Advanced learner loan participation falls for first time

The number of people taking out advanced learner loans last year fell by more than eight per cent – the first overall fall in number since the loans were introduced in 2013.

A total of 109,000 people took out loans in 2017/18, compared with 119,000 in 2016/17.

Participation at all ages fell except for those aged between 19 and 23 which rose 10 per cent – from 20,400 in 2016/17 to 22,500 in 2017/18.

The number of adults aged 24 and above taking out advanced learner loans fell by 12 per cent last year – down from 98,600 to 86,500, while participation by the same age group at level three alone fell by 14 per cent.

Shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden said the figures “underline the bankruptcy” of the loans project.

“We have consistently said they’re completely missing the mark because older people – those who the loans were originally aimed at to retrain and reskill – are are increasingly reluctant, given their more complex life situations, to take them up,” he said.

He urged the government to have a “massive rethink” on loans policy “that goes to all aspects of it, including the interest rate” that borrowers must pay. 

Last year, FE Week revealed that a massive 58 per cent of FE loans funding – amounting to almost £1 billion – had not been spent since 2013.

The shocking figure, which was discovered after a Freedom of Information request, was confirmed by the Students Loan Company, which confirmed that just £652 million in loan-funded provision had actually been delivered since 2013, against a massive £1.56 billion in allocations.

FE loans, originally known as 24+ loans, were introduced in 2013/14 for learners studying courses at levels three or four and aged 24 and older.

However, the overall number of adults studying at levels three and four has fallen steadily since their introduction. Loan eligibility was expanded in 2016/17 to include 19- to 23-year-olds, and courses at levels five and six, but this corresponded with a reduction in the overall loans budget and a crackdown on loan growth requests.

 

DfE to consult on level 4 and 5 T-levels for introduction from 2022

The government is going to build a “new generation” of higher technical qualifications at levels 4 and 5 for T-level students to progress onto, the education secretary will announce today.

A consultation on the qualifications, which will be an alternative to degrees and apprenticeships for mostly 18-year-olds, will be launched early next year with an introduction date set for 2022.

Damian Hinds (pictured) will make the commitment during a speech about ending “snobbery” over technical education, in which he’ll also announce reforms to student destination measures and the next seven T-level programmes, to be taught from 2021.

We’ve revered the academic but treated vocational as second class

FE Week understands that the higher T-levels will be developed using the suite of existing level 4 and 5 technical qualifications currently funded through advance learner loans, as well as the creation of some completely new qualifications.

The funding for these is expected to be detailed in Philip Augar’s post-18 education review, which is delayed while the Office for National Statistics decides on whether student loans should appear in the government’s deficit figures, but is expected to be concluded in early 2019.

The introduction date of 2022 has been set to fit with the first cohort of T-level students, who will start their two-year level 3 qualification in 2020.

The Department for Education said the higher technical qualifications will be an “alternative to a university degree to help more people get on in their careers and employers can access the skills they need”.

Like diplomas of higher education and foundation degrees, they will “sit in between A-levels and a degree in subjects like engineering and digital”.

“The kind of training that helps someone step up from being healthcare support worker to a nursing associate or a bricklayer to a construction site supervisor,” the DfE added.

The Association of Colleges asked for new higher technical qualifications to be developed in a post-18 education policy paper, published in September.

It recommended that they should be paid for via a “higher technical levy” or top-slice from the apprenticeship levy.

The association’s boss, David Hughes, welcomed today’s announcement.

“The secretary of state is correct; educational snobbery exists throughout all strands of society – especially amongst decision-makers and opinion formers – and it has led to educational ignorance around non-academic routes to work,” he said.

“This renewed focus on higher technical education, and the push for greater awareness and respect, can only be good for industry, good for the economy and good for the country.”

David Hughes

Mr Hinds is also expected to announce today that his department will start including data on the number of students that schools and colleges send on to higher-level apprenticeships.

The change to performance tables will see apprenticeships at level 4 or above count towards a school or college’s score for the proportion of students who go on to higher education after their A-levels.

At present, pupil destinations data presented in online league tables shows the number and proportion of students who go on to higher education at university, but not via an apprenticeship.

Speaking to business leaders, Mr Hinds will warn that the nation has become “technical education snobs”.

“We’ve revered the academic but treated vocational as second class – when we do it well, law, engineering, medicine – then we don’t even call it vocational,” he will say.

“Why has this has been tolerated for so long? I think the reason is the ‘O.P.C’ problem. For so many opinion formers, commentators and, yes, politicians: vocational courses are for ‘other people’s children’.”

Give nursing degree apprenticeships special treatment, education committee urges

The NHS will not meet its apprentice recruitment target unless nursing degree apprenticeships are given special treatment, an influential group of MPs has warned.

The education select committee’s report, ‘Nursing degree apprenticeships – in poor health’, based on its inquiry over the summer, was published today.

It highlighted a series of obstacles to the delivery of high numbers of nursing degree apprenticeships – including the greater off-the-job training requirement for nursing students, and the additional costs of apprentices’ salaries as well as ‘backfill’ for the time spent off-the-job.

The report recommends that the funding band for the level six standard should be kept at £27,000 – currently the highest funding band – or even increased in the future.

It also repeated the call, first made by chair Robert Halfon at a hearing in July, for greater flexibility in how the NHS is able to spend its levy funds.

“The idea that degree apprenticeships are a realistic route into the profession is currently a mirage,” he said.

“Ambitious targets are simply not going to be met.”

He accused the Department of Education of “a lack of imagination and foresight” for having failed to give “enough attention” to “adapting apprenticeships to meet the needs of the NHS”.

“Ministers must now recognise the uniqueness of the health service’s position and allow flexibility in the use of the apprenticeship levy so these apprenticeships can be made to work for both the employer and students,” Mr Halfon said.

Figures published last month by the DfE showed that the NHS was some way off meeting the 2.3 per cent public sector apprenticeship target.

It had 13,800 apprenticeship starts in 2017/18 – down from 19,820 two years previously – which represented 1.2 per cent of a total headcount of 1,194,614.

Nonetheless, skills minister Anne Milton said she was “particularly pleased” to see the NHS doing so well.

“I visited Leeds Teaching Hospital recently where I saw first-hand how apprenticeships have changed people’s lives and are helping to make sure the NHS can continue to get the skilled nurses they need,” she said at the time.

Nursing degree apprenticeships are currently set at the maximum funding band of £27,000, but NHS trusts have complained that even this does not cover the costs of the training.

The figure is around £10,000 less than a university delivering a full-time nursing degree would receive in fees, and “on a par” with the cost of delivering these traditional degrees.

“Any future reduction of the funding band must be assessed to ensure that providers can continue to deliver apprenticeships” and these assessments must be published, today’s report said.

It warned that there is currently “little incentive for the NHS to spend precious time and resource building nursing apprenticeships”.

The cost of delivering nursing apprenticeships was cited in the inquiry and in today’s report as one of the biggest barriers to their take-up.

Nursing apprentices are required to spend 50 per cent of their time in off-the-job training – much higher than the typical 20 per cent – and also can’t be included in staffing numbers until they are fully qualified.

These extra costs added up to around £35,000 per apprentice, per year, the report said.

It urged the government to “reconsider its position in not providing much needed flexibility in the apprenticeship levy for the NHS” and to allow it to use the fund to “cover the backfill costs of apprentices who are required by the Nursing and Midwifery Council to be supernumerary”.

The DfE has been approached for a comment.

Revealed: The next seven T-levels to be taught from 2021

The programmes to be taught in wave two of the government’s T-level roll-out will be announced by the education secretary today.

Qualifications in health, healthcare science, science, onsite construction, building services engineering, digital support and services and digital business services are to be taught from 2021.

Damian Hinds is also going to reveal that T-levels will be allocated UCAS tariff points, with each programme carrying the same points as three A-levels.

He is expected to make the announcements during a speech to business leaders about ending “snobbery” in technical education, in which he’ll also reveal plans for a new “generation” of higher technical qualifications.

“I want us to break down some of the false barriers we’ve erected between academic and technical routes,” he will say.

“I don’t see any reason why higher technical training shouldn’t be open to certain A-level students as long as they have the prerequisite knowledge and practical skill.

“Equally, I want T-level students, that want to, to be able to go to university to do relevant technical degrees.”

The Department for Education said that by awarding UCAS points to T-levels, young people, parents and employers will “know they are as stretching as their academic equivalents and will act as a stepping stone to progress to the next level whether that is a degree, higher level technical training or an apprenticeship”.

The first three T-levels, in education, construction and digital routes, will be taught by 50 training providers from 2020.

A new DfE action plan for the technical qualifications said: “As we move into the second year of the programme, the criteria to select providers for T-level delivery in 2021 has been developed to focus on larger providers, to increase the number of students taking T-levels in the second year of rollout.

“It also ensures that we are able to select a relatively small number of providers so we can continue providing the right level of support in the early stages of rollout.”

The DfE is aiming to select an additional 50 to 75 providers for 2021.

“We expect to announce which T-levels will be available from September 2022 next Autumn, and will continue to work closely with the institute to agree which T-levels will be ready for delivery,” today’s action plan said.

“We will also confirm at that time which providers will be able to deliver from 2022. We currently expect roll out to be significantly increased at this stage as T-levels become a more ‘main stream’ part of the qualifications offer.”

The full roll-out of the new technical qualifications will not happen until September 2023.

The IfA launched a consultation for the draft content of three of the seven new pathways in today’s announcement, in onsite construction, building services engineering and digital support and services, in October.

Interserve denies 5,000+ apprentices will go the way of Carillion

Even as the fallout from Carillion’s collapse engrossed the nation, another outsourcing giant which trains over 5,000 apprentices also had financial concerns highlighted.

Interserve, an international support services and construction group which runs a large UK training provider called Interserve Learning and Employment Ltd, employs over 80,000 staff worldwide and has an annual turnover of £3 billion.

But in September, the FTSE 250 contractor admitted that its annual profits were likely to halve after a £195 million loss from an energy to-waste contract. A second profit warning followed in October.

Fears about its financial health grew deeper after its rival Carillion suddenly went into liquidation in January, especially when a report by the Financial Times claimed that the Cabinet Office had established a special team of officials to closely monitor the situation.

The government moved swiftly to reassure people that Interserve will not be the next Carillion, but many fear the fall of another huge organisation with fingers in so many pies.

Interserve topped the list of the government’s strategic suppliers in 2017, according to data provider Tussell, winning £938 million of work across a range of areas including health, education and defence.

Interserve Learning and Employment was formerly called ESG and was bought from finance firm Ares Capital in a cash deal worth £25 million in December 2014.

It is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted and currently teaches over 5,000 apprentices. It was given £19 million from the ESFA in 2016/17 to deliver apprenticeships, as well as £2 million from the adult education budget.

The provider has around 700 employees and boasts that it is “one of the UK’s largest private sector providers of training and employment services”.

It also provides vocational training in three FE colleges in Saudi Arabia under the UK’s Colleges of Excellence programme and claims it supports over 65,000 people a year into work or training.

A spokesperson for the firm refused to speculate about what would happen to its learners if it collapsed, and claimed it is in no danger of doing so.

Recently announced government contracts include five-year facility management contracts for the Department for Work and Pensions (£227 million) and the Department for Transport (£190 million).

Other wins include a £500 million construction framework for Manchester city council, and a £140 million facilities management contract extension with the BBC.

Interserve confessed to net debts of about £513 million at the end of 2017, but in a trading update on January 10, its expected operating profit in 2018 was better than forecasted.

“Earlier this month we announced that we expect our 2017 performance to be in line with expectations outlined in October and that our transformation plan is expected to deliver £40-£50 million benefit by 2020,” a spokesperson said.

“This remains the case and we expect our 2018 operating profit to be ahead of current market expectations and we continue to have constructive discussions with lenders over
longer-term funding.

“We are keeping the Cabinet Office closely appraised of our progress as would be expected.”

A Cabinet Office spokesperson added: “We monitor the financial health of all of our strategic suppliers, including Interserve. We do not believe that any of our strategic suppliers
are in a comparable position to Carillion.”

Over ‘optimistic’ leaders drag council down to ‘inadequate’

A council has received the lowest possible rating for its adult and community learning provision after leadership and management was found to be ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted.

Despite being rated as ‘requires improvement’ in every other area, North East Lincolnshire Council has been left with an overall ‘inadequate’ grade after inspectors warned leaders had been “too slow in tackling areas for improvement” and “too optimistic” about the service.

The council’s Community Learning Service (CLS) received a grade three rating from Ofsted in February 2014, April 2015 and December 2016, and the latest report, published today, accused leaders and managers of failing to tackle weaknesses “that have persisted over the past five years and that were identified at three previous inspections”.

The service delivers adult and community learning provision to 729 learners in Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Immingham, but inspectors found that too many learners “do not achieve their qualifications because they do not attend their examinations”.

Leaders and managers were said to not use data “incisively enough to manage the performance of their staff”, while members of the improvement board were criticised for not sufficiently challenging reports about the service’s performance.

The report said attendance is “poor”, with just over half of learners attending their sessions on the main employability study programme in 2017/18. The pace of learning is “too slow” and progress made by learners is “insufficient”, but tutors were said to know their learners well and “provide good personal support”.

Ofsted also said that in 2017/18 around a quarter of learners returned to not being in education, training or employment after they left CLS.

Not enough learners on 16 to 19 programmes make the progress expected of them, and tutors for adult learning programmes do not do enough to “motivate and inspire learners”.

However, the report did say leaders had developed a curriculum that “serves the most disadvantaged members of the community”.

Some of the wards covered by North East Lincolnshire Council are among the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country, and the report acknowledged that a high proportion of CLS’ users were looked-after children, unaccompanied asylum seekers, those recovering from mental health problems or unemployed.

“For many of these young people and adults, CLS offers their only option to continue with their education after having failed at school and other providers,” it said.

“Learners demonstrate a high level of respect for one another and for their tutors and support workers. Learners from a wide range of different backgrounds and with many challenges in their personal lives work together effectively in lessons. They support each other well.”

 Councillor Peter Wheatley, the cabinet member for skills, said progress had been made “in lots of areas” but the council “recognises the need for focus and pace in some key areas and as a result accepts the findings”.

“CLS is delivered to some of the most disadvantaged members of our community, and that can sometimes present its own difficulties in terms of attendance and progression options for the users,” he said.

“Whilst we accept the findings of the report, inevitably, we will always face some challenges in delivery.”

 

Shadow minister demands IfA hands over private levy overspend presentation

The Institute for Apprenticeships has been criticised for refusing to publicly share a presentation given to employers about a worrying imminent apprenticeship overspend.

Gordon Marsden, the shadow skills minister, described the latest example of a lack of transparency at the institute as “disappointing” and has said he will write to the government agency demanding its release.

FE Week revealed on Monday that the apprenticeships budget for England is set to be overspent by £0.5 billion this year, rising to £1.5 billion during 2021/22 – which has raised many concerns across the education sector.

The IfA is obviously getting closer to government and is catching the non-disclosure germ

It came after Robert Nitsch, the IfA’s chief operating officer, presented the figures during an event for employers held at Exeter College on Friday.

When FE Week learned of the presentation we asked for the full slide pack but the IfA has refused to release it.

A spokesperson for the institute said the decision to keep the presentation hidden was made because “the slides were produced specifically for the stakeholder engagement event and were not intended to be shared beyond this”.

After being informed of the secrecy, Mr Marsden (pictured) said: “It is certainly disappointing and slightly undermines what I imagine was the purpose of the exercise which was to reassure stakeholders and employers.

“The IfA is obviously getting closer to government and is catching the non-disclosure germ from the attorney general in parliament yesterday.

“I don’t have the ability to hold the IfA in contempt but I will be very happy to write to the institute about why this can’t be made more accessible.”

He added that it could be the case that it is the Department for Education who has told the institute not to share the full presentation, in which case he will “be writing fairly sharply to the minister”.

Robert Nitsch’s slide from Friday’s employer engagement event

This isn’t the first time the IfA has been criticised for not being transparent.

FE Week reported in August that the institute refused to publicly reveal the recommendations from its controversial funding band review of apprenticeship standards – despite sharing them with the employer groups involved.

The institute also heavily redacts the minutes of its board meetings on a regular basis.

The levy overspend problem – which comes despite the volume of starts dipping – is understood to be the result of higher per-start funding than first predicted, largely driven by the sharp rise in management apprenticeships with high prices.

As more and more people start on these expensive apprenticeships, the monthly on-programme costs quickly accumulate.

Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, has demanded an “open debate on how the levy operates” following the revelation.

An example of redacted minutes from an IfA subcommittee board meeting

 

Reform higher apprenticeships, but beware of unintended consequences

Let’s not lump all higher apprenticeships together – some are genuinely about re-training and progression, says Iain MacKinnon

The government needs to sort this out, and fast. We cannot allow the apprenticeship reforms to be de-railed by employers upsetting the balance of the programme by spending so much of the levy on management apprenticeships.

But we also need to be careful: Anne Milton quite rightly said in her discussion with David Hughes (do watch it if you haven’t) that we need to be careful about unintended consequences. If we are committed to encouraging long-term structured training, and committed to progression, we ought not to restrict apprenticeship support to lower level programmes for the under 25s.

Let me explain.

Ask yourself what we’re trying to do here. The prize for government in setting apprenticeship policy is to use just enough leverage, no more, to get employers to do something that is good for the economy and good for our society, and which they wouldn’t have done anyway.

Government wants more employers to offer high quality, structured training programmes that give people an excellent foundation for career progression. That means investment, and however promising the returns, investment always means money up front. The government’s subsidy is meant to help get employers over that initial hurdle.

It’s early days, and let’s be fair, it’s hard to do – but it’s clear now that the government hasn’t got that balance right. It needs to sort this fast before it becomes a real problem.

Employers, acting rationally to secure their self-interest (at least as defined in the short-term) are using the government’s subsidy to put managers on management programmes – even worse, on MBAs – re-badged as apprenticeships. (There’s too much lazy talk about re-badging by people who’ve never sat in a trailblazer meeting, but much of this does deserve the label).

That’s a fail for government policy, even if those programmes are inherently valuable. In economic terms, it’s deadweight: this is the government paying companies to do what they would have done anyway. A waste of money.

By no means all higher level apprenticeships are like that

But by no means all higher level apprenticeships are like that. The norm in the maritime sector is that people have two-stage careers; it’s common to spend seven to ten years at sea, then you “come ashore” while still in your mid-20s, and have to start again.

The ideal, of course, is that you get proper re-training that builds on your sea-going skills, and a structured training programme that enables you to push on, but many don’t get it. The apprenticeship programme therefore gives us a great tool to get employers to provide structured career training for people who might not otherwise get that.

And it’s working. Because of the levy, we now have a national standard for marine pilots (at level 5), where we didn’t have a national standard before. And work is about to start on a standard for harbour masters (also at level 6), which again, we’ve never had before. (Ports, you may have noticed, are very much in the news these days, now that politicians have spotted that 95 per cent of our trade comes to us by sea). Numbers aren’t huge, but these are good wins for national policy.

So when Anne Milton said in her discussion with David Hughes that apprenticeships “have also got to be about progression”, I think she was talking about people like this.

People who train to be officers in the commercial shipping sector (i.e. managers) get an HND or a foundation degree when they do their initial three-year training programme. It’s great training (with, T-level planners please note, a full year’s training at sea as a mandatory element), but in no sense are they in the same category as a graduate manager ashore getting a chance to do a further degree.

The government needs to take control of the runaway train of management apprenticeships, and do so fast, but let’s please be careful not to damage other higher apprenticeships, which are very much in line with key policy objectives.

Ofsted understands the challenges for further education

From funding problems to T-levels and the apprenticeship levy, Ofsted seems to have a good handle on the main challenges for further education, says David Hughes

It was nice knowing, as I travelled to the annual presentation from the chief inspector of Ofsted, that I was going to hear reasoned, calm and evidence-based views on quality and improvement in education. And that’s what we got this year from Amanda Spielman, who has a great knack of setting out very clear, stark statements based on evidence, which tend to cut through all sorts of sacred cows and sensitivities.

Now, it’s not been a bad year for colleges in terms of the improving the picture on quality. Today’s annual state of the nation report from Ofsted revealed that 76% of further education colleges are rated at least good, a better picture than last year and rising fast.

It comes as no surprise because, despite clear evidence that funding is inadequate, colleges continue to be strong and robust, working to deliver solutions for more than two million people, including over 600,000 16- to 18-year-olds. Every college I visit has a great story to tell on the impact they are having, the students they are supporting and the employers they are working with.

So, with that improving picture all set out, where were the interesting observations this year?

For me there were a few. Perhaps top of the list is just how explicitly the chief inspector describes the negative impact of inadequate funding for colleges. She points out all the issues we have been campaigning on – how it makes governance and leadership so much harder, how teaching time and resources are being cut and how student choice, support and breadth of offer are worsening as colleges struggle to make ends meet.

It was a nice calm morning of sensible observations

I obviously will always agree with Amanda Spielman’s assertion that “the real-term cuts to FE and skills funding are affecting the sustainability and quality of FE provision. My strong view is that the government should use the forthcoming spending review to increase the base rate for 16 to 18 funding after inspections found a lack of cash has directly led to falling standards in FE”.

Beyond that, I liked the focus on apprenticeships that meet the letter of the rules, but perhaps fall foul of a softer and subtler test of meeting the spirit of the apprenticeship levy. I have said time and again how worried I am that management and degree apprenticeships for people in senior roles in big organisations, and for the highest achieving young people, don’t feel like a priority, when SMEs are being denied apprenticeship funding because of non-levy cash restrictions. It’s great to see Ofsted recognising that and asserting that attention needs to be paid to it.

I’m also struck at how much Ofsted recognises that further education is a rapidly changing policy environment. T-levels are set to come in place into place in 2020; the way apprenticeships are funded has changed since the introduction of the levy; and college mergers are becoming increasingly common. Dealing with all those changes can sometimes hinder leadership and management; taking away time that would be better spent improving quality.

Finally, I was pleased to see the focus on where our future leaders will emerge from. Over the last few months we’ve seen an increase in the spate of principal resignations and concerns from prospective future leaders about the risks of being a leader. The job of managing a college is a tough one as many principals will know all too well, especially with the tight funding constraints many of them are having to juggle. Cuts to their budgets, struggles over the recruitment and retention of staff, balancing college mergers – principals have a lot on their plate and proper planning is needed to mitigate the risks that come with this.

So all in all, it was a nice calm morning of sensible observations, which give us all food for thought as we strive to achieve a better education system that works for everyone, everywhere at all stages of life.