If ESFA introduces a limit on the scope of providers to grow it could hinder the delivery of apprenticeships, says Simon Ashworth

At the AELP autumn conference, ESFA apprenticeships director Keith Smith announced that the ESFA was giving serious consideration to introducing a “provider earnings limit” on all apprenticeship providers in 2019, or in plain English placing a cap on a provider’s ability to grow.

I find it surprising how little coverage this got, especially as the proposal seems to interfere with the direct customer relationship between levy-paying employers and providers. Weren’t we meant to be moving away from this?

In 2017 when the first iteration of the register of apprenticeship training providers (RoATP) was launched, the resulting approved list was not robust. Many organisations piled into the marketplace, resulting in FE Week stories about “backroom providers” who were able to gain access to taxpayers’ funds. Clearly new, untried providers presented a high risk to our apprenticeship system. Around one in four new providers visited by Ofsted have been judged to be making ‘insufficient progress’.

Thanks to government policy, it’s almost a case of ‘too small to succeed’

However, let’s not be quick to write off all new providers, as many are still judged to be making reasonable or even outstanding progress. Having visited several over the last few months, I have seen some innovative approaches to employer engagement and programme delivery. So we need a levy system that enables good providers to flourish once they have demonstrated they are good, and providers should be able to maintain confidence in the system as their organisation grows.

Mr Smith also expressed concerns about established large providers growing too fast and in some cases appearing to trade quality for surplus. Malpractice can happen in any industry, but despite seemingly being reluctant to recognise its own role in the high-profile failures, the agency now appears preoccupied with clipping the wings of providers deemed “too big to fail”.

In some ways it is amazing that any providers still exist, because the government has made it near-impossible for organisations to trade with any sort of surplus. Indeed we should be celebrating those that have survived and even grown at a time when start numbers have dropped so much and the viability of delivering and assessing a high proportion of standards is still questionable. Thanks to government policy and implementation, it’s almost more of a case of “too small to succeed”.

If the ESFA does implement a provider earnings limit later this year, what are the top five things it should consider, having beefed up the RoATP? AELP recommends:

1. An approach that is flexible, transparent and simple to understand and applied only where appropriate.
2. Rethinking the name itself. “Provider earnings limit” has negative connotations, something like “growth framework” would be more positive.
3. A bespoke approach, recognising the different risks between new and established providers.
4. Restricting the amount of funding new providers can initially access and using recognised milestones (successful Ofsted monitoring visits, full Ofsted inspections and ESFA’s Provider Financial Assurance visits) to allow access to greater amounts until they become established.
5. For established providers, an approach that doesn’t inhibit quality growth. Rather than a notional hard cap, a flexible framework that allows for a dialogue between providers and the ESFA. If an established provider is judged ‘requires improvement’, why not limit future growth until it is deemed good, to help it focus on improving existing provision rather than chasing extra volumes?

What we must not do is allow the government to start interfering in an established relationship between levy-paying employers and their providers. Yes, the register needs to be far more robust; yes, the quality and audit regime needs to function adequately; yes, there needs to be intelligent account management between the provider and government, but under no circumstances should we prevent a levy payer from ramping up apprenticeship delivery because its chosen quality provider has had an arbitrary cap placed on it by a misguided new funding regime

On the point of account management, it worth highlighting that in December in a letter from Peter Mucklow, FE Director at the ESFA, to post-16 institutions explaining funding for the academic year 2019 to 2020 stated: “We are strengthening our oversight of ITPs by introducing named contract managers for the largest providers. Our contract managers will work closely with ITPs to ensure that public funds are safeguarded, increasing our scrutiny in order to protect learners participating in apprenticeships and other ESFA funded programmes. We will communicate the detail of the changes in January 2019”.  We are already getting positive feedback to this from AELP members, so let’s hope this is the first step in a more collaborative approach to managing the growth and risk of established and in particular the largest providers.  Between them the large independent providers deliver the majority of the apprenticeship provision so of course any failure will cause serious ripples. For this reason, AELP has been calling for a move back to a closer collaborative account management process for the largest providers which should avoid the need for arbitrary growth caps.

Colleges that choose to extend their work internationally can reap rewards in many different ways, says Emma Meredith, but perceptions are almost entirely negative

Many readers will remember the now-infamous “Deptford not Delhi” comment made by a former chief inspector six years ago. The message to colleges was: focus on domestic work, forget about international.

At the time, stories about India ventures and revoked Tier 4 licences dominated the headlines (and let’s face it, good news doesn’t always sell). International work was tricky, expensive and not guaranteed to deliver results.

But is this the norm? The short answer is no. Why? Because we rarely hear about colleges’ international successes, however great or small. While external factors such as visa restrictions have caused some colleges to drop out of international work, others are quietly making a success of it, against the odds.

Any college that operates the most modest student exchange abroad or that enrols a student born outside the UK is doing international work. The main misconception about college international work is that it only fits the stereotype of doomed Saudi colleges or risky student visas, and that it must be done on a BIG SCALE. International work in colleges is so much more than this and is neither celebrated nor talked about nearly enough.

AoC’s 2018 survey of college international activity showed that colleges engage in over 20 different types of international work including transnational education projects, summer schools and the delivery of professional training and consultancy overseas.

The main misconception is that international work only fits the stereotype of doomed Saudi colleges

Why do they engage? It’s an inescapable fact that colleges look to international work as an alternative income source. Anyone associated with the sector or who followed the #LoveOurColleges campaign will know that college funding levels have been in decline for the last 10 years.

International work won’t make up the difference, but it can bring in income that can be invested back into central college operations once costs are covered.

But it isn’t only about the money. Some colleges are in parts of the UK with very little ethnic or cultural diversity. Institutions look to exchange programmes such as the EU-funded Erasmus+ programme to give their local students an invaluable opportunity to go abroad and improve their interpersonal and employability skills. I’ve heard many amazing stories of how life-changing these experiences have been for students and staff, thus benefiting the entire college. And that’s certainly staying focused on the local.

Colleges are simply not able to take major financial risks on international ventures. I think that ship should now sail. As a sector we have a responsibility to mitigate risk, which means colleges talking to each other and sharing best practice. Colleges might be in competition, but it doesn’t mean that they can’t, or don’t already, help each other.

AoC works closely with the UK Skills Partnership and government departments to position the college sector for new international opportunities. But we also advise government that these need to be the right opportunities, and that colleges need support to deliver them. Staff capacity, infrastructure and finance are obstacles, but colleges have fantastic expertise to offer a world that wants skills education and training.

Telling colleges that they should only focus on domestic work was another unfortunate example of the snobbery and ignorance with which colleges have been treated. Thankfully, in most quarters the thinking is starting to move on.

International work is difficult and doesn’t always work out, but it is worth it and does make a difference to the college community. Colleges should have the right to choose to do international work, and if they do they should be accountable and responsible. Colleges must always focus on Deptford, but they should also be free to choose Delhi.

The pay crisis in further education has led to the forthcoming UCU strike. Those who work in this sector are doing a vital job, says Matt Waddup, and they need to be rewarded better

Members of the University and College Union at 16 colleges will be taking strike action over pay at the end of the month. The two-day walkouts represent the second wave of action in response to colleges’ failure to deal with the declining value of pay in the sector. The arguments are well rehearsed and unfortunately so are the excuses.

The dispute centres on the refusal of colleges to make a decent pay offer to staff who have seen the value of their pay decline by 25 per cent over the last decade. The pay gap between teachers in colleges and schools currently stands at £7,000 and low pay is bad for staff, students and colleges, with around two-thirds of college heads citing pay as a major obstacle when it comes to attracting staff.

An indication of what can be done came from the 5 per cent pay increase offered by the Capital City College Group (CCCG) to over 1,700 staff last term. While not every college can match the CCCG deal, UCU members are fed up with being told that nothing at all is possible unless, and until, government comes to the rescue.

Is it really true that colleges can do nothing about workload? Nothing about the rising casualisation of the workforce? Nothing about the collapsing rates of pay of teachers relative to their colleagues in schools? Or nothing to improve the job security of their staff?

Leadership is about setting an example, not hiding in the crowd, and institutions who step to the front and engage with the union on these important issues will receive a positive hearing from UCU.

Our members know all about the cuts that have so damaged the sector – we have been campaigning against them for more than a decade. We believe that further education needs much higher funding and that those who work in it do a vital job for our society and economy but for little reward.

Is it really true that colleges can do nothing about workload?

We have written to education secretary Damian Hinds this week warning that the government’s ambition for further education cannot be met under current funding for the sector. In the letter, we called on the government to urgently provide extra funding for staff who feel undervalued and severely underpaid.

The strikes later this month build on the action taken at six colleges in November and colleges need to be under no illusion – further action is on the cards if they continue to fail to deal with the pay crisis in further education.

Those who give nothing when they could work with us to solve some of these problems should expect to reap what they sow. While CCCG is rightly being held up as an example of what can be achieved when the college works with us to improve pay and conditions, UCU members at CCCG took eight days of strike action this year to concentrate minds.

Our further education committee will meet after the second phase at the end of this month to consider next steps. Nothing is being ruled out at this point and we are determined to make colleges address the problems within the sector.

Nobody wants to take strike action, but UCU members are tired of being taken for granted by the government and their colleges. We are happy to work with colleges to campaign for more funding but they must not use the lack of government investment as an excuse to do nothing for their overworked and underpaid staff.

A first glance there is little new in the draft Common Inspection Framework and accompanying Handbook for FE and Skills, due for implementation from September.

Those hoping for the four grade structure to change or the introduction of campus level inspections for college groups will be sorely disappointed.

There was also an opportunity to take a fresh look at the way some providers dodge inspection by subcontracting, but clearly no appetite.

But the emphasis on integrity is certainly welcome and could be very significant.

For too long Ofsted has been heavily reliant on achievement rates when making judgements – trusting they told a credible story about the quality of a provider.

As a result, in a high stakes inspection regime, some colleges and training providers have found ways to game the system.

For example, as reported by the DfE statisticians, after closing some long exploited loop-holes, many providers saw their apprenticeship achievement rates drop by over 20 percentage points for 2015/16.

And in the last few years following the end of Ofsted ILR data checks ahead of an inspection, I’ve regularly heard stories about colleges returning to poor practices to boost achievement rates.

These including ‘nesting’, where students are for example enrolled on several short courses making up all the constituent parts of a larger one.

Ofsted plan to focus more on positive progression and destination data is welcome, but this data is open to manipulation too.

But, as the chief inspector told me, Ofsted can’t become a police force.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the Education and Skills Funding Agency to ensure providers follow the rules and, where necessarily, the ‘spirit’ of the rules and guidance they write.

Is the ESFA up to the task?

Well, they have been recruiting plenty of new auditors, but just how sensible is it that they are responsible for both funding and compliance?

Ofsted’s inspection refresh is welcome, but a wider review of the whole compliance regime is really what’s overdue.