It’s time FE learnt to embrace the embarrassing

So the news isn’t good. Treat it as a chance to be open about your problems, to value others’ points of view and to listen and improve, says Ruth Sparkes

We’re all aware that it’s a tricky time for FE; the spending review is rolling ever closer, the sector has been financially starved for years, and it’s important that sector is able to present itself in the best possible light – but embarrassing news is sadly not in short supply.

I’m not pointing the finger at principals or chief executives or head of departments really. In my 15 or so years’ experience of working in PR and corporate affairs in education I have come across all sorts of instances where poor judgment and bad behaviour are swept under the carpet, rather than recognised as an opportunity to come clean and address problems.

Every sector has its fair share of issues. It doesn’t matter whether you’re defending the country or running a medical unit, being caught hiding the truth, pumping out excuses or blaming others invariably results in negative headlines.

It is great that the sector has recognised the power of a good reputation by celebrating and promoting external assurance of what it is doing, when it’s good or outstanding.

Positive endorsement, whether that’s through Ofsted or other external auditors is worthy of wider attention. But when problems arise, particularly if those in positions of responsibility are found to have come up short, it’s all too common for the response to be silence, distortion or publicly blaming others for bringing issues into the public domain.

Most of the time such issues don’t make the local, national or specialist media. But when the news is bad – when criticisms are voiced in public, negative outcomes are shared in the public interest or legitimate concerns are raised, as they have been in recent months – the reaction is often one of outrage.

Hiding the truth inevitably results in negative headlines

The tendency is to “shoot the messenger” of undesirable news, whether that’s the media, inspectors, or the commissioners’ office. Denial and defensiveness are the first reactions – “they’re taking things out of context”, “they’re making mountains out of molehills to increase site visitors” … “they’re spinning a narrative to fit what they want to think”, “stirring up a controversy where there’s nothing”, “it’s not even a story”.

Even if this were true, it is self-defeating to see negative expert and public opinion as a nuisance and something to be suppressed. Yes, it is embarrassing to have light shone on our weaknesses. Rather than feeling threatened, those in authority should recognise the benefit of being open about problems, value others’ points of view and value the opportunity to listen and improve.

Professional communications is not just about churning out positive news stories or obfuscating the bad. As a trusted adviser, it is our job to hold up a mirror, examine what is embarrassing and determine an effective resolution. Only then can we move forward in a mature and responsible way.

The current environment makes it ever more important to take care of the public money and young people’s futures that are entrusted to the FE sector. There is a real opportunity to step up, be professional and accountable, in delivering quality education and training. If the sector continues to deny where it has problems, undoubtedly, the result with be more critical headlines.

Will the new Ofsted framework work for FE?

Frank Coffield steals Ofsted’s language to grade last week’s new inspection framework

How do FE and Skills (FE&S) fare in the new inspection framework? I’ve inspected the proposals from the perspective of FE&S and provide formative feedback using Ofsted’s grading scale and language.

First, its strengths. The handbook is much shorter than its predecessor, but still runs to 57 pages and is apparently not “exhaustive”. The five key judgments will cover: quality of education; behaviour and attitudes; personal development; leadership and management; overall effectiveness. Evaluating the quality of education is a major improvement rather than just test and exam results. There’s also recognition that changes to inspection should not drive up teacher workload.

I welcome the move to put curriculum back at the framework’s heart; colleges will now be judged on the intent, implementation and impact of the curriculum. Inspectors will draw on five sources of evidence for intent, eight for implementation and five for impact.

Leaders will need to demonstrate that their curriculum is “ambitious”, “coherently planned “and contains “content which has been identified as most useful”…but who will decide this? They will also have to convince inspectors that “they have planned the coverage, content, structure and sequencing of the curriculum, and can show that they have implemented it effectively”. These are huge burdens, but still more is required. Teachers also must ensure that “content is taught in a logical progression, systematically and explicitly for all learners”. What’s the logical progression in the teaching of history or hairdressing, biology or business studies? Will Ofsted confirm that all its inspectors will be subject specialists?

During the consultation period Ofsted needs to answer these questions and explain what it means by “ambitious”, “coherent” and “most useful content”.

To apply one adjective to a mega FE college is statistical nonsense

Ofsted remains wedded to its four-point grading scale, but to apply one adjective to a mega FE college with 30,000 students and 30 departments is a statistical nonsense because it cannot reflect complexity and variety. Mick Fletcher, of the Policy Consortium, pointed out that large parts of college activity, such as higher education and overseas students, fall outside Ofsted’s remit “making a whole college grade even less appropriate”. One adjective applied to any but the smallest specialist college is an absurdity.

Ofsted claims the criteria for its judgments are drawn in part from research, but its overview of research concedes it “is in large part drawn from that done in schools and early years settings”. There is indeed little research done in the FE&S sector, but what does exist seems unknown to Ofsted’s research department. Instead teachers are regaled with such profound insights as “Pupils are likely to make progress at different rates”; and “when a pupil answers a question incorrectly, the teacher needs to point out swiftly that the answer is wrong”. Who knew?

There’s also a glaring omission. Data is required on nearly every feature of a college’s work except resources. This is a case of the elephant missing from the room. Given the severe, repeated cuts since 2010 to the unit of resource for 16 to 19-year-olds, which have damaged sixth-form and FE colleges, the level of resource should once again be an essential part of the data collected by inspectors. To its credit (and unlike the DfE), Ofsted has at least acknowledged that sixth forms and colleges have been restricted by the funding cuts, which does beg the question of why it’s then omitted it here.

To sum up, the new focus on the curriculum is an advance, but Ofsted needs to explain many of the terms it uses to describe it. It expresses concern about teacher workload, but this framework will not reduce it.

Does it avoid crude and stigmatising labels by dropping the grades? No. Is it informed by research on the sector? No. Does it take the unit of resource into account? No. Overall effectiveness? It contains some useful improvements, but requires substantial clarifications, revisions, omissions and additions. After all Ofsted’s work, it would be unfair to try to encapsulate its complexity with just one adjective.

Ofsted exposes apprenticeship firm for recruiting without ‘integrity’ and breaking funding rules

A new provider has been exposed by Ofsted after inspectors found it failed to recruit apprentices with “integrity” and was in breach of government funding rules.

Citrus Training Solutions, based in Pudsey, was paid an early monitoring visit by inspectors in December which resulted in an ‘insufficient’ report being published today.

Despite training nearly 200 apprentices, it only has two full-time members of staff: a financial officer and the chief executive, Vincent McNamara, who owns all the company’s shares.

Four other organisations, either owned or co-owned by Mr McNamara, are responsible for provision which includes level 2 to 5 apprenticeships in a range of sectors including health and social care, construction, business and facilities management, IT, security and financial services.

But Ofsted found that leaders and managers “do not have sufficient oversight of the quality of training that apprentices receive or the progress that apprentices make on their programmes”.

They are “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”.

Ofsted also found that CTS does not have permission from the Education and Skills Funding Agency for one of the subcontractors – Assess to Progress Limited – to provide training on its behalf.

“Leaders and managers fail to ensure that they hold their delivery partner, Assess to Progress Limited, to account for the poor experience that their apprentices receive,” inspectors said.

“Furthermore, leaders and managers have not gained permission from the ESFA for Assess to Progress Limited to provide training on behalf of CTS.

“Consequently, Assess to Progress Limited is not on the list of declared subcontractors.”

When asked if the Department for Education would now take action against the provider, a DfE spokesperson said: “We will always take action to protect the interests of apprentices. We are currently assessing Ofsted’s findings and will be contacting Citrus Training Solutions to set out the action we will be taking in due course.”

The education watchdog’s report also slammed the provider for enrolling apprentices on “inappropriate courses”.

“Leaders and managers have failed to recruit apprentices with integrity,” it said.

“Too many apprentices enrol on inappropriate programmes. Consequently, these apprentices do not learn anything new, and the programmes merely accredit their existing knowledge, skills and behaviours.

“For example, apprentices on level 2 construction programmes complete their apprenticeship within the first four months of a 12-month programme, following very little training.

“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.”

The integrity of providers has become a watchword for Ofsted and was one of the major themes at the launch of a consultation on the watchdog’s new inspection framework last week.

While introducing the consultation at the Sixth Form Colleges Association, chief inspector Amanda Spielman criticised providers for being funded for apprentices “whether or not they are really learning anything”.

Ofsted concluded that leaders and managers at CTS “do not ensure that they meet the principles and requirements of an apprenticeship”.

CTS declined to comment.

Apprenticeship upturn need not be a predictable shift away from helping those in most need

Last February, when Skills Minister Anne Milton was faced with a 41 percent fall in apprenticeships starts since the levy was introduced, she bravely told me she expected to see an upturn by September.

“I will be told by my officials that I shouldn’t say this, but I’m going to say it anyway,” she said.

“I would hope that by September to see some real numbers.”

So it comes as no surprise that Milton has said she is “thrilled” at the apprenticeship starts figures for the first quarter of 2018/19 (August, September and October), up 15 per cent on the same period last year.

It is still not at pre-levy levels and a long way off being on track to hit the 3 million target, but it is certainly now heading in the right direction.

And like Milton, I’ve believed employers and providers would take their time to build momentum and the numbers would recover.

But scratch beneath the celebratory surface and you’ll find an uncomfortable truth.

Employers are using their ownership of the system to ignore young people.

First quarter starts have fallen by nearly a quarter since 2015/16 for those under the age of 25 and continue to fall for 16 to 18s since the levy was introduced.

Contrast this with apprenticeship starts for those aged 25 and over increasing a whopping 14,400 (43 percent) this quarter, when compared to the same period last year.

And when the National Audit Office publishes its findings in the coming months it is expected to join calls from the chief inspector at Ofsted to take back some control from employers.

Milton has said that the first phase of the levy reform was to get the system up and running and phase two is focussed on a longer term strategy.

Shifting demand away from existing employees on management courses to young job entrants should be at the heart of that strategy.

College in £37m debt given permission to carry out banned tactical subcontracting

The Department for Education appears to have given a cash-strapped college special treatment, after it endorsed subcontracting to meet short-term funding objectives.

Lambeth College, which is dependent on government bailouts, “embarked on a significant programme of subcontracting” to make up for a recruitment shortfall last year, according to its recently published 2017/18 accounts.

The college itself has insisted that the set-up fitted with its “long-term strategy” and wasn’t the result of “short-term tactics” – a view the DfE has agreed with.

“We work closely with the college, as we do all colleges, to make sure they are working in line with subcontracting rules,” a department spokesperson said.

But evidence from the college’s board minutes and accounts reveal a different story.

Tactical subcontracting is banned under the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s funding rules, which state that providers “must not subcontract to meet short-term funding objectives”.

An observer from the ESFA has been present at all Lambeth College board meetings since 2016, following intervention by the FE commissioner in the September of that year.

It’s currently days away from a merger with London South Bank University which has been in the offing since December 2016.

According to Lambeth’s accounts, the college “failed to recruit sufficient adult students to study on college premises during the course of 2017/18” and “in order to reduce the loss of income” it “embarked on a significant programme of subcontracting”.

“To partially compensate for the number of adult students being taught on campus falling below the budgeted numbers almost £1 million more was spent with the college’s partners to educate adult students off-campus than had been planned,” the accounts said.

The college is “restricted in its use of subcontractors” because of its financial situation, minutes from a November 2017 board meeting state.

The cap means it can’t subcontract more than it did in 2016/17, nor can it  work with new subcontractors.

After having “agreed initial levels of delivery with each contractor”, the minutes showed there was the “possibility for further sub-contracting within the total envelope available” if the college “makes the strategic decision to sub-contract any underdelivery in 2017/18 once the financial impact of enrolment is quantified”.

Minutes from a meeting in March revealed the college to be £1.6 million below its AEB allocation for the year, which was £10,912,170 according to ESFA figures.

The college’s published list of subcontractors showed that 12 providers delivered adult education provision worth almost £3.7 million on the college’s behalf over the year.

Seven of these contracts, worth a combined total of £1.3 million, started in 2018 – with one, worth £620,000 with the Dhunay Corporation, lasting for just two weeks from July 16 to 31.

On seeing evidence of what appears to be special treatment, Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “The new ESFA rules are there for good reason.

“If they are abused, everyone will lose out, because the government might ban the practice altogether – including genuine examples of where subcontracting is obviously serving an employer’s interests.”

“The agency must crack down on tactical subcontracting,” he urged.

A spokesperson for Lambeth College said its decision to increase the amount of provision it subcontracted “meant that we maintained the level of subcontracting with the previous year rather than achieving a reduction”.

“This decision was compliant with our long-term strategy, whereby activity levels do not decline prior to merger, and was not the result of shortterm tactics.”

The ESFA’s ban on tactical subcontracting was introduced in 2015.

In a letter to the agency that year the former business secretary Vince Cable warned about “levels of short-term tactical subcontracting that are causing concern” despite efforts by the-then Skills Funding Agency to “enhance the controls on subcontracting in the last two years”.

Lambeth College’s financial troubles – a potted history

Lambeth’s troubles began in 2016, when a “significant deterioration” in its cashflow prompted an intervention by the former FE commissioner Sir David Collins.

His report, based on a visit that September, found problems with the college’s finances that were so severe it was “no longer sustainable” unless it merged.

In December 2016 the college announced it would “join the London South Bank University family in principle”.

The merger had been due to complete by July 2017, but was subsequently put on hold while the college went through an FE commissioner-led structure and prospects appraisal to find an alternative partner.

That process concluded in March 2018 with a recommendation to stick to the original plan, and a new merger date was set for the end of the year.

The merger date was put back again, to January 31. A college spokesperson said this week that the plan “is very much on track, with proposed entry date for joining the LSBU family being only a few days away”.

Meanwhile, the college has been dependent on government bailouts for the past two years.

According to its 2017/18 accounts, it owes almost £15.5 million in exceptional financial support, and has agreed a support package from the restructuring facility worth £15.8 million.

“The college made a further large loss in 2017/18, it remains dependent on exceptional financial support from the government and its financial position is accurately described as ‘inadequate’”, the accounts said.

Providers that plan for less than 20% off-the-job training will have ‘all funding recovered’

Apprenticeships found to be planned with less than the minimum 20 per cent off-the-job training will be “ineligible and all funding would be recovered”, FE Week can reveal.

The off-the-job training policy has prompted controversy and confusion since it was introduced in 2017.

In an attempt to provide some clarity, the Department for Education published guidance earlier this month that attempted to bust certain “myths” about the rule.

It didn’t, however, clarify what the sanctions are for noncompliance.

FE Week asked the DfE when it would take money back from providers that didn’t comply with it, and was told those who fail to plan sufficient hours would have all the funding clawed back, while others will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

“If a provider is not providing 20 per cent off-the-job training for learners, we would assess the situation and decide a course of action which could include taking back funding,” a spokesperson said.

He then clarified that it will ask non-compliant providers for apprentices’ commitment statements, for evidence of how much off-the-job training they planned to deliver.

Those that are found to have planned to deliver less than the minimum would have their funding recovered as the programme would be considered ineligible.

The spokesperson explained that: “If the commitment statement is not compliant then this makes the programme ineligible and all funding would be recovered.”

However, those that intended to deliver at least 20 per cent but only had evidence for less than the minimum would be given the opportunity to provide additional evidence.

Since the beginning of 2018/19 providers have had the option of completing a new data field in the individual learner record to show that they are complying with the rule.

It is not compulsory, and the DfE has yet to decide whether it will be in the future – in recognition of the fact that completing it is “burdensome” for some providers, the spokesperson said.

The 20 per cent off-the-job training rule is widely cited as the biggest barrier to apprentice recruitment, but others – including the skills minister, Anne Milton – have insisted it is a key element of a high-quality apprenticeship.

It requires all apprentices to spend the equivalent of one day a week on activities relating to their course but which are different from their normal working duties.

The DfE’s “mythbusters” guidance, published in early January, aimed to combat widespread confusion about what the rule entails.

Among the myths it addresses are the mistaken belief that the training can be done in an apprentice’s own time, and that it must be “delivered by a provider in a classroom, at an external location”.

However, it doesn’t provide any clarity over a recent policy change that affects how the 20 per cent is calculated.

Previously it was based on a 52-week year, including an apprentice’s annual leave – but as of August 1, 2018 this leave entitlement must be deducted before working out how many off-the-job hours training an apprentice requires.

It means that the calculation to determine off-the-job hours is different for apprentices who started before August 1, 2018, compared with those who started after.

An FE Week survey in March last year found that the sector considered the off-the-job training rule to be the single biggest barrier to apprenticeship recruitment.

It is considered to be particularly an issue for smaller companies who claim they can’t afford to let apprentices spend a fifth of their time away from work.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers boss Mark Dawe has called for greater flexibility in the rule, particularly to allow apprentices to study in their own time.

If an apprentice is keen to study out of hours, and the employer and provider both agree to it, “why are we stopping them from doing that if they’re getting the knowledge, skills and behaviour they need to get the apprenticeship?” he asked at last year’s FE Week Annual Apprenticeships Conference.

Management apprenticeships continue to soar as Milton ‘thrilled’ with rise in starts

Management standards are continuing their reign as the most popular apprenticeships, according to the first statistics for 2018/19 published by the Department for Education this week.

The team leader/supervisor had the most starts of any standard in the first quarter of the year, while three other management standards were among the 20 most popular.

They were part of an overall picture in which starts were up 15 per cent on the same period in the previous year, from 114,400 to 132,000.

But this masked a drop in starts at both level two and for those aged 16 to 18, which both fell year-on-year by two per cent.

Starts are also 15 per cent down from where they were for the same period in 2016/17, before the levy was introduced.

Skills minister Anne Milton declared herself “thrilled” by the latest figures.

“Since we overhauled the apprenticeship system in 2017 more and more employers including leading firms like Royal Mail, Ernst & Young and Channel 4 are recognising the huge benefits apprentices are bringing to their workplaces,” she said.

But Association of Employment and Learning Providers boss Mark Dawe said the drop at the lowest level was a “massive issue in the context of Brexit and social mobility”.

There were 5,450 starts on the level three team leader/supervisor standard in the three months from August to October – an increase of more than 2,000 for the same period in 2017/18.

It was the most popular standard  for the whole of the 2017/18, with over 17,200 starts.

A further 2,670 apprentices started on the level five operations/ departmental manager standard, and 1,300 began the controversial level six chartered manager degree standard.

Meanwhile, the level seven senior leader master’s degree apprenticeship attracted 1,220 starters.

Between them the four were responsible for 14 per cent of the 76,300 starts on standards so far in 2018/19.

While starts at levels three and above continued to rise, those at level two dropped yet again.

There were 51,100 starts at this level in the first quarter of 2018/19, down two per cent compared with the same period in 2017/18.

Figures for apprentices aged 16 to 18 also fell: from 46,600 for the first three months of 2017/18 to 45,800 this year, a drop of two per cent.

This is part of an ongoing trend which has seen starts among the youngest apprentices fall by 23 per cent over the last four years – a higher proportion than any other age group.

The latest statistics come amid growing concern over the dominance of management apprenticeships and the impact they might be having on those at lower levels.

The rising number of starts on expensive standards such as the chartered manager degree apprenticeship is understood to causing pressure on the apprenticeships budget, with the IfA warning of a potential £500,000 overspend this year.

Ms Milton vowed earlier this month to “dig deeper” into the drop in level two apprenticeships, and whether it might be linked to the rise in management courses.

In addition to research set to be carried out by the DfE into the falling number of apprenticeships at level two, it was “fair to say” that similar research would be carried out on the rising number of higher-level starts, Ms Milton told FE Week.

And in December, Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman voiced her concerns that “levy money is not being spent in the intended way”, and said the watchdog had “seen examples where existing graduate schemes are in essence being rebadged as apprenticeships”

GLA ploughs ahead with subcontracting fees cap – but DfE still dragging its heels

The Greater London Authority is one step closer to capping management fees when it takes control of the adult education budget next year, but the government is still yet to make a decision for the rest of the country.

In a draft rulebook for providers in London, published last month ahead of devolution of the adult education budget in September, the GLA confirmed that it is likely to introduce a 20 per cent cap on top-slices charged by prime providers to manage subcontractors.

“We will consider a retention of up to 20 per cent of funding to manage delivery subcontractors as a maximum cap and would not expect providers to retain more than this,” the draft rulebook reads.

“In exceptional cases, we will consider higher retention amounts and then only if there is a compelling rationale. This will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

It comes after FE Week revealed that London mayor Sadiq Khan first thought of introducing a cap on the controversial management fees in September.

Under the current system, the Education and Skills Funding Agency administers the AEB for the whole country, with no cap on top-slices.

But FE Week has reported extensively on examples where the management fees have risen to as much as 40 per cent.

The government was told that it needs to get a grip on the “outrageous and unjustifiable” subcontracting market which has become a “moneymaker” for training providers as a result of these high fees, by a panel of FE experts during an education select committee hearing in March last year.

The ESFA was meant to publish its first ever policy for top-slicing in subcontracting in August, but it kicked this decision into the long grass as it needed to conduct further investigations.

The agency was then supposed to provide an update on the guidance last month, but this has not been forthcoming.

An ESFA spokesperson told FE Week this week that its decision on management fees would be revealed in “due course”.

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which developed best-practice guidance on subcontracting including a 20 per cent cap on top-slicing with HOLEX and training provider group Collab last year, has welcomed the GLA’s lead on the approach and urged the government to hurry up.

“It’s great the GLA has set an important and much-needed precedent in adopting sector best practice and we’re encouraged that other combined authorities are now considering the same percentage as either a hard cap or good practice,” AELP chief executive Mark Dawe said.

“With funding so tight, the government should be backing up its own words on maximising the amount that reaches frontline delivery as soon as possible and this is why it’s so disappointing that it has missed its deadline for publishing new expectations in respect of apprenticeships.”

In early 2018, the GLA revealed that it planned to move away from paying providers to deliver qualifications, to paying for wider outcomes such as progression into work.

But the move to an outcomes-based funding system will not happen straight away and has not been included in the GLA’s new draft funding rules.

It will only be introduced once “there is confidence that there is sufficient data to allow robust payment models to be developed”.

FE Week also revealed earlier this year that the GLA is having to recruit a huge team of new bureaucrats to hand out the budget to London’s training providers from 2019, with most of their wages paid every year by top-slicing £3 million from the AEB.

Under the devolved system, seven combined authorities will take control of £600 million of the AEB to administer within their area.

The devolution of the budget is a hot topic at the moment, with FE Week organising a debate in parliament for Monday hosted by the shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden, where FE Week editor Nick Linford and Dr Susan Pember OBE of Holex will argue against and in favour of the policy, respectively.

Long-delayed FE teacher apprenticeship standards ready for delivery next week

Three FE teaching apprenticeship standards will be ready for delivery from next week following a successful funding-band appeal against the Institute for Apprenticeships, FE Week understands.

The trailblazer group developing the standards had accused the IfA of exceeding its powers after claiming the proposed funding bands were just half what they would cost to deliver.

But after four years of development and a long-running battle, an agreement has finally been reached which will see two of the three funding rates increase.

Ian Pryce, principal of trailblazer group member Bedford College, said: “We are planning to deliver from September and we are pleased our appeal was listened to and we are content with the outcome.”

Originally, the IfA set the funding bands for the learning mentor, assessor coach and learning and skills teacher apprenticeship standards at between £5,000 and £9,000.

But these were binned after the trailblazer group successfully appealed against the process by which the bands were set.

FE Week understands the funding bands will now increase by £1,000 to £7,000 for the level four assessor coach standard, by £1,000 to £10,000 for the level five learning and skills teacher standard and will stay at £5,000 for the level three learning mentor apprenticeship standard.

The trailblazer leads for the three FE teaching apprenticeships were unable to comment about the outcome at the time FE Week went to press.

A spokesperson for the institute said: “The appeal that the Trailblazer group had previously submitted has been dealt with by the Institute.

“However, the final funding band recommendations are with the minister for final approval. No announcement on the funding band levels will be made until she has reached her decision.”

The trailblazer group appealed on the grounds the IfA had: failed to comply with agreed procedure; failed to take account of relevant information; made a decision based on a mistake of fact; and exceeded its powers. The group’s appeal was turned down on three out of four of these points, but “the appeal panel considered it was persuaded by some of your arguments” in the first point.

These related to the “transition of the process from the Education and Skills Funding Agency to the institute” and the “request from the trailblazer group regarding their attendance at route panel”.

In July, the trailblazer group won their appeal and the three standards were sent back to the IfA’s route panel for new funding bands, which should have been put in place in September.

But the trailblazer group told FE Week in October that the panel had deferred its decision.

However, the three standards are expected to be marked “ready for delivery” next week.

The IfA has been reviewing the funding bands for 60 standards since May last year, at the request of the Department for Education.

It led to a considerable amount of controversy among the trailblazer groups for those apprenticeships, as some were faced with cuts to their funding band of up to £5,000.

Many sought a review of the IfA’s decision which led to a huge increase of 425 per cent in appeals at the institute last year.

According to the minutes from a November meeting of the IfA’s approval and funding committee, there were 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.

Several trailblazer groups did not appeal due to the process being limited to complaints about procedure and impropriety.

A spokesperson for the National Hairdressers Federation, a trailblazer group which did not appeal, said: “It was shocking to find out the funding band would be reduced.

“We received little explanation as to the decision, no hard evidence and no route for appeal.

“Several steering-group members wrote to ministers, strongly urging the decision to be reconsidered and outlining the detrimental effects on the hairdressing sector. Responses referred them back to the IfA.”