One-third of apprentices on standards were not ready for their planned end-point assessment last year, the government has revealed.

The Department for Education released the national achievement rate tables for 2017/18 last week which showed the slower than expected pace at which learners are completing the training part of the new “more rigorous” apprenticeships.

For apprentices on the old-style frameworks, just 10 per cent had to continue and achieve in the year after their anticipated end-year.

It makes it extremely difficult to plan and could result in difficult-to-manage spikes in demand

But for those on standards, a huge 34 per cent who were expected to complete in 2017/18 have continued into 2018/19.

The figure matches information that FE Week has been given recently, that there is a major problem brewing of apprentices on standards not being ready for gateway and end-point assessment.

The gateway is the point at which the training finishes and assessment begins for apprenticeship standards.

Graham Hasting-Evans, group managing director of NOCN, an EPAO for 47 standards, said the government’s analysis “strikes a chord with our own experiences”, adding that his organisation is “currently seeing on average around three- to four-month delays, which means many people moving back a reporting year”.

This has “considerable implications for EPAOs,” he told FE Week.

“It makes it extremely difficult to plan, could result in difficult-to-manage spikes in demand when the apprenticeships start to come through and also add to the finance burden for EPAOs, as payment is moved back. Hopefully, this will settle down after another year.”

Cindy Rampersaud, senior vice president for BTECs and apprenticeships at Pearson, which is the EPAO for 27 standards, said the “non-preparedness of apprentices for gateway and EPA is largely a result of the market still being in transition as the apprenticeships model moves from frameworks to standards”.

“In delivering EPAs, we have experienced instances where the apprentices have not been ready for gateway or EPA and we have pushed back on EPA dates to give sufficient preparation time to the apprentices so as not to disadvantage them,” she added.

Kelle McQuade, head of end-point assessment at Training Qualifications UK, which does the EPAO for 30 standards, echoed Hasting-Evans’ concerns and said her organisation is finding that gateway dates are being delayed “for a variety of reasons”.

“Late engagement between EPAOs and training providers/employers has a knock-on effect with knowledge and understanding,” she told FE Week. “It can be difficult because until they approach us to register learners, we don’t always know who they are. Sometimes there is no time between an employer selecting us to be their EPAO and apprentices being ready for assessment.

“With many training providers piloting EPAOs and no set rules about when registrations must happen, providers are often leaving it late giving us little time to prepare.”

She added that there is also an “overall nervousness about putting apprentices forward in this new world as there is a fear of failure”.

End-point assessment is designed to be a more rigorous and costly process than the sign-off in the old apprenticeship frameworks.

Therefore, the aim at the gateway decision point is to put forward only people who are expected to at least pass, demonstrating the appropriate level of knowledge, competencies and behaviours.

The sign-off is a joint one by the training provider and the employer, whereas under the frameworks it was just the training provider.

“As a result of this fundamental change it is our experience that training providers and employers are being more cautious about putting people forward,” Hasting-Evans explained.

“The high cost of EPA and hence the high cost of re-sits is a factor in this.”

The Association of Colleges has criticised the Department for Education’s new local area reviews for not including small “non-viable” school sixth forms.

Under the reviews, announced on Monday, FE Commissioner Richard Atkins (pictured) will provide “a flexible intervention that can make recommendations on the best way of achieving long-term sustainable provision” in the local area.

The move is essentially a continuation of the post-16 area reviews carried out between 2015 and 2017.

Since then, the only other area review of further education provision has been carried out in Cornwall, which the FE Commissioner conducted towards the end of last year and reported on last month.

However, the AoC is “disappointed” the reviews will continue to only include colleges.

“The new local provision reviews may help in some cases, but we are disappointed DfE still sees this as a college-only process,” said the association’s deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt.

“In many towns and cities, students, staff and money are spread across a number of small, non-viable sixth forms.

“In these situations, a more effective local solution would involve rationalising and reorganising courses across colleges and schools.”

Small school sixth forms have been the bugbear of a number of FE organisations and experts, as well as MPs, in recent years as they argue such providers are not viable, often being too costly or compromising too much on quality.

Responding to Monday’s announcement, Mick Fletcher, the founder of the Policy Consortium, said: “The approach of the DfE is depressingly familiar – a focus on FE provision while ignoring the inefficiencies of school sixth forms and their impact on overall opportunities for young people.

“Given that they expect schools as well as colleges to deliver T-levels there is no rational explanation for once again reviewing only part of provision.”

Dr Sue Pember, the former lead civil servant for FE funding and now director of adult and community learning group Holex, advised the DfE to consider evaluating the impact of the area reviews from 2016/17, which led to a number of college mergers, to see whether the structural changes the commissioner recommended have led to a “more robust and sustainable college sector and better learner experience” two years on.

She continued: “It is hard to see how another round of expensive reviews accompanied by large structural funding handouts will deliver what 16 to 18 learners need. DfE needs to learn from the past.”

Pember argued the DfE needs to take note of what was said on the subject by the Public Accounts Committee in 2015, when it criticised an earlier run of area reviews for not including school sixth forms.

In 2016, the government brought in new rules which restricted the ability of schools to open sixth forms.

According to the rules, before a school could open a sixth form, it should expect to enrol more than 200 pupils in the new sixth form and had to offer at least 15 A-levels across a range of subjects.

These rules were put to the test when the AoC and Havering Sixth Form College launched a judicial review against the government in September 2016, claiming the DfE had not followed its own rules when it decided to allow a new sixth form at Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College in Essex.

The AoC and the government agreed a settlement on the day the case was scheduled to go before the Royal Courts of Justice.

The chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, Bill Watkin, has also called for the number of “unsustainable” school sixth forms to be reduced.

A DfE spokesperson said: “The post-16 sector has a vital role to play in making sure people have the skills they need to get on in life.

“While the remit of the FE Commissioner does not cover schools, a local provision review will consider post 16 provision and the needs of the local area.  

“The FE Commissioner will involve the Regional Schools Commissioner and other local stakeholders as appropriate.”

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.