Yet another university technical college will close later this year, taking the total to 10 for the troubled programme.

Wigan UTC, which is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted but has had a chequered history, has announced it will shut at the end of August 2019 after failing to recruit enough students to become financially viable.

The college, a 14-to-19 institution with a vocational focus, opened in 2013 and planned to recruit up to 500 students, but it currently only has 108 on roll.

A spokesperson said the numbers were “not sufficient for the UTC to operate without a crippling deficit which will severely hamper the equality of education it can provide”.

As revealed by FE Week in January, Wigan UTC received a government bailout totalling £169,000 last year. Its deficit stands at £516,000, according to the 2017/18 accounts for its academy sponsor, the Northern Schools Trust.

“I am really sad that we have had to come to the conclusion that the Wigan UTC must, in principle, close,” said Rod Dubrow-Marshall, the UTC’s chair of governors.

“This is entirely a reflection of the unsustainable financial position of the school and nothing to do with the wonderful outcomes for our students and our dedicated and hardworking staff who have helped transform the lives of so many students and their families.”

The governing body said it is working in partnership with the Department for Education to “agree a way forward which will allow support for families through this difficult time”.

It is also “working closely with Wigan Local Authority and partner secondary schools in the area and expressed thanks for their commitment to working in the best interest of our families”.

“Parents of all students at Wigan UTC have been informed this morning and the school will host a series of meetings to ensure all concerns are dealt with quickly and communicated fully,” a spokesperson said.

“Parents and students will also have the opportunity over the next four weeks to express any views on the processes for closure.”

Wigan UTC will be the tenth institution of its kind to close, leaving 47 open.

FE Week has reported extensively on the troubles of the programme, which has been hit with poor Ofsted ratings and low recruitment numbers leading to deteriorating finances since launching in 2010.

Wigan UTC has had a mixed past. In May 2015 it was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted, in which inspectors lauded “good teaching and learning are enabling all students to achieve expected progress and a significant number to achieve above expected progress”.

But in December 2017 FE Week’s sister paper FE Week reported that it was one of only two schools to have been rebrokered twice since records began. The UTC was also originally in its own single-academy trust, but left to join Bright Futures Educational Trust in March 2015. But when Bright Futures realised it would be a “long and uphill battle” to get the college to full capacity, it was passed over to the Northern Schools Trust.

In November 2018 FE Week discovered that Wigan UTC had to pay back £609,038 to the DfE after it overestimated student numbers the year before. This newspaper later revealed it was in receipt of a £169,000 government bailout in 2017/18.

“On behalf of the local governing body I want to wholeheartedly thank all our staff and our students and their families for being the lifeblood of the Wigan UTC – we share your feelings of sadness right now and we will work with you all to help ensure really good progression for you in your future education and careers,” Dubrow-Marshall said.

There was some good news to come out of the UTC programme this week, however, as Bolton UTC climbed its way up to a grade two Ofsted rating after being hit with an ‘inadequate’ judgement in February 2017.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has apologised for causing confusion in its off-the-job training rule and updated its policy guidance to clarify how providers should be calculating it.

Providers were left baffled after the agency updated its “apprenticeship off the-job training policy background and examples” document on March 22, which for the first time stated that the 20 per cent calculation for full-time staff should be always be based on 30 hours of work per week, even where they are paid for many more.

Official funding rules for 2018/19 make no reference to a 30-hour cap in the calculation and providers have been including all “paid hours”.

We have reviewed this text, updated the documents accordingly and apologise for any confusion

Speaking at last week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference, the ESFA’s director of apprenticeships Keith Smith said the guidance was “intended to help you interpret the rules in the best way possible”, but admitted “there is a contradiction between the planned 30 hours and the paid contracted hours”.

In an update published today, the ESFA acknowledged the mistake and launched a survey to find out how the policy is working on the ground.

“On Friday 22 March we published version 2 of the off-the-job training guide and a compliant commitment statement template,” it said.

“It was brought to our attention that there was an error in paragraph 69 of the guide. We have reviewed this text, updated the documents accordingly on the off-the-job training page and apologise for any confusion.

“To help us understand the availability of off-the-job training information and how the policy is working in practice, we encourage you to complete this short survey by Friday 12 April 2019.”

Paragraph 69 in the “apprenticeship off the-job training policy background and examples” document, which referred to the 30-hour cap, has now removed.

Many in the sector will be relieved to hear the clarification, after many took to an online forum managed by the ESFA, called FE Connect, to raise concern about the issue last week.

One person, who goes by the username of PaulB, said the 30 hours cap would have “significantly reduce the number of OTJ hours required for our learners”, some by “around 100 hours”.

“In view of what I think is a change, and not a clarification of policy, I think most providers will need to review the OTJ requirement for all apprentices,” FE consultant Martin West warned at the time.

But it could also be that the confusion has not fully been removed.

MartinOutlaw on FE Connect points out that a note on the new commitment statement says: “The provider should enter the number of hours the apprentice works on average each week”, rather than basing the calculation on a total of actual contracted hours.

A former director of a training provider that falsified exam papers for individuals seeking to gain security guard licenses has been jailed for eight months.

Shamin Uddin, who headed up SAS Training Academy in Telford, Shropshire, was handed the sentence on March 29 at Shrewsbury Crown Court for fraud that was investigated in 2015.

He is also required to pay £2,000 court costs payable within 12 months.

This matter is so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence is justified

The sentence brings to an end a four-year process initiated by the sector regulating body Security Industry Authority (SIA) that investigated malpractice at SAS Training’s operations in East London, its headquarters at Wednesbury in the West Midlands and in Inverness, Scotland.

It was prompted after an undercover BBC investigation aired in March 2015 alleged staff at Ashley Commerce College, in Ilford, were prepared to sit exams for students training to work as security guards.

The British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body then investigated SAS Training Academy Ltd’s premises in June 2015 after finding evidence of training malpractice.

The awarding organisation then suspended SAS Training Academy, withdrew their certification, and referred the complaint to the SIA which reviewed 270 qualifications.

The Honourable Recorder Jackson said this case “is particularly serious because it strikes at the heart of the (licensing) system … using training to deal with members of public.

“Organisations rely upon staff they believe to be properly trained to deal with those situations.

“The public needs to have confidence in those that work within the security industry.”

He added: “This matter is so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence is justified due to possible effects of behaviour, that such offending has a wide ranging monetary effect on individuals and businesses.”

Nathan Salmon, one of the SIA’s criminal investigations manager’s, said: “We have satisfied ourselves that no licences were granted following Mr Uddin’s actions; a number of learners had to attend alternative courses with other training providers.

“The potential damage Mr Uddin might have done to the reputation of the private security industry is immeasurable. This action, brought against him as the proprietor of SAS Training by the SIA, demonstrates that any suspicious training provision will be identified and may be prosecuted.

“The SIA will not tolerate malpractice in the provision of training to an industry that is working hard to be respected and reputable.”

Ofqual published a report in January 2017 in response to concerns about qualifications used in the private security industry.

It led to the exams regulator auditing awarding organisations’ on the “control” they have over their individual centres, after finding evidence it has reduced in recent years.

By law, security operatives working under contract must hold and display a valid SIA licence.

During the British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body’s investigations in June 2015, verifiers found no candidates present at SAS Training Academy’s operations in Barking, Essex. The alleged exam room was said to be too small to fit the number of expected learners.

In the same month, the BIIAB made an unannounced external quality assurance visit to SAS Training Academy offices in Wednesbury. Investigators discovered that the correct answers had been highlighted on some exam papers in order to help candidates.

When questioned, Uddin denied that the examination process was insecure and allegedly refused to allow the awarding body’s representatives to talk with other members of staff present.

The awarding organisation had also became aware that candidates’ details were being changed at very short notice when the papers were submitted to them. In addition, SAS Training Academy were allegedly submitting examination paperwork to the BIIAB on photocopied sheets.

It became apparent during the SIA investigation that examination papers were being submitted to the BIIAB from various examination venues across the UK with false learner details being added to the list of genuine learners.

A trainer was interviewed regarding courses he allegedly provided on behalf of SAS Training Academy. He confirmed that he had not conducted the training, and disputed that it was his personal details and signature on the paperwork submitted. At other venues false details of alleged learners’ names had been added to examination paperwork.

SAS Training Academy Ltd ceased operating in December 2016.

The skills minister and the chair of the education select committee were at loggerheads this morning after Anne Milton refused to say how much extra FE funding she is requesting from the Treasury.

Committee chair Robert Halfon argued that education ministers would be more likely to win over the Treasury if they were openly campaigning for an amount of extra funding or percentage increase.

He also likened the discussions between the Department for Education and the Treasury to cardinals secretly deciding on the next pope, and waiting for “white smoke coming through the roof,” rather than discussing it in public.

This was after, in answer to a question about the department’s priorities for the upcoming Treasury spending review, the schools minister Nick Gibb told a committee hearing this morning he was “concerned” about post-16 funding as it had not been “protected” like the schools budget.

Asked by Halfon how much extra funding the DfE wanted for FE, Milton said she would like to see the base rate rise, as FE providers are “risk-averse and concerned about balancing their books”.

Pressed by the committee chair for a figure, Milton said she “would not like to say off the top of the head” and it would be “inappropriate” for her to say.

Halfon hit back: “You have acknowledged there needs to be more funding and there are extra costs.

“You two say there needs to be more money, but will not make the argument publicly.

“What you should be doing is to say ‘this is how much we think a five-year funding settlement will look like and this is what a proper 10-year strategic plan should look like and this is the case we are making to the Treasury’.”

Milton said she objected to the fact she has not made this case publicly, but: “It is above our pay grade to say exactly what that figure is. That’s for the Secretary of State.”

“Do not doubt,” the minister continued, “that we don’t think we would like more money.”

“Just asking for more money is not enough”, she added.

However, the chair said she was before the committee to give them a figure on how much extra funding they would like for FE.

He argued the DfE ought to follow the lead of the Health Secretary and NHS England, which both argued constantly and publicly for a specified amount of extra funding for the NHS, and the government eventually published the NHS five-year plan last year.

The plan includes an average 3.4 per cent a year real-terms increase in funding over the next five years.

Milton replied she had instead added another tool to the committee’s box, with which they could fight for greater funding, by raising the socio-economic cost of not getting education right.

But she did not know how much account the Treasury makes of the socio-economic cost to the government of not getting education right; in terms of if they cannot get the education of high-needs children right and support their families, parents will not be able to work and the family will break-up.

A number of FE organisations have pushed Chancellor Philip Hammond to increase the amount of money allocated for each student in the upcoming spending review.

The Raise the Rate campaign, led by the Sixth Form Colleges Association, has called for the base rate for 16 to 18-year-olds to be upped from £4,000 to at least £4,760 per student per year, and then in line with inflation each year after.

In February, the Association of Colleges, which backs the Raise the Rate campaign, increased this call to £5,000 per student after crunching the figures needed to make T-levels financially viable for colleges to deliver.

The base rate funding per 16 and 17-year-old student has been stuck at £4,000 per year for the last five years, while per-student funding for 18-year-olds was cut to £3,300 in 2014.

The spending review is expected to take place later this year.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has reached a deal with the organisation that has delivered external quality assurance on its behalf for the past 18 months to extend its work until June while it finalises its procurement for a long-term contract.

Open Awards first won the contract to deliver quality assurance for apprenticeships assessment for the institute in August 2017. Its initial contract, worth £160,000, ran until March 2018, but was then extended for another year.

The institute launched a tender at the end of January 2019 for a new EQA contract, which was expected to commence from May until the end of March 2021.

FE Week previously revealed that the institute was forced into hastily finding “interim” arrangements for April as a result.

The winner of the procurement has still not been finalised. To ensure there are no gaps in provision, Open Awards has agreed to extend its contract with the institute for a further two months.

Heather Akehurst, the chief executive of Open Awards, announced the deal on LinkedIn today.

“Delighted that Open Awards will be continuing to provide external quality assurance for the IfATE apprenticeship standards until the end June 2019,” she said.

“An opportunity to bring in the new EQA framework and digital support.”

Explaining the situation, the institute said: “Open Awards has agreed to carry on providing this service on a temporary basis until the end of June 2019, to ensure a smooth transition before the next contract begins.

“A decision will be announced soon on which provider will be chosen to undertake EQA on our behalf for the next two years, following a competitive tendering process.”

The institute is the nominated EQA provider for 271 approved standards.

Under its old contract with Open Awards, the IfATE, like Ofqual, did not charge end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) for the quality assurance service.

But this will change when its new long-term contract comes into play.

Tender documents for the institute’s new contract state that “legislation allows the institute to charge EPAOs a fee per apprentice that undertakes an end-point assessment and it is these fees that will pay for the EQA service”.

They add: “The institute’s budget is limited and we are seeking to work with a supplier who will deliver a high-quality service at a price that offers strong value for money.”

The bidding organisation was asked to “confirm what price they would charge per end-point assessment”, and would receive a minimum payment of £20,000 a month for the duration of the contract.

The winning bidder can therefore expect to earn at least half a million pounds over the two-year contract period.

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

FE Week revealed the “ridiculous variability” in EQA charges in February, which were criticised by sector leaders for ranging from a free service to £179 per apprentice.

 

The Education and Skills Funding Agency is going to scrap its minimum standards policy as part of an earlier and stronger intervention regime.

New ‘oversight of independent training providers’ guidance was published today which details how the agency aims to “eradicate low quality training provision, protect learners and public funds”.

Currently, the ESFA only routinely takes action when a private provider has been judged ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted, or has failed to meet minimum standards or financial health requirements.

But as part of its new strategy, the agency will bin its focus on minimum standards and instead use “all education performance data available to us earlier in our overall risk assessments”.

“The policy and related intervention trigger for minimum standards has been in place for over a decade and is ripe for review,” the guidance states.

“We will cease taking intervention action on the basis of the 16 to 19 and 19+ education measures under the current policy after the application this year to 2017 to 2018 data. Reformed apprenticeship measures, however, require a more fundamental review as we move from frameworks to standards.

“We will apply the current minimum standards policy to apprenticeship provision (all ages) in 2020 (academic year 2019 to 2020), based on 2018 to 2019 data, for one final year.”

It added: “Further information on the apprenticeship threshold for 2020 and how provider performance in apprenticeship delivery beyond 2020 will be considered will be published later in the year.”

As part of the new intervention strategy, independent providers will now be required to have an “exit plan” from the 2019/20 contracting year.

The plan will need to detail how the provider will “assist” the ESFA to transfer learners if a provider ceases trading. It must “cover the areas of learners, data, and evidence (including for sub-contracted delivery)”.

Where data and analysis shows there is a “risk to learners or public fund”, the ESFA can now apply sanctions to independent provides including suspension of recruitment or restricting growth.

Providers will also have contract managers with the ESFA, which will require “regular contact, including as appropriate, face-to-face meetings to review contract performance, compliance, financial position, quality, capacity, or other risk factors”.

Financial information that will be requested from independent providers could include “management accounts and/ or a rolling 12-month cash flow forecast, in-year qualitative key performance indicators, information to support contract performance in terms of learner profile of recruitment, in-learning, retention, progress and achievement and/or evidence of audit or self-assessment findings including outcomes from regular PDSATs, feedback from learners, staff and/or employers”.

ESFA chief executive Eileen Milner (pictured) said: “ITPs are vital to the further education infrastructure, supporting learners and employers through the delivery of apprenticeships, adult skills, education for young people and specialist provision.

“Whilst the majority of training providers delivery meets our training standards, there will always be a small number who start to fall short of these standards.

“We must continue to ensure that learners have a quality learning experience and every pound of the public purse is invested wisely. By introducing stronger early intervention measures and closer contract management arrangements it will minimise the disruption to learners and risk to public funds when provider failures start to become apparent.”

Colleges that experience “serious” cash flow pressures, breach bank covenants, or have significantly delayed accounts will be placed into formal intervention from now on, according to new Department for Education guidance.

A new “one-stop document” that sets out a “strengthened college oversight” regime has been published by the DfE this morning.

It follows the introduction of the new insolvency regime that will allow colleges to go bust for the first time, which spelt the end for long-term government bailouts that have been available to colleges during the post-16 area review process.

Occasionally we know that some colleges find themselves in difficulty

The oversight regime, which comes into force from today, has listed a number of new “triggers” for early and formal intervention.

If the DfE finds that a college is at “risk of becoming insolvent within two years” or has “significant cash flow pressures” they will now be placed into early intervention.

Formal intervention will follow if a college requests emergency funding at any time, if their cash flow issues become “serious”, and if there are “debt recovery slippages on re-profiling”, which includes failing to pay back government loans on time or breaching of bank covenants where their bank takes action.

Upheld investigations related to college financial management and governance and/or funding audits and/or significant fraud or fraud practice will also lead to formal intervention.

This will “include, but is not limited to, related party transactions and evidence of action taken by an accounting officer and/or governors outside of the college, departmental controls/policies”.

A college will also be placed into formal intervention if there is “evidence of financial practice taken by an accounting officer that is not in the best interests of: value for money, the protection of public funds, the effective delivery of service for learners, does not meet the public benefit test”.

Subcontracting where in the ESFA’s assessment there has been a non-compliance with rules could also lead to formal intervention, as well as failure to submit financial accounts within “30 days of the published deadline or 30 days of any agreed deadline beyond the published date”.

Minister for skills and apprenticeships Anne Milton (pictured) said: “We want to make sure all colleges succeed. Occasionally we know that some colleges find themselves in difficulty. 

“The strengthened college oversight guidance is a new ‘one-stop’ document which sets out how we will work with colleges to identify issues early on, make sure they are aware of the support available and, where problems persist, explains how we will intervene and support them.

“I encourage all college leaders and governors to read this document and to act early if they see problems ahead. We can then do our best to help.”

The policy document also sets out the DfE’s “preventative function” to identify problems at colleges sooner through “financial dashboards for colleges and with additional indicators to alert the ESFA to investigate the college’s position in more detail and take follow up action if required”.

It also details a “strengthened” role for the FE Commissioner to review provision in a local area, use of independent business reviews to “support effective decision making”, and the introduction of the statutory college insolvency regime.

Other minor changes include renaming the ‘satisfactory’ financial health category to ‘requires improvement’, and renaming ‘administered college status’ – which involves “enhanced monitoring, such as ESFA observers attending college board meetings” – to ‘supervised college status’.