress in all three areas according to the report from Ofsted’s last monitoring visit.

All its apprentices are employed in and go through a 10-week comprehensive skills, knowledge and behaviour programme to secure a Ministry of Justice licence to practice.

This programme prepares them “well” for the role of prison or custody officer, the inspector reports.

Uniper Technologies Limited made significant progress in all three areas of its monitoring visit, with inspectors reporting how apprentices are “effusive” about the high quality of teaching and support they receive, making them well-motivated and curious to both learn and achieve.

All the learners who need to achieve a functional skills accreditation in English and maths are successful on the first try.

Boom Training Limited made reasonable progress in all three areas of a monitoring visit.

The apprentices benefit from well-planned training sessions, both on an individual basis and in groups.

LRTT Limited received two significant progress ratings and a reasonable rating from its recent monitoring visit.

Instructors use their industry experience to share real experiences so apprentices remember important details, so to illustrate health and safety in the workshop, instructors discussed the injuries that can be caused if engineers get their wedding rings trapped in machinery.

Construction Gateway Limited made ‘reasonable progress’ in the one area inspected during a recent monitoring visit.

At a full inspection, Bishop Auckland College went from a grade two to a grade three as the proportion of apprentices successfully completing their courses has been too low for the past three years.

Leaders have been too slow to take effective action against this, inspectors found, and there are variances in how the staff use the quality monitoring and improvement activities to identify and address weaknesses quickly.

Teachers do not take enough account of the skills and experience that learners on study programmes and apprentices already have when they are planning and providing their lessons, according to the report.

Not enough learners achieve their full potential on study programmes, but learners do develop good employability skills.

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Bishop Auckland College 13/11/2018 04/02/2019 3 2

 

Sixth Form Colleges (inc 16-19 academies) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Brooke House 15/01/2019 06/02/2019 M 3

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Ntg Training Ltd 15/01/2019 08/02/2019 M N/A
Personal Track Safety Ltd 23/01/2019 08/02/2019 M N/A
Uniper Technologies Limited 09/01/2019 07/02/2019 M N/A
Boom Training Limited 08/01/2019 07/02/2019 M N/A
LRTT Limited 08/01/2019 08/02/2019 M N/A
Construction Gateway Limited 08/01/2019 07/02/2019 M III

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust 15/01/2019 08/02/2019 M N/A

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
UTC South Durham 09/01/2019 04/02/2019 2 N/A

Why are providers charging the maximum apprenticeship price?

The apprenticeship levy brought with it a radical overhaul of provider funding, dispensing with fixed rates set by the funding agency.

Instead, the ESFA listed maximum values for apprenticeship frameworks and standards, up to £27,000, but “expected to see employers and providers negotiating on price below the funding band upper limit”.

But, as FE Week reported last March, nearly all providers are charging the maximum rate and failing to do any negotiation.

Claiming more funding than is always necessary would not be a big problem if it were not for the fact that apprenticeship funding is public money.

An experienced manager needs less training than someone new to the role, so the funding should be reduced accordingly.

The ESFA appears to have realised this and beefed up the prior learning section within their 2018/19 funding rules, threatening to take funding back from providers overcharging by failing to account for existing knowledge, skills and behaviours.

And, as we report today, the DfE has commissioned research into “If and how providers and employers are adapting training and the associated costs to take into account the prior learning.”

Providers should pay particular attention to the new prior attainment section within the funding rules, as auditors will be sharpening their pencils.

Increased scrutiny from Ofsted in apprenticeship monitoring reports has also identified providers failing to identify and or make adjustments for prior learning, particularly for existing employees.

Consider this: if all apprentices are funded at the cap it must mean none of them had any relevant existing knowledge, skills and behaviours at the start of the course. Sound plausible?

As if drawing down excessive public funding was not bad enough, consider the impact on the overall budget and those that will miss out.

Apprenticeships for young people and those at the lower levels with no prior learning is shrinking yet the unstoppable rise of existing employees on management apprenticeships continues.

The IfATE has already warned of budget pressures and is pushing down many of the maximum caps.

The ESFA has recently said there is unlikely to be any additional funding for small employers in the coming year.

So it will be an uncomfortable message for many, but providers charging at the cap, with no consideration for prior learning, will only have themselves to blame when the money runs out and the auditors come knocking.

DfE commission research to review high prices for apprentices with prior learning

The government is looking into whether apprenticeship delivery is being adjusted to account for apprentices’ prior learning, a sign that funding overclaims could soon be clamped down on.

A tender was launched by the Department for Education last week for suppliers to research if and how providers and employers are adapting training and the associated costs to take into account the prior learning of apprentices.

It comes ahead of the National Audit Office’s second probe into the apprenticeship programme since the launch of the levy, which will examine whether it is providing value for money.

Prior learning refers to skills and knowledge gained by learners before they start their apprenticeship, and must be taken into account by providers when negotiating a price with an employer to ensure cash is not being used to teach an apprentice something they already know.

“We may take action to recover apprenticeship funding where this happens,” the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) rules for 2018/19 warn.

The DfE declined to comment on the reasoning behind its new tender, but FE Week understands the government considers non-compliance with the prior learning rule to be a major issue.

And a highly respected funding auditor has told FE Week that apprenticeship providers are typically not complying.

Stephanie Mason, head of further education and skills at the audit firm RSM, said: “The ESFA strengthened their funding rules this year and make it very clear that they will claw back funding when providers fail to reduce apprenticeship funding for prior knowledge, skills and behaviour.

“When conducting reviews since the introduction of the levy, we typically find providers have not fully accounted for prior learning.”

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) “flagged concerns about how best to ensure that prices for apprenticeship training were being appropriately adjusted to take account of prior learning”, according to the minutes from a meeting of its approval and funding committee last June.

The committee flagged some specific standards to the DfE for consideration of how the department should monitor how prior learning was being taken into account for apprenticeships, however the names of the standards were redacted and the institute has refused to share them with FE Week.

An IfATE spokesperson said: “The institute and our partners on the quality alliance take the concerns flagged by the committee seriously.

“Our quality statement stresses that an initial assessment of prior learning against the standard is a key facet of quality apprenticeships.

“We recognise that it is an important precondition of designing training plans that are tailored to individual learners’ needs, and also for ensuring value for money.”

Last March it was revealed that employers were paying the maximum amount in more than 95 per cent of apprenticeship starts since May 2017, when maximum funding rate caps were introduced.

And Ofsted has been finding problems at apprenticeship providers like Citrus Training Solutions, where inspectors found last December that many of its 188 apprentices were enrolled on “inappropriate” programmes which merely accredited existing knowledge, skills and behaviours.

Such as in the case of level two construction learners who completed their course in the first few months of the 12-month course with “very little training”.

Leaders and managers at Citrus Training Solutions were “unaware that many apprentices do not learn anything new” and are “not fully conversant with the funding requirements of an apprenticeship and so claim funding for apprentices who have not completed any learning”, according to the report.

“Assessors readily acknowledge they will not submit a claim for the completion of the apprenticeship for another eight months, even though they do not plan any further training.

“They state that this is to comply with the minimum apprenticeship duration that is set by the ESFA and the Institute for Apprenticeships.”

DfE has intervened in providers that are not teaching apprentices new skills before.

Last year, the ESFA terminated its contract of Premier People Solutions Limited after Ofsted found many of its 686 civil service apprentices were not developing substantial new skills, knowledge or behaviours.

In her annual report for 2018, Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman highlighted how apprentices were “not learning anything new”, but were just getting accreditation for knowledge and skills they already had.

A NAO spokesperson confirmed that its upcoming review of apprenticeships will address whether the apprenticeship programme is providing value for money, and said, as part of that “we will assess spending and budgeting, oversight and number and types of apprenticeships”.

It comes after its 2016 report warned that without more robust risk-planning the reforms risked seeing repeats of the frauds that plagued failed Individual Learning Accounts.

The scheme was scrapped in 2001 after abuse by unscrupulous providers that led to a reported £67 million fraud.

Expressions of interest for the DfE’s contract have to be submitted by February 15, with the research due to start in the week commencing April 1. The final report will be issued on August 30.

Providers turning apprentices away as non-levy cash dries up

Training providers’ non-levy funding is running dry and some are even having to turn apprentices away – but the government can’t offer more cash as it doesn’t have any left in the system.

The unprecedented issue, which one sector leader has described as “market failure”, comes just weeks after the Department for Education launched a new campaign to drive up the number of apprenticeships in England.

Around £500 million was allocated by the Education and Skills Funding Agency for delivering apprenticeships to small employers for the 15 months from January 2018 to March 2019 – a major fall on the £1 billion that was available for this provision in the previous 12-month period, according to a previous estimate from the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

We can’t put more 16- to- 18-year-olds on programme because we haven’t got the funding

Nearly 700 providers currently share the pot but many started to feel the financial strain towards the end of last year after being denied opportunities for in-year growth funding, and some have now run out of the cash altogether.

“We can’t put more 16- to- 18-year-olds on programme because we haven’t got the funding,” said William Howarth, the co-founder of Cheynes Training, which trains hairdressing apprentices across the UK.

“We’re turning people away. We are confident we could have had another 120 learners on over that November to March period.”

In November, FE Week revealed that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s chief operating officer Robert Nitsch said there could be a £500 million overspend on the apprenticeship budget in 2018/19 – which would explain why the government can’t offer any more non-levy funding.

The AELP is now advising its members to be “very careful in calculating the risk” of going ahead with new starts as it is “still no nearer resolving the medium- and longer-term issue of how SME [small and medium-sized] apprenticeships will be funded as the levy gets consumed by the levy-paying employers”.

“Now the infamous IfA slide on levy spend is official, our immediate concern is the tank running dry for non-levy paying employers,” said AELP boss Mark Dawe (pictured).

“Several training providers started reporting before Christmas that they were up to the hilt on their contracts.

“This number is growing, which means smaller businesses will be starved of apprenticeships.”

The ESFA said last week that it is reviewing providers’ delivery on current contracts and could release “over delivery” for some.

Mr Dawe said this announcement “just kicked the can down the road” and providers are “far from being out of the woods on meeting demand from non-levy employers”.

David Hughes, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said he is also “getting increasingly worried that more and more employers are being turned away”, which is “bad for young people who are missing out on opportunities to take up an apprenticeship”.

“This is a market failure for SMEs and young people,” he added. “The government needs to intervene.”

David Hughes

Cheynes Training has around 30 apprenticeship academies in England and had a non-levy contract worth just over £1 million to use this year.

It rallied MPs from around 20 of the constituencies that the various academies are in to plea with the DfE for more cash, but the provider still had four appeals for growth funding turned down.

“In terms of impact we then lost employers because they wanted to put people on the programme but we didn’t have the funding for new starts over the November to March period,” Mr Howarth told FE Week.

“In previous years we might have put those learners on, safe in the knowledge that the ESFA would fund it eventually, but, sadly, we have lost confidence in that happening.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “It is our intention to fund all learners until the end of their programmes. However, as always, if providers deliver more than their total contract value, it is at their own risk.”

In August, the ESFA announced it was going to extend current non-levy contracts from April 2019 to March 2020, but no growth funding will be available unless a “significant budget” becomes available.

The 10 per cent fee that small businesses must currently pay when they take on apprentices is also expected to be halved this year, although it is not clear when this change will take place.

When the five per cent co-investment is introduced, the government predicts it will cost the Treasury an extra £70 million a year by 2022.

The non-levy crisis comes after the DfE launched its new ‘Fire It Up’ apprenticeships campaign on January 17.

At the time, education secretary Damian Hinds said: “It’s vital that we challenge people’s thinking about apprenticeships, which is why the government’s new ‘Fire It Up’ campaign will aim to shift deeply held views and drive more people towards an apprenticeship.”

Principal defends college merger facilitated by £30 million bailout

Merging with a college that was “struggling for financial survival” and required a £30 million bailout from the government was the “right thing to do”, says the principal of Trafford College Group.

Stockport College was rated ‘inadequate’ three times in five years and required a rescue package of £30 million from the government’s restructuring facility to help with its merger to Trafford College in April 2018, the latest financial accounts reveal.

Despite the financial assistance, Stockport College’s merger still resulted in a loss of £31 million for the newly formed Trafford College Group and ongoing merger plans are based on “assumptions” that could “adversely impact” financial performance if they are not met.

The college said the £30 million received so far was only part of the overall agreed financial support package it secured from the government.

Speaking to FE Week, Lesley Davies, principal of the Trafford College Group said: “Merging with a college that unfortunately struggled for financial survival for many years and received more than one ‘inadequate’ judgement from Ofsted was always going to be a challenge, but we knew, on behalf of learners and the wider Stockport community, it was the right thing to do.”

 “We are committed to transforming the College’s education provision, and to dramatically improve the learning environment to ensure our learners are ready for the next steps in their career, and we are already making significant strides in a number of areas.

“I’m delighted that at the end of the academic year 2017/18 and within four months of merger we have successfully raised achievement rates.”

The accounts said the money was needed to “repay an outstanding loan held by Stockport College, create a stable property base at the Stockport campus and lay the foundations to enable the Trafford College Group to move forward with confidence”.

 Key areas of spend listed in the accounts including £15.3 million in loan repayments and £9.7 million repayment of exceptional financial support from the ESFA.

The Trafford College Group has also received a £16 million skills capital grant from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), earmarked for “upgrading the poor condition of the current campus in Stockport” and creating “high-quality facilities”.

GMCA is shouldering more than two thirds of the costs of the redevelopment, which is expected to cost £23.3 million in total, with the college contributing the remaining third.

According to the accounts, the group “recognised a loss of £31,120,000 in respect of the liabilities transferred from Stockport College upon the merger”.

 “The merger plan includes a number of assumptions regarding savings and efficiencies which, if not achieved, could adversely impact on the Trafford College Group financial performance,” the accounts stated, adding that a “turnaround specialist” was assisting with the merging process.

Trafford College Group also has a debt to Barclays Bank, after Trafford College was loaned £8 million in 2008/09. The accounts say it still owed £6.72 million as of July 31, 2018 and expects to repay £671,000 annually until 2036.

Stockport College received its first grade four rating in September 2013, followed by ‘requires improvement’ in December 2014.

However, it slipped back to ‘inadequate’ in October 2016, and received the same damning grade in a report published in March last year, just one month before the merger.

The college has also had a notice of concern for financial health since December 2010, longer than any other college. It was placed in administered status by former FE commissioner David Collins in 2013.

Trafford College, which was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted, said in its 2016/17 accounts that the merger was dependent on a “successful outcome to the application for restructuring funds” to “address Stockport College’s significant legacy liabilities”.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The Trafford College Group was given funding after applying to the restructuring facility fund, to deliver a significant financial and quality turnaround.

“All funding is delivered with strict oversight, including terms and conditions on the funding that is linked to the college’s improvement.”

FE bosses criticise ‘ridiculous variability’ of external quality assurance charges

Sector leaders have hit out at the “ridiculous variability” in approved external quality assurance charges, ranging from a free service to a whopping £179 per apprentice.

There are currently 18 approved external quality assurance (EQA) bodies that monitor end-point assessment organisations, to ensure the process is “fair, consistent and robust”.

The EQA bodies are allowed to apply a charge as long as it is on a “cost-recovery basis” – the amount of which is taken directly from the government funding given to training providers to deliver the apprenticeship.

These practices run the risk of bringing the entire reforms into disrepute

When shown the FE Week analysis of costs published by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, Graham Hasting-Evans (pictured), group managing director of NOCN, an end-point assessment organisation, said he was “very concerned” about the high level of EQA charges, which are “up to 10 per cent of the EPA cost in some cases” as well as the “considerable inconsistency”.

“This will just add another unnecessary administration cost circulating money around the system for no real benefit,” he told FE Week.

Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, representing many of the 199 currently approved EPAOs, said in the absence of a “single quality assurance framework for apprenticeship, including proper regulation of the charging rates of EQA providers”, it is “no wonder we have ended up with such ridiculous variability”.

“These practices run the risk of bringing the entire reforms into disrepute,” he added.

“Training providers are not charged by Ofsted for inspection visits so it is nonsensical for EPAOs to be charged for a check of their activities.”

Mr Bewick suggested the “sensible thing to do” would be for IfATE to “see quality assurance as a national infrastructure cost, by top-slicing the levy to fund it, and therefore offering EQA consistently free at the point of delivery for all standards”.

A spokesperson for the IfATE said external quality assurance needs to “respond to the specific nature of the apprenticeship standards involved”.

“Therefore, what constitutes cost recovery will vary for different EQA providers depending on a variety of factors such as the mix of standards they work on, volumes on those standards and the cost of expertise in the sector,” he added.

“We will keep these charges under review going forward.”

The ESFA sets a funding band for each apprenticeship standard, which is usually the value given to providers to deliver the training.

Of the total funding, up to 20 per cent is available to fund the end-point assessment. The EQA cost is paid by the end-point assessment organisation and is factored into the EPA price.

The EQA provider that charges the most is the Institute of Groundsmanship, at a cost of £179 per apprentice.

A “letter of recognition” on the IfATE’s website recognises that this is a “relatively high amount but reflects the anticipated low volume of apprentices”.

“Therefore, if volumes do increase we would expect costs to decrease,” it adds.

Tim Gray, the director of membership and business development at the Institute of Groundsmanship, said his company is not for profit and provides the EQA for the level two sports turf operatives standard “purely on a cost-recovery basis”.

Lantra, an awarding organisation that delivers the EPA for the sports and turf operatives standard, which has a funding band of £5,000, will charge £1,000 per apprentice for its service.

Marcus Potter, Lantra’s chief executive, told FE Week his organisation does “face some challenges in delivering the assessment within the available funding – this is partly because of the additional EQA cost”.

The second highest charge from an EQA provider is CILEx Regulation, which charges £87 per apprentice it monitors on the level six chartered legal executives standard.

Vicky Purtill, director of authorisation and supervision at CILEx Regulation, said: “We are not publicly funded and the cost of acting as EQA is therefore the minimum necessary to cover administrative costs. As the number of apprentices increases, costs should reduce proportionately.”

The Institution of Railway Operators contested the £60 per apprentice charge stated in its letter of recognition.

It said its proposed EQA methodology was: “Stage one, annual charge of £2,750 (+VAT) per EPAO; stage two, charge per visit of £1,850 (+VAT), per EPAO.”

The institution added that it “can’t imagine getting to the equivalent of £60 per head”.