A provider has been slammed with a grade four after Ofsted found its 500 learners received “no teaching” and some were “not aware” they had taken out an advanced learner loan.

Harrow-based Academy Training Group was branded ‘inadequate’ across the board in its first ever inspection, published today, which claimed the provider has “no strengths” and does not use funding “appropriately”.

However, the provider challenged the judgement before it was made public and is continuing to do so. It insists that Ofsted “lacks understanding of the environment we work under and the constraints placed on us” to deliver loans provision.

Too many learners are not aware that they have taken out an advanced learning loan

At the time of inspection Academy Training Group was training nearly 550 adults, who fund their courses using the government’s advance learning loans, in areas including carpentry, fenestration, occupational work supervision and painting and decorating.

The provider has received £4.2 million from the ESFA ever since 2014 to deliver this provision.

Ofsted found that staff do not provide learners, many of whom speak English as a second language, with “appropriate information about the qualifications they are enrolled on or the advanced learning loan prior to the start of the course”.

They added that “too many learners are not aware that they have taken out an advanced learning loan to pay for their course and that they are required to pay this back”.

The provider’s operations director, Paul Marsh, hit back at this “widely biased” finding, claiming that the Student Loans Company has vetted its recruitment process itself.

“It is explained to learners through the registration process that it [the qualification] is a loan,” he told FE Week.

“They have to apply for it themselves through the SLC loans portal, and there are various checks they do.”

He admitted that the provider has had a “very small number of learners who have queried whether it is a loan or not” since 2014, but the SLC “has shown them the documentation and cleared it up”.

An SLC spokesperson said: “Anyone taking out an Advanced Learner Loan signs a declaration that makes it clear that it is loan that is repayable.  Both the online and paper applications make it clear that the learner is applying for a loan, and they are issued with a notice of entitlement which confirms that a loan has been granted.

“Payments are not released to a provider unless this signed declaration has been received and recorded on our systems.”

Ofsted also criticised the provider for having “failed to establish an appropriate training programme”.

“Learners do not develop any new or more complex construction skills,” inspectors said. “No teaching takes place and assessors merely accredit learners for what they already know or can do as a result of working in the construction industry.

“They do no teaching and only a minimal amount of assessment through the completion of a small number of questions to test learners’ skills and knowledge.”

Mr Marsh claimed it was not the job of the provider to teach the learners new technical skills.

“These guys are not apprentices, they are very experienced workers who have been doing their trade for 10 years but just haven’t got their qualification,” he told FE Week.

Unlike a college, we’re working on construction sites where we have no authority

“What we are largely doing is verifying their skills. Unlike a college, we’re working on construction sites where we have no authority.

“We have been largely criticised because Ofsted does not believe the qualification is appropriate for funding. We argued throughout that it is not our place to change or alter the qualification.”

He claimed that ESFA officials have visited the provider themselves and “said our work was exemplary in terms of making sure the loans were appropriate”.

Mr Marsh added that Academy Training Group is “already starting to put things in place where we might be able to give training to these learners outside of the working environment.

“We’re in talks with Stanmore College to provide functional skills help.”

Ofsted said the report is “clear about our findings and judgements, and we stand by them entirely”.

The provider has a £1.6 million Education and Skills Funding Agency loans contract for 2018/19. The agency typically gives providers a three month termination warning notice following a grade four.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We will always take action to protect learners if a training provider is not fit for purpose. We are currently assessing Ofsted’s findings and will be contacting Academy Training Group Limited to set out the action we will be taking in due course.”

The spokesperson would not confirm or deny if the ESFA has visited the provider itself.

A land-based college has been rated ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted for the second time in a row – one of just a handful of colleges to have achieved the dubious honour.

Inspectors visited Easton and Otley College in early October, in its first full inspection since it was first rated grade four in July last year.

The resulting report, published today, gives the college the lowest possible rating overall and in five out of eight headline fields.

Poor quality study programmes and adult education courses, with low completion rates on both, were the main issues dragging the college down.

“More than a quarter of students on study programmes and adult learning programmes, which together make up a large majority of the college’s provision, do not achieve their qualifications,” the report said.

The “same weaknesses remain” in teaching, learning and assessment of these programmes as were identified at last year’s inspection.

“Too many students on study programmes and adult learning provision do not make enough progress because they are often taught by inexperienced staff who lack the expertise necessary to promote effective learning,” the report said.

In addition, “too much” English and maths provision was “not good”.

And “too often, the lack of specialist teachers impedes learning on study programmes and adult learning programmes”.

“I cannot hide my disappointment at this assessment, but I am so very pleased to see that the report does at the same time highlight some areas in which substantial change has already been made,” said Jane Townsend, Easton and Otley College principal.

She said that the last 12 months had been “challenging”, and that the inspection had come “a little too soon to capture the improvements we have been making”.

At the time of inspection the college had 1,638 learners on study programmes, 344 adult learners and 441 apprentices.

Its apprenticeship provision was rated ‘good’, as was its provision for learners with high needs, while its leadership and management was graded ‘requires improvement’.

Following last year’s inspection, which rated it grade four overall and in six headline fields, the college had three monitoring visits.

The last of these, published in May, found the college to be making ‘significant progress’ in two themes and ‘reasonable progress’ in a further four.

Easton and Otley College, which was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in 2014, is one of a small number of colleges to have been rated ‘inadequate’ twice in a row.

The first of these was the now de-coupled Lewisham Southwark College, in 2015.

Mid-Cheshire College, now known as Warrington and Vale Royal College following its merger with Warrington Collegiate in August 2017, received two grade four ratings in a row in March 2016 and June 2017.

And Stockport College, which merged with Trafford College in April, received three ‘inadequate’ ratings in the space of five years – two of which were in October 2016 and January 2018.

 

The government has been left red-faced after FE Week found thousands of apprentices with no organisation responsible for checking the quality of delivery of their training.

The apprenticeship accountability statement, published by the Department for Education, says responsibility for oversight of level six and seven programmes does not lie with Ofsted but with the Office for Students.

But the OfS has claimed their remit only extends to those with a prescribed HE qualification, such as a degree.

FE Week analysis shows there are currently 15 approved standards at level six and seven with no degree element, which have had a combined total of 4,443 starts on them since 2016/17.

One of the standards, the level seven accountancy and taxation professional, had over 3,500 starts in 2017/18 alone.

Adrian Anderson, the chief executive of the University Vocational Awards Council, said this was a “real issue” which the DfE needs to fix “immediately”.

“Something needs to be done and it needs to be done very quickly so we ensure we have certainty in terms of regulation and inspection of apprenticeships delivered at all levels by all providers,” he told FE Week.

“I think the solution to that lies with looking at how the OfS extends its remits to look at regulation of delivery there as well.”

Mark Dawe, the boss of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, was shocked by the situation, but said it should be Ofsted that oversees this provision.

“This appalling situation illustrates the current lack of clarity on accountability in the system which the Commons select committee referred to and why Ofsted should be given overall responsibility for inspecting all apprenticeships,” he told FE Week.

Any higher-education provider that is delivering apprenticeships that do not have a degree element is still subject to OfS regulation, so some of these starts would have had some monitoring.

The issue of no oversight lies with providers, such as Kent County Council, which deliver the high-level apprenticeships but are not on the OfS register and therefore not subject to their regulation.

Nick Hillman, the director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and a former adviser to HE minister David Willetts, said answers are needed “as to why these qualifications are being allowed to fall through the cracks”.

“I am sure it is a cock-up rather than intentional, but it could be unfair to the students involved and reflects the complexity of the new arrangements,” he added.

Despite the severity of the situation, the DfE, which FE Week understands has been aware of the issue for years, failed to provide comment.

Confusion over the regulation of higher standards has engulfed the skills sector for years since the introduction of degree apprenticeships.

In April 2017 the DfE ruled that these would be regulated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England – now the Office for Students – and not by Ofsted.

I am sure it is a cock-up rather than intentional, but it could be unfair to the students involved

However, it was decided in August that Ofsted will inspect all apprenticeships at levels two to five, even if the advanced standards contain a prescribed HE qualification, following the outcome of a pilot conducted with the OfS earlier this year (see box out).

Ofsted told FE Week it has absolutely no power to inspect level six and seven standards.

Explaining its approach to regulation of these higher apprenticeships, an OfS spokesperson said: “The Office for Students employs a risk-based approach to quality assurance defined by a high-quality threshold for entry and regulates all provision at all providers on the OfS Register.

“Providers who are accepted on to the register will have met a high threshold for quality and standards and will be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that quality is maintained.”

The Quality Assurance Agency then conducts external annual provider reviews of HE institutions for the OfS, including those that deliver apprenticeships.

However, these are not official inspections of the type Ofsted conducts.

“To externally assure the quality of specific courses, the system of external examiners provides course-level independent and impartial external verification that expectations and standards are met,” a spokesperson said.

“These will apply to all degree apprenticeships. Courses will be externally verified as part of the approval process and will be subject to external scrutiny throughout each stage of delivery.”

She added that FE Week should contact the DfE as they are currently reviewing the “apprenticeship accountability statement”, which should be published by December, to “take into account changes in the apprenticeship landscape including the role of OfS”. The DfE did not respond to FE Week’s enquiries.

The Institute for Apprenticeships runs a Quality Alliance Stakeholder Reference group but refused to comment on the level six and seven apprenticeships grey area, claiming it isn’t directly responsible for it.

 

Universities in uproar about being inspected by Ofsted

Universities have warned they could be “driven out” of the apprenticeships market after it was decided that Ofsted will inspect HE providers delivering level four and five standards, even if they contain a degree element.

After the government ruled that degree apprenticeships would be overseen solely by the OfS in early 2017, a pilot was conducted by the education watchdogs to find the best solution for monitoring those advanced standards with HE qualifications.

A letter, sent to universities in August and seen by FE Week, reveals that Ofsted will have the power to inspect HE providers, with the assistance of the OfS, from 2018/19.

“OfS will provide relevant data and information to Ofsted to inform its risk-assessment process and planning of inspections of HEIs which have L4/5 apprenticeship provision with standards that contain a recognised HE award,” the letter said.

But the decision hasn’t been welcomed by University Vocational Awards Council, which represents 82 universities.

“It is a duplication of regulation and a waste of public resources,” said Adrian Anderson, chief executive of the UVAC.

“All provision delivered by an institution on the OfS register is subject to OfS regulation. Ofsted is inspecting provision regulated by another government regulator.

“UVAC would like to know the justification for Ofsted inspection and why inspection represents an appropriate use of public resources, especially at a time when Ofsted has requested and received additional resources from DfE.”

He added that the decision will “drive providers out of the market and reduce the availability of provision for employers and learners”.

But Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, argued for the opposing view.

“AELP has always believed that for the sake of clarity and consistency, Ofsted should be responsible for inspecting apprenticeships at all levels because it can form the best judgement on inspecting the on-the-job training which is a core part of the apprenticeship,” he said.

“Where there is an actual degree qualification involved we are happy for OfS to contribute but it should be to an overall Ofsted judgment.”

Ofsted has already started to conduct early-monitoring visits of HE providers delivering apprenticeships.

The most high-profile case was at BPP University, which was deemed to be making ‘insufficient progress’ for its apprenticeships at level two to five.

There is, however, confusion as to whether the HEI will be banned from recruiting all apprentices, which is the sanction for FE providers with the rating, as it also delivers level six and seven apprenticeships which are under regulation by the OfS.

Employers have used just under 14 per cent of their apprenticeship levy funds in the first 18 months since the policy was introduced, FE Week can reveal.

Last month, skills minister Anne Milton revealed the total balance of employers’ apprenticeship service accounts was £2.7 billion as of the end of September.

 In response to a Freedom of Information request from this newspaper, the Department for Education said that £370 million of this had been drawn down, amounting to 13.7 per cent.

Large employers have been made to pay the apprenticeship levy since it was launched in April 2017. The money goes into a pot, which employers have two years to claim back for spending on apprenticeship training.

But concerns have been raised that employers are not spending their funds quickly enough. Last week, for example, Health Education England urged NHS trusts to use or transfer their levy cash with greater speed to avoid losing the money.

Recent policy changes have aimed to increase levy spending. From April 2019, levy-paying employers will be able to share more of their annual funds with smaller organisations, when the levy transfer facility rises from 10 to 25 per cent.

And in last month’s Budget, the chancellor Philip Hammond announced that the 10 per cent fee small businesses have to pay when they take on apprentices will be halved.

Levy money also has other purposes. Unspent funds from the national pot are used in ways that include funding apprenticeships for small, non-levy paying employers, for English and maths qualifications and for extra support for apprentices who are care leavers or have special needs.

 FE Week asked the DfE how much of the levy pot has so far been used on these different areas, but it refused to say.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the government “needn’t panic over these figures” and said the new measures will “allow more headroom for small and medium sized enterprises to engage” with the levy.

“More employers are engaged than before but it takes time to build strategies and pilot programmes. However, there are obstacles such as inflexibility in the off-the-job training rule which needs sorting,” he said.

John Cope, head of education and skills policy at the CBI, said employers are “committed to high-quality apprenticeships and making the levy work” but warned that “big challenges remain”.

 He added: “The government was right to say in the Budget that it’ll work with business in the lead up to the spending review to evolve the system into a more accessible skills levy.”

 The government had hoped the apprenticeship levy would encourage more employers to invest in training and help it hit its manifesto target of three million apprenticeship starts by 2020. However, starts have fallen dramatically since its launch.

The latest figures, released on October 26, revealed that apprenticeship starts for July were down 43 per cent on the same month in 2016, before the introduction of the levy.

In June, FE Week reported that employers had used just 10 per cent of their apprenticeship levy funds in the first 12 months since it was introduced, with £207 million being drawn down out of a budget of £2.01 billion.

The University and College Union has demanded that ministers “step in and deal with the debacle” at City College Plymouth, after 349 out of 350 members backed a vote of no confidence in their beleaguered principal.

It follows a damning FE commissioner report published last Friday, which exposed a catalogue of leadership failings at Garry Phillips’ former college, Ealing Hammersmith and West London.

“Anyone with any integrity would see that this vote means staff have no confidence in any decision made by the principal and his cohort,” said Philippa Davey, UCU regional official.

“People with the track records should not be in charge of what is a fantastic college,” she said.

“A teacher with such a failed record would not be given a job and the time has come for ministers to step in and deal with this debacle.”

The college, which does not have to take any action as a result of the vote, has so far refused to publicly back its beleaguered principal, despite multiple requests from FE Week by email and phone over the past week.

In addition to the vote of no confidence in Mr Phillips, over 99 per cent of those who voted said they had no confidence in the governors’ ability to make “sound and robust appointments for senior leaders at our college”.

And 100 per cent said they had no confidence in the appointment of Martin Smith, a financial consultant brought in by Mr Phillips who had previously worked with him at both EHWLC and New College Telford, to “control and manage the college’s finances”.

The union’s fury was sparked following an FE commissioner report into EHWLC, which was highly critical of Mr Phillips’ leadership.

According to the report, which was based on visits to the college in August, its financial situation was so bad it would be “unable to meet its commitments from early October without support”.

It concluded that executive leadership had been “poor” and it “had not provided a properly considered and coherent holistic strategic direction for the college”.

Issues highlighted included a lack of an overarching estates strategy, various merger discussions described as “a distraction at best” with some having no “obvious perceived advantages”, and a failure to achieve “too optimistic” budgeted income.

The relationship between “those holding power” – the chair, clerk and principal – was said to have been “over supportive” and “cosy, with little challenge and feeling a difficulty in asking questions”, according to the report.

UCU officials wrote to Pauline Odulinski, the chair of Plymouth’s governing board, on Monday, demanding answers about his appointment – including whether the process was “safe and robust” and whether governors had the “full facts regarding his previous position”.

In her reply Ms Odulinski said the board was “confident” in the recruitment process it had followed, and continued to have confidence in Mr Phillips’ ability to lead the college.

Ms Davey said she was “absolutely stunned” by the college’s response to their letter, and described it as “totally inadequate and insulting to staff”.

Today’s no confidence vote comes as members of the FE commissioner’s team are carrying out a diagnostic assessment at the college.

An all-staff email from Mr Phillips, seen by FE Week, said the visit was prompted by the college being in early intervention for financial health by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

The college is currently in consultation over a proposed restructure, which could see up to 70 jobs cut, according to the UCU.

Apprentices at one training provider had not had any training eight months after their start date, according to a damning Ofsted report published today.

XTP International, based in Stockport, was rated ‘inadequate’ across the board by the education watchdog, following an inspection in early October.

Among its many failings, inspectors noted that “there has been a significant decrease” since its last inspection “in the number of apprentices completing their qualification by the planned end date for around two thirds of the programmes”.

Shockingly, they found that “several apprentices have not received any training since they started their apprenticeship more than eight months ago”.

However, Gemma Hughes, XTP’s operations director, claimed it was a question of terminology.

She said the apprentices had been trained, but that Ofsted had been looking at their skills development as a result of that training.

“From an Education and Skills Funding Agency point of view the training has been delivered, but they [Ofsted] don’t think the skills that have been developed have been sufficient,” she told FE Week.

Ms Hughes described the education watchdog’s verdict as “devastating” but didn’t dispute it.

XTP is already in talks with the ESFA about transferring its learners to new providers.

“It is what it is. We can’t change it. We’ve just got to do what’s right for the learners and the employers and make sure that everything is handed over effectively,” she said.

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said it did not “comment on the individual circumstances of providers”. 

Ofsted has been approached for a comment.

Under ESFA rules, XTP will now lose its place on the register of apprenticeship training providers.

The provider, which had 68 apprentices on programme at the time of the inspections, runs courses from level 2 to 5 in education and training, customer service, business and administration, management, and manufacturing technologies.

Inspectors said that leaders and managers had “presided over a significant decline in the standard of teaching, learning and assessment since the previous inspection”, which rated it as ‘requires improvement’.

Self-assessment was deemed to be “wholly inaccurate”, while a lack of oversight meant that leaders and managers being “unaware that almost all apprentices make slow or very slow progress”.

Leaders had also failed to “appoint any form of supervisory body to hold them to account for the performance of apprentices and the apprenticeship provision” – despite this being a recommendation at the previous inspection.

“Most” apprentices at the provider “complete their off-the-job learning in their own time, which contravenes apprenticeship requirements”.

“Too often, vocational coaches accredit apprentices with the knowledge and skills they already have,” the report said.

Safeguarding at the provider was also found to be not effective.

XTP was founded in 2003, and delivered adult apprenticeship training worth £659,138 in 2016/17, according to ESFA figures.