It’s been a promising week for new apprenticeship providers, with only one ‘insufficient progress’ finding from six monitoring visits.

One of the reports, for LDN Apprenticeships Ltd, even scored a clean sweep of ‘significant progress’ findings.

Inspectors found that the provider’s managers “use progress tracking systems and frequent discussions with the provider’s learning and development specialists to identify apprentices at risk of falling behind or leaving.

“However, data for the current year shows the proportion of apprentices who have completed on time is high, with a further 15 apprentices still in learning, who are on-track to finish on time”.

Apprentices have “had the chance to work with a well-known film company to edit advertisements on film trailers and business learners learn how to how to plan and coordinate events and ensure that the correct security measures are in place”.

The one poor report came in for JM Recruitment, Education & Training Limited, based in the Wirral.

It was found to have made ‘insufficient progress’ for ensuring it is meeting the requirements for successful apprenticeship provision and was criticised by inspectors for its record-keeping.

Its leaders and “managers have not implemented an effective quality monitoring process, so cannot check if apprentices are receiving high-quality training; they do not analyse management information rigorously; and both they and the tutors do not have sufficient oversight of off-the-job training”.

Information about the quality of subcontracted provision is “inaccurate” and leaders are “unaware if apprentices have left their course early”.

Inspectors did find that assessors challenge apprentices with potential scenarios that they may not naturally encounter in the workplace, such as what a teaching assistant should do if a teacher spoke inappropriately to a pupil.

Apprentices also receive good support to develop their skills and achieve qualifications in English, maths and ICT.

The four other reports all resulted in ‘reasonable progress’ findings across the board.

The West Midlands Creative Alliance Limited, based in Birmingham, was commended for building links to the creative industries.

Apprentices are on the right apprenticeships for the right job role and managers use monthly quality meetings to ensure apprentices get back on track if they fall behind.

Meanwhile staff at Absolute HR Solutions Ltd, based in Warwickshire, work “very closely with employers to recruit only those who will benefit from learning and will add value to the employer’s business”.

The apprentices develop new knowledge, skills and behaviours in management and customer services, which prepare them for management roles and provide more options for their next steps when they finish training.

Thanks to the training, a levy-paying employer has been able to open a new store and increase sales. Apprentices tend to stay with the employer and rise “quickly through the ranks”.

GLAS Business Solutions Limited is a Pontypridd-based independent learning provider which also came in for praise from Ofsted.

Its leaders make “effective use of their close involvement in a trailblazer group, which sets apprenticeship standards, to ensure apprenticeship programmes are matched closely to the needs of both apprentices and employers”.

Tutors are “role models” for apprentices and use their good occupational knowledge and experience to deepen their apprentices’ vocational knowledge.

Kreston Reeves LLP, a Kent-based employer provider, also made reasonable progress in all three areas.

On its apprenticeship provision, inspectors found the provider offers very intensive off-the-job training, including ethics training and tutorials in how to use spreadsheets to record and analyse financial data.

On the quality of training, inspectors reported: “Apprentices rapidly develop the substantial new knowledge, skills and behaviours that managers need them to have. For example, apprentices gain strong technical skills alongside much improved confidence in their own abilities to complete audit work and to professionally interact with clients.”

Independent Learning Providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
JM Recruitment, Education & Training Limited	21/11/2018	28/01/2019	M	M	IRR
The West Midlands Creative Alliance Limited	09/01/2019	01/02/2019	M	M	RRR
LDN Apprenticeships Ltd	09/01/2019	01/02/2019	M	M	SSS
Absolute HR Solutions Ltd	09/01/2019	28/01/2019	M	M	RRR
GLAS Business Solutions Limited	16/01/2019	01/02/2019	M	M	RRR

 

Employer providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Kreston Reeves LLP	10/01/2019	30/01/2019	M	M	RRR

An independent training provider due to deliver the first T-levels from next year has warned it might have to pull out of the programme after being frozen out of infrastructure funding.

The “ridiculous” decision by the Department for Education to exclude all ITPs was revealed on Wednesday when it launched a £38 million capital fund that the 52 providers in wave one of the new post-16 technical qualifications can access.

The fund is split into two parts – a specialist equipment allocation (SEA) and a competitive buildings and facilities improvement grant (BFIG) – to help build new classrooms, refurbish buildings and upgrade equipment.

But the BFIG is only available to schools and colleges, not independent providers.

Mark Pike, the chief executive of Develop, one of only two ITPs set to deliver the first three T-levels from 2020, said the rule “puts a big question mark” over its ability to offer the qualifications.

“It’s just ridiculous,” he said of the DfE’s decision. “There has been no indication we would not be able to access the fund.”

Mr Pike was at a meeting on Monday with DfE officials where funding for T-levels was laid out, but he said no mention was made of ITPs being cut out of the BGIF.

Develop, which applied to become a T-level provider under the name Bedfordshire and Luton Education Business Partnership and is set to offer the digital route, had been looking at opening another centre and hiring more staff to provide T-levels, but is now faced with having to instead consider displacing other students to accommodate learners for the new qualifications.

“We knew it will be slightly different for independent training providers, but it was at least an opportunity for us to have more of the opportunities FE colleges get,” Mr Pike told FE Week.

“But it’s an unfair and unjust system now.”

The other ITP in line to deliver T-levels from 2020/21, Access to Music, has said it is “disappointing” ITPs had been excluded and it is “urgently” seeking clarification from the Education and Skills Funding Agency about capital funding for T-levels.

The chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, Mark Dawe, hit out at the “bias towards colleges”, which has been “implicit for a long time and now the DfE has made it explicit”.

“It’s just more money being thrown to colleges when it’s the ITPs that are delivering what employers want,” he said.

“There have been multiple offers from ITPs to engage their business networks, especially to meet the major challenge of finding appropriate industry placements, but the DfE has been ignoring or rejecting the offers.

“We wish them luck with T-levels, because we think the DfE are taking the same old path ignoring those that can make a difference, and it will be added to the list of failed technical policies.”

Providers can receive up to £1.4 million from the BFIG if they are teaching the construction route, a maximum of £650,000 for the digital route and a maximum of half a million for the childcare route.

When asked why it decided to exclude ITPs from the buildings and facilities improvement grant, a DfE spokesperson: “Independent education and training providers have an important role to play in the FE sector, helping people of all ages and background to get on in life.

“However, we need to prioritise investment in buildings that will benefit state funded institutions in the longer term.”

On hearing the DfE’s rationale, Mr Dawe said: “What a ridiculous response. The Office for National Statistics should investigate because they class colleges as independent of government, meaning there is no reason for singling them out for special treatment.”

Skills minster Anne Milton said: “T-levels are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform technical education in this country.

“It will be vital that they have access to the latest, high-quality equipment and state-of the art facilities during their studies.

“The T-level capital fund will help those further education providers at the forefront of delivering these important reforms to be ready to teach T-levels from September 2020.”

The first T-level courses will cover in education, construction and digital.

The motion: This House believes the devolution of the £1.5bn adult education budget will prove to be a successful policy

More than 150 FE sector leaders came to the Houses of Parliament on Monday, January 28, for the third FE Week-Pearson Great Debate.

The previous two debates were on apprenticeship reforms (July) and T-levels (September).

About £600 million of the AEB will be devolved to six combined authorities and the Greater London Authority from September; the debate focused on whether the policy will be successful or not.

It was hosted by Gordon Marsden, the shadow skills minister, and facilitated by Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week’s publisher Lsect.

Speaking for the motion was Dr Susan Pember OBE, of the adult learning provider membership body Holex and a former lead director for FE in the Department for Education. Nick Linford, the editor of FE Week, argued against it.

The panel also included Cindy Rampersaud, senior vice-president for BTEC and apprenticeships at Pearson, and Mr Marsden.

Audience members asked questions and offered their experiences of the AEB and the likely effects of devolution.

At the start of the event, most believed the devolution of the AEB would not be successful.

This result did not change and the motion was voted down.

---

For the motion

“We have to make devolution work,” Dr Pember said.

“The system we have now is not serving the nation as it should. We need to do something and we need to do it now.”

One in five working adults had low literacy, there was a national skills shortage, creeping concern about automation and an over-reliance on the state – all evidence of an adult education and skills “stall”.

Over the past ten years the budget for adult education had been cut by 40 per cent and only 1 per cent of the money for post-18 education was spent on community education.

She said the apprenticeship levy was working, but the activity in the sector was being diverted into degree-level courses, while level 2 apprenticeships struggled.

“Large swathes of our population are feeling left behind.”

On the positive side, Dr Pember said, 86 per cent of adult community learning providers were rated grade two or one by Ofsted.

“We do know how to do it if there was more investment, or the funding that is there was provided differently.

“We have a system that is broken and is not getting to the people who need to get on in life.

“We need the new structure to encourage adults back into learning. A structure that is about local planning, local co-ordination and hearing the person’s voice. We need local authority services working with providers and employers. Devolution can do that.

“I have real confidence we are seeing great progress. We are seeing the right structures being put in place and the right plans.”

The Greater London Authority was committed to free courses at level two and below for people on the living wage, as well as the minimum wage. The same offer was available in the West Midlands.

“These plans and structures will give local people a voice on where money needs to be spent and gives us a chance to see the needs of these areas.”

She made reference to the upcoming spending review and her hopes that instead of Whitehall departments and large providers responding to the Treasury, combined authority mayors would say they needed extra funds.

“This policy will be the solution to many issues we have now. It will deliver local, lifelong learning strategies, real partnership and real delivery from assured providers and will work with other councils.

“It should give us clear progression routes and help learners through those routes.

“What I’m looking for is something we don’t do much in this country: reward learners.”

In other countries, she said, local government ran ceremonies to reward people who had done something differently.

“We will have high-level promotion and lobbying like we have never had before.”

Dr Pember said it was necessary to look at what was going wrong: participation was falling and local need was not recognised by the national system.

Only a handful of providers worked across county borders.

“You have to think what this does for your area. Learners with low skills will not need to travel, local providers know what they want and combined authorities are bending over backwards to find out what is needed. That sounds good for the future.

“Having mayors champion skills as part of a bigger infrastructure seems a much better vision for the future.

“I’m open to change and change is now needed.”

Mr Marsden said there were clear opportunities in new structures of devolution, but the changes had to work for the next 20 years.

There had to be more horizontal, not simply vertical, co-operation. Infrastructure projects should be tied up with local delivery, wherever possible.

Ms Rampersaud did not think it was a matter of “one-size-fits-all” and there was a place for local initiatives.

---

Against the motion

“I don’t think it will be better than what we have now,” Nick Linford said in response to Dr Pember.

He raised the postcode lottery – currently the learner only needed to live in England to access courses, but, once devolved, the budget could only be spent in the combined authority area, which could mean checking whether a person lived on the right end of a street.

Second, he argued devolution would actually mean more centralisation, as instead of providers deciding what courses to run, combined authorities could decide what courses were right for their area.

He raised the example of the Greater London Authority, responsible for 8 million people, which would make decisions for the whole of London.

This had been tried with local learning and skills councils, but abandoned as it could not be agreed what sectors were a priority for the capital.

“I have real issue with the idea this is localism, particularly in London, as the best decisions are made on the ground at the colleges and providers.

“To take it away from them is the opposite of being more localised.”

He also raised costs: Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, could not get an administration budget, with the Department for Education instead suggesting he use the unspent AEB to hire administrators to dish out the funding.

The duplication of administration was “horrendous,” Mr Linford said. The top-slice of the budget used to fund local administration in London would be more than £3 million as it was still unclear who would audit providers.

Fourth, he asked whether FE funding would be better or less protected if it sat with a combined authority.

If more votes could be won by using the AEB for something else, as it was not known if it was ring fenced after 2020, combined authorities might decide other forms of infrastructure were more important.

“It does worry me that as the DfE budget gets smaller by devolving, initially £600 million out of £1.5 billion, the DfE will care less.

“The bigger the budget, the more weight you have in a department over how that budget is used and it will have less protection.”

Conflicts of interest also needed to be considered: combined authorities, made up of local authorities, were intended to be more transparent, but there were suggestions of favouritism in certain parts of the country. Local authorities would also be bidding for training contracts.

“It can be summed up as a decision that was made at some stage (devolution is not specific to education, it is a thread of policy), but the decision did not have to be made to put the funding into the hands of the combined authorities.

“It would have been easier to give them influence over the local strategy without the responsibility for tendering, contract managing, audit, compliance, financial assurance, funding rules, data returns, data compliance – all the things we spend a couple of hundred million pounds a year on in Westminster to do on behalf of all of us in England are now going to be duplicated.

“There may be some better decisions locally. I’m quite excited by what they are doing in London to move towards outcome-based measures. Some areas will make better decisions than the decisions made in buildings in Westminster.

“But that should be for all of us, not in silos. I think the policy will be less successful than it is now as we are going to spend a lot of money creating a lot of silos, reinventing a lot of wheels and in about five years’ time, when I’m proved right, we’ll be saying ‘why did we do that?’”

---

WEA says it faces core budget cut of 28 per cent next year due to devolution

WEA boss Ruth Spellman spoke at the FE Week-Pearson debate on Monday about the problems posed to the 105-year-old institution by devolving the adult education budget.

“I am hoping the WEA can survive this government, but we are looking at a cut of 28 per cent in our core funding next year,” the chief executive of the Workers’ Educational Association said.

This refers to an estimate of how much the WEA will lose when the Education and Skills Funding Agency devolves the AEB to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Greater London Authority.

“That does not make any sense because we have 2,000 locations in the most disadvantaged postal codes across the country,” Ms Spellman added.

“We need a mix of both the national and local providers. If there is a national initiative to basic digital skills, how on earth are we going to do that through a plethora of different organisations?

“Entitlement needs to be a national offer through a mix of national and local providers.

“We are a national organisation that is incredibly local.”

The founder of the Big Issue, Lord Bird, told parliament last April that the WEA will lose about £7 million because of devolution.

The WEA is rated “good” by Ofsted, has a £19.1 million AEB contract, and teaches around 50,000 disadvantaged learners every year.

Ms Spellman continued: “This is about funding the right solutions for the right problem and having a big enough involvement so all adults can get access to education at whatever age.

“There are some great things about devolution and I am absolutely convinced we will survive, because we are so valued and common sense, but it will be despite the structures, not because of them.

“I put my faith in that, rather than a blind adherence to devolution.

“We do need a national education and skills strategy, and we need continuing access to learning all the way through working life and we do need to design a system that delivers that.

“I do not think we should rearrange the furniture when we do not know what system we are to trying to support.”

---

Post-devolution audits still unresolved

One issue raised during Monday’s FE Week-Pearson debate was the “horrendous” replication of administration that would come with devolving the adult education budget, including audits.

With just seven months to go until devolution kicks in, the issue of audits is still being battled.

The Greater London Authority, led by mayor Sadiq Khan, has been lobbying the ESFA for more cash to cover the costs for over a year.

If the extra funding isn’t offered, the GLA fears it will have to top-slice even more than the £3 million from its annual £311 million budget that it has set aside for administration costs – although it cannot put a figure on this yet.

For the 2019/20 academic year, the authority said it will cover the audit costs by using part of its £1,272,282 implementation budget from the Department for Education.

But it is still working out how it will pay for them from 2020/21 onwards.

Board minutes from a GLA meeting in January note that the authority and ESFA are “each responsible for auditing the adult education providers that they fund”, but are “considering how the two organisations can work together to achieve cost efficiencies in relation to audit and reduce the administrative burden for the providers we have in common”.

The minutes add that the “current offer from the ESFA” for a joint approach to audit, received in December 2018, “does not fully meet our requirements as determined by GLA auditors”.

As a result, “further discussions with ESFA to finalise the approach to audit are ongoing, with an in-principle agreement expected to be in place by March 2019”.

Audits are one area where the prediction of “horrendous” replication looks set to prove true, and not just in the GLA.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority told FE Week it will take responsibility for all audit, financial health checks and due diligence processes for its contractors under a devolved AEB, but will work with Whitehall on auditing providers getting funding from both ESFA and GMCA.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is also collaborating with the ESFA on joint working arrangements for audit and assurance, fraud and investigations and financial health ahead of devolution.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and the Tees Valley combined authorities both said they will be carrying out financial due diligence and performance monitoring, including audit, for the funding they are responsible for.

A DfE spokesperson confirmed it was working with the various combined authorities “to review options in relation to audit arrangements post devolution”.

A flagship university technical college had to be bailed out by the government with a £650,000 loan, after being stung by funding rate cuts and delays to its apprenticeship programme.

FE Week reported last week that the JCB Academy – the first UTC to open, in 2010 – was one of six 14 to 19 technical institutions to receive ESFA bailouts last year, totalling £1 million.

Jim Wade, the institution’s principal, has now told this newspaper that the problems arose after it was forced to decide between running its apprenticeship programme on a third of the funding it had budgeted for – or not run a programme at all.

“We were in a difficult place, really, because the choice we had in August was do you turn around to 90 apprentices the week before they’re due to start their apprenticeship and say, sorry guys, ladies, we’ve got no programme for you?” he said.

A subsequent £720,000 funding shortfall led to the ESFA having to step in. 

According to the UTC’s 2017/18 accounts, it received £650,000 from the agency, which was used to cover a £542,000 net cash outflow, part of an overall deficit of almost £1.6 million.

Its sponsor, JCB chair Lord Bamford, also agreed to up his contributions by an extra £250,000 a year for the next four years to cover the funding deficit.

The deficit “principally arose due to the costs of expanding the apprentice training programme and a lower level of apprentice funding per head than was originally forecast”, the accounts said.

Mr Wade said that the UTC, which delivers training for apprentices of all ages alongside its school activities, had previously been offering the level 2 engineering technical support framework.

Because of a funding cut in April 2017, it decided to switch to the new level 2 engineering operative standard – even though the standard was still awaiting approval.

He claimed the funding for the framework was cut by 56 per cent, from £8,853 to £4,000, but FE Week has been unable to verify this; its current funding band is £5,000.

Mr Wade said the UTC had 90 learners signed up for the start of 2017/18, and had budgeted £12,000 for each one, on the basis of information he’d been given by the trailblazer group developing the standard.

But when it wasn’t approved in time, the school was then forced to register all the learners on the framework instead – which resulted in an £8,000 shortfall per learner.

The loss of income amounted to £720,000, which was a “problem”, Mr Wade said.

“We don’t aim to make a profit, so our aim with our budget is to more or less break even or create a small surplus,” he said. 

The UTC has since redeveloped its apprenticeship programme, which covers the costs of delivery, and now has 376 apprentices registered on a range of standards.

These include the level 3 engineering fitter, which has a £21,000 funding cap, and the level 3 engineering technician, which attracts up to £27,000.

Mr Wade said he was “confident” it would be able to repay the money, and wouldn’t need any further bailouts.

The JCB Academy, currently rated “good” by Ofsted and with 575 pupils out of a capacity of 728 in 2017/18, is one of the more successful UTCs.

Many others of the 14 to 19 technical institutions – the brainchild of former education secretary Lord Kenneth Baker – have been plagued by problems since they were founded. 

Eight have so far shut their doors, with a ninth earmarked for closure at the end of the year.

The majority have struggled financially after failing to recruit enough pupils, while quality is also an issue.

Around 60 per cent – or 21 out of 34 – of those that are open and have been inspected by Ofsted have been rated less than “good”.

The government’s apprenticeships agency is not willing to share the formula it uses to calculate funding bands for apprenticeship standards as it fears employer groups will “misuse” it to “inflate their costs”.

Sir Gerry Berragan, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s chief executive, acknowledged that it is a “common refrain that we are very secretive about how we do funding band calculations” during an interview with FE Week this week.

He said he wanted to tackle this by becoming more transparent about how the costs are arrived at by the institute as they often differ hugely to what trailblazer groups suggest.

The calculus is where we will probably be less willing to be open

“What trailblazer groups sometimes say is that they do not understand why the IfATE made that funding decision and I think we need to be much better at explaining why decisions were made in the way they were and that might include interaction with the route panels,” Sir Gerry said.

But the “calculus” is “where we will probably be less willing to be open”.

“That is an area where the more open we are, the more danger there is that people will misuse that information to try to inflate their costs,” Sir Gerry said.

“We have to strike a balance between being straightforward and balanced, which we want to be, and not being so open that, frankly, it opens us up the system to being gamed.”

The IfATE’s lack of transparency around funding band decisions has been an issue for many in the FE sector ever since the institute launched, and has led to various appeals and subsequent delays to standards getting up and running.

FE Week reported in August that the institute refused to publicly reveal the recommendations from its controversial first funding band review of 31 apprenticeship standards – although it did share them with the employer groups involved.

The review was launched in May and led to numerous standards being hit with rate cuts of up to £5,000.

The trailblazer group behind three popular management apprenticeship standards in the review was backed by more than 150 employers – including retail giant Tesco – in its fight to overturn plans to slash their funding bands.

The chartered manager, operational manager and team leader standards all faced cuts of between £500 and £5,000, and the employer group appealed on the grounds that the process behind the decisions wasn’t “fair and transparent”.

I think we need to be much better at explaining why decisions were made in the way they were

The group ultimately lost the appeal.

Meanwhile, the trailblazer group creating three FE teaching standards, which have been in development since 2015, accused IfATE of exceeding its powers last year after claiming their proposed funding bands were just half what they would cost to deliver.

The group claimed that the recommended funding bands were not “based on evidence and on a formal, transparent process”.

The group successfully appealed the decision and two of the funding bands were increased, but it severely delayed the rollout of the standards, which will finally be ready for delivery from next week.

As revealed by FE Week last week, the number of appeals against the IfA skyrocketed by 425 per cent last year as a result of the funding band review.

According to minutes from a November meeting of the IfA’s approval and funding committee, there were just eight appeals from trailblazer groups in 2017 and 42 in January 2018.

Out of all of the 2018 appeals: 21 were rejected, 13 were upheld, 13 were considered not in scope and three are pending a decision.

The institute is likely to be hit with more appeals this year after launching the second wave of its funding band reviews in December – of which 30 apprenticeship standards are involved.