Statistics watchdog ‘content’ with DfE including unreliable data in achievement rate tables

The country’s national statistics regulator has given the DfE achievement rate data a clean bill of health but called for greater transparency.

FE Week reported last month the 2017/18 national achievement rate tables included a list of more than 30 apprenticeship providers with data the DfE had admitted was unreliable.

The DfE said at the time the unreliable data was included to “provide a complete view of performance” and acknowledged that by doing so this year’s rate is 1.5 per cent lower than it would be if it was excluded.

Despite including the provider data it they admitted “the data we hold does not allow us to calculate a reliable estimate and therefore provides an unfair measure of performance.”

After FE Week shared the finding with the UK Statistics Authority, which had previously pressured the DfE into changing the way it presents its achievement data for 2015/16, the authority said it would look at the matter further.

The regulator has now sent and published a letter to Neil McIvor, the DfE’s chief data officer and chief statistician, saying it was “content” with the publication of the tables and with “the approach taken to include all data in the aggregate, headline position, particularly given that excluding it risks over-estimating the national position”.

However, it also said “it would be helpful to give more prominence to this in the headline publication and explain the context around the reasons for incomplete individual learner records”.

“In particular, the fact that these provider outcomes can be very unpredictable from year to year could be emphasised as one of the key limitations of the data,” wrote Ed Humpherson, director general for regulation at the authority.

In the same letter, Humpherson said the regulator investigated the “most recent concerns raised by FE Week” and noted that the 34 providers redacted in the formal performance tables have been redacted due to” quality issues”, which are the result of operational, rather than statistical, issues.

“We are aware that you work with the providers on an individual basis to try to resolve these issues,” he said.

We reported at the time that the government’s achievement rate data must comply with the UK Statistic Authority’s “code of practice”, which says official statistics must ensure they are “worthy of trust”.

“The code ensures that the statistics published by government serve the public,” according to the authority’s website.

“When producers of official statistics comply with the code, it gives users of statistics and citizens confidence that published government statistics are of public value, are high quality and are produced by people and organisations that are worthy of trust.”

FE Week analysis of the national achievement rate tables for 2017/18 showed there were 23,940 apprenticeships across 34 providers that have unreliable data, including at two large high-profile colleges.

The total combined cohort for all providers in 2017/18 was 412,190, which means data for 5.8 per cent of the apprenticeships in that year cannot be trusted.

FE Week took a look back at the achievement rate data for 2016/17 and found that the DfE also included the unreliable data in the headline rate in that year. “If we had excluded them for apprenticeships, then the national rate would be 68.6 per cent, which would be 0.9 per cent higher than the published figure,” it said at the time.

In 2016/17 there were 10,610 apprenticeships across 21 providers that were redacted for having unreliable data, which was 2.5 per cent of the 409,020 total cohort.

The largest provider to be excluded for having unreliable data in 2017/18 was the troubled West Nottinghamshire College, which had an apprenticeship cohort of 4,900.

The college run into financial difficulties last year that has led to substantial government bailouts, a high number of job losses, and, ultimately, the resignation of its longstanding, high-profile principal, Dame Asha Khemka.

The other high-profile provider to be excluded from the DfE’s official achievement rate data for 2017/18 was grade one Dudley College.

Its chief executive Lowell Williams last week apologised after FE Week reported how an audit exposed dodgy data with regards to late withdrawals that resulted in more than £500,000 being paid back to the government.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We are pleased the UK Statistics Authority is satisfied with our reporting of the 2017/18 national achievement rate tables and recognise the Data Dissemination project we have undertaken to improve these statistics. We will consider the wider feedback in the letter.”

 

T-level students in rural areas still at disadvantage, despite DfE ‘tinkering’

The flexibilities added to the controversial industry placement in T-levels are “helpful” but they still leave rural counties at a “distinct disadvantage”, according to a principal involved in the pilots of the programme.

Last week the government launched a “package of support” to encourage more employers to offer the 315-hour minimum placements that students will need to complete in order to pass the new technical qualifications.

The biggest change was that placement opportunities can be offered with up to two employers, as opposed to one long one, as originally planned.

For students with special education needs and disabilities, they will be allowed to use on-site facilities, such as a college-run restaurant or hair salon, for a maximum of 105 hours of the placement, while students studying at young offender institutions can complete their full placements in these simulated environments.

Any student’s part-time working hours can also be counted towards the required hours of placement, as long as the job is “occupationally related to the students’ chosen specialism at level 3 and it takes place at an environment away from the provider setting and the student’s normal learning environment”.

A pilot using £7 million will also be run in 2019-20, ahead of the T-levels roll-out, to trial the offer of financial incentives to employers to see if it encourages more people to sign up.

The DfE also confirmed placements will be formally recorded in hours – a minimum of 315 – as opposed to 45 days. It said that this “better reflects how industry professionals in some industries work and allows for shorter working days where needed”.

There is no extra support for student transport, which leaders have called for.

Jo Maher, principal of Boston College, which is involved in the T-level pilots, said rural counties “remain at a distinct disadvantage due to no movement on the 315-hour minimum requirement and rural transport issues, which result in long travel-to-work patterns”.

“Rural deprivation levels mean that many learners are unable to access a car and are heavily reliant on sparse and lengthy bus routes,” she told FE Week.

“We have already had to purchase a minibus to address transport issues for our pilot, which is part of the capacitybuilding funding scheme, and that was for just 10 per cent of eligible learners.”

Maher said her college has more than 600 eligible T-level learners moving forward, but if the industry relevant to their T-level is in the nearest city, not town, this “impacts both their placement and ability to secure part-time work that meets the ‘relevance’ requirement of the new flexibilities”.

“Furthermore, there is lots of employer support in the changes but nothing for providers, who are already stretched working to support their existing learners,” she continued.

“There are subject specialisms, such as creative and design, that would be better served with a proportion of the hours conducted back at the provider, for example, working on industry-assigned live briefs or employer project requests, as many of these jobs are freelance or home-based in the industry.”

Ian Pryce, the principal of Bedford College, said the DfE deserves credit for trying to be flexible but “placement remains a problem”.

“Most of our students work part-time and earn good money. They view 315 hours of unpaid work as an unfair burden, not a selling point,” he told FE Week.

“Measuring hours is the wrong way to go, too, it has to be about quality of experience, not length. It feels like tinkering, rather than addressing the unattractiveness and insecurity of placements of this length.”

Other flexibilities announced by the DfE include “bespoke ‘how to’ guides, workshops and practical hands-on support for employers – designed alongside industry bodies to make it as easy as possible for them to offer placements”.

“This new package of support is designed to help ensure we can deliver high-quality placements for every T-level student from 2020,” said education secretary Damian Hinds.

The first three T-levels, to be taught from September 2020, will be in digital, education and construction.

Devolved budget could drag adult education out of the doldrums

The chance for local people to have more of a say in adult education looks like a non-starter, says Lawrence Barton

The planned devolution of the adult education budget (AEB) heralds a significant advancement of adult education services, but early signs of inertia and mismanagement before the August 1 handover date signals an early death for this key initiative.

Our adult education system is failing to meet the demands we place upon it. With or without Brexit, our globalised economy means the UK needs talented and highly skilled workers. Instead, we are languishing in the doldrums through a combination of factors: an over-reliance on public-sector employment; a nationwide skills shortage, falling participation rates in training and levels of literacy and numeracy that could be much improved.

The UK’s skills needs are like a patchwork quilt, with no two regions the same. Our existing funding system isn’t adequately addressing these varied requirements, which is where devolution can help. It is about giving local people a greater voice by narrowing the gap between decision-makers, training providers and employers.

By transferring power to the regions, responsibility for decision-making will be put in the hands of those best placed to address local needs. It creates a structure based around local planning, coordination and demand. At least that’s the theory.

The problem is that this devolution is being mismanaged and delayed. Initially intended for 2018, the 2017 snap general election delayed the necessary legislation, which postponed transition by a year.

Regional infighting has also hampered progress. Devolution to some areas of the country, including East Anglia, the northeast and Lincolnshire has been shelved while local issues are resolved. The Sheffield City Region deal, meanwhile, after initially being disrupted by legal action, has only just been resolved after being hampered by local disagreements.

We’re on course for more of the same

Rather than seizing devolution as an opportunity to tackle problems with the existing system, the devolution framework retains inherent flaws. A bias in favour of FE colleges over private training providers remains, despite evidence from the Skills Funding Agency’s own research that shows employers are more satisfied with private training providers.

Devolution will see responsibility for roughly £700 million – about half of the overall AEB – transferred to six combined authorities, which are made up of two or more local authorities, and the Greater London Authority. Due to a diktat by central government about £450 million of that pot is allocated to FE colleges, representing 8 per cent or so of their total income.

This effective ring-fencing of funding for FE colleges represents a missed opportunity to free up the education budget, foster competition and drive up standards for the betterment of learners, employers and the economy. It also undermines efforts to address the issues of financial mismanagement prevalent within the college sector.

The recent example of North Hertfordshire College, which recorded a £5 million deficit in 2017-18 and received a recent £2.5 million government bailout is just the latest example of what the National Audit Office described in 2015 as the “rapidly declining financial health” of the FE college sector. For devolution to be a success it needs to bring with it a meritocratic approach to funding, prioritising those with a proven track-record of delivery and learner outcomes.

Shifting responsibility away from central government to regional officials more in tune with local needs can only be a good thing, but for this initiative to be a success the transition must be carried out effectively and opportunities to tackle existing problems inherent with the current funding system addressed. As things stand, we’re on course for more of the same.

UCU elects general secretary

Jo Grady has been elected the new general secretary of the University and College Union, though on a turnout of only 20 per cent.

The employment relations lecturer at the University of Sheffield secured 64 per cent of the vote, almost double that of second-place Matt Waddup, UCU’s national head of policy and campaigns, who received 33 per cent of the vote.

The president of the University of Liverpool UCU branch Jo McNeil also ran, but was knocked out in the first round of voting.

Grady said the HE and FE sector faced “extraordinary challenges”, including from the “pressures of volatile funding regimes”.

The election was called after the previous general secretary, Sally Hunt, stepped down in February owing to health reasons, after 12 years at the helm.

Her successor has called the level of pay in FE an “urgent issue”, and called out the UCU for FE being the sector where “the union has made the least progress in protecting or improving our members’ wages” and for not spending more of its ‘fighting fund’ to support striking workers.

UCU branches at colleges across the country have opted for strike action this year, which has led to further talks with management and pay increases.

In 2017/18, the fund made payments of £1.13 million, but still had £1.4 million in its reserves by the end of the year.

Grady wants the union to encourage members to draw on the fund and promised to both ensure her salary does not increase any higher than the most recent national pay offer in Further Education, and donate a portion of her salary to the fighting fund, then publish the amount she has donated.

She noted that “expectations are high” after she won an “overwhelming” mandate, on what the UCU called a record turnout.

However, only one fifth of eligible members voted, which is equal to 23,638 votes and compares with 14.4 per cent in 2007 and 13.7 per cent in 2017.

Why apprenticeships are more than a path to social inclusion for the young

Skills and the apprenticeship system in England must encompass level 8, ditching the notion that apprenticeships are primarily about craft and technical level roles, says Mandy Crawford-Lee

The recent “wobble” by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) on whether to support the development of level 8 apprenticeships has been welcomed by some in the skills sector. We’ve heard the opinion, reported in the FE press, that PhD-level apprenticeships are purely academic programmes and not in the “spirit” of the policy on apprenticeships.

Such comments show a bewildering lack of understanding of higher education provision and contemporary skills programmes. Ask a member of the public if a surgeon or dentist – both level 8 occupations – need practical skills and the answer obviously would be yes. Indeed, the whole concept of knowledge, skills and behaviours or professional values fits perfectly with such occupations.

The existence of the professional doctorate used in a wide range of sectors also seems to be ignored in these debates. The UK Economic and Social Research Council expects individuals undertaking professional doctorates to “contribute to both theory and practice in their field and to develop professional practice…”

Indeed, professional doctorates could help turbo-boost the apprenticeship programme at this level across many sectors and occupations by bringing practice closer to learning. It is disappointing that the existence and use of professional doctorates doesn’t seem to be always understood, given that there is a substantial track record of developing occupational competence at level 8. It is therefore not surprising that employers are developing apprenticeship programmes at level 8 as they recognise their contribution to understanding and applying knowledge, as well as developing research-informed practice and lifelong learning skills, enhancing the route from degree apprenticeships to professional careers.

Let’s knock on the head the idea that level 8 can’t be about skills

Put simply, I suggest that knowledge, skills and behaviours are rather important in the nuclear industry, advanced clinical and nursing practice, in education, in training (extending the notion of “prac-academics”) and for research scientists and engineers where level 8 apprenticeships could be, and are being, developed. From a skills and productivity perspective, the occupations where level 8 standards are being developed and proposed tick all the boxes.

So let’s knock on the head the idea of the appropriateness of apprenticeships at this level and the notion that level 8 can’t be about skills; a failure to do so is a failure to recognise the diversity and complexity of employment today.

I suspect that part of the problem is that many people are wedded to two ideas. Firstly, that apprenticeships must remain a social inclusion route simply for the young or the disadvantaged; and secondly, that associate skills training, particularly at levels 2 and 3, are something to be delivered exclusively by colleges and independent training providers. While FE does play a key role in the delivery of skills programmes, so do higher education providers, employers and both professional and regulatory bodies.

Apprenticeships are now led by employers rather than further education, with economic productivity a key policy driver; an objective glance at the skills-needs of the UK economy would confirm the need for level 8 apprenticeships, and any employer engaged in their development should be congratulated. It’s high-time we drop the notion that apprenticeships are primarily about craft and technical level roles. If we don’t, we will totally undermine the ability of apprenticeship to tackle the UK’s No 1 economic challenge – the blight of low productivity.

It would be economic folly to ignore the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to become occupationally competent in key level 8 occupations. The Department for Education and IfATE, perhaps with help and encouragement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury respectively, need to stick to the concept of apprenticeship as an employer-led and productivity-focused skills programme. Not to do so provides an example of where the importance and value of degree apprenticeships are not adequately supported by government policy and messages.

Solving the productivity puzzle: what can we learn from Russia?

The WorldSkills competition has been a springboard for some countries to reform and develop their skills training, writes Dr Neil Bentley-Gockmann, chief executive, WorldSkills UK

I have been fascinated by how other countries use skills competitions to inform the development of their skills systems ever since my first speech as chief executive of WorldSkills UK in November 2015. I highlighted the need to mainstream international learning to ensure that the benefits of participating in WorldSkills had a broader and deeper impact.

The more I learnt, the more confident I became that undertaking global benchmarking would improve outcomes. After all, we have been competing internationally successfully at WorldSkills (informally known as the ‘Skills Olympics’) since 1953; but in all those 66 years we have failed to properly utilise our involvement in the way other countries do.

Research undertaken by the RSA, in partnership with WorldSkills UK and the Further Education Trust for Leadership (FETL), looked at how four major players in WorldSkills – Russia, Switzerland, Singapore and Shanghai – use competitions to develop their skill systems.

The findings https://www.worldskillsuk.org/media/5968/rsa_globalskillsinnovationuk.pdf

clearly show that the four systems have integrated WorldSkills in a variety of ways to help achieve wider public policy objectives. Examples include: developing their economic strategies; enhancing the status of technical education; and improving standards and quality.  A particularly compelling case study relates to Russia, which only joined WorldSkills as a member in 2012, yet has enjoyed a transformation on an unimaginable scale.

Four participants have integrated to help achieve wider public policy objectives

Russia has one of the world’s largest number of university graduates, together with adult literacy at close to 100 per cent. However, this does not mean that young people in Russia are well-prepared for the workplace. Indeed, Russian employers report considerable difficulties in recruiting suitably skilled staff.  This led to a comprehensive strategic review of its technical and vocational education and training system in 2013, which included expanding opportunities for different sections of the population to gain vocational skills throughout their working lives.

The competition standards developed and used by WorldSkills have been central to these Russian reforms and are fully embedded in their systems. The standards are used to inform assessments, qualifications and training for workers, educators and trainers and also to anticipate future skills challenges. Since the reform and given the commitment to using WorldSkills as a tool for improvement, participation amongst young people in vocational education has increased from 43 per cent to 59 per cent in Russia.

This certainly provides us with food for thought and shows just what can be achieved by learning from other countries. Capitalising on our unique access to the latest global trends in skills development was the driving force behind the WorldSkills UK Productivity Lab, which we set up last year. This programme is designed to help our partners in business, education and governments explore how mainstreaming skills excellence can enhance productivity through sharing global insights and transferring our knowledge and know-how about our training and assessment methodologies.

The Productivity Lab has already generated interest from industry and organisations in the sector who, like us, are passionate about embedding world-class standards. NOCN will be working with us on a programme with industry leaders from the construction and manufacturing industries to provide them with access to the latest global thinking in skills development. This programme will include a “seeing is believing” visit to the WorldSkills competition this summer in Kazan, Russia, where, alongside seeing the development of world-class standards in action, participants will be able to engage with international counterparts and policymakers from 80 countries.

I firmly believe that WorldSkills UK can play an ever more effective role in mainstreaming international benchmarking to help make sure the UK stays at the cutting edge of global best practice in skills development. And this will help with the development of the next generation of world-class technicians that industry needs in order to be more productive and competitive, to attract inward investment and protect and create jobs.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 282

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving.

Joanne Sherrington, Interim principal, Craven College

Start date: May 2019

Previous job: Vice principal (finance and resources), Craven College

Interesting fact: Joanne is a keen musician and fly fisher.

Phil Briscoe, Principal, Nottingham College

Start date: June 2019

Previous job: Vice principal, Barnsley College

Interesting fact: He played semi-professional rugby for 14 years.

Charlotte Briscall, Director of customer experience, digital and data, ESFA

Start date: September 2019

Previous job: Head of digital experience, Sainsbury’s

Interesting fact: She competed in many national dance competitions and went on to qualify as a ballet teacher in her mid 20s.

Insolvency could have been avoided had the ESFA spotted Hadlow College’s crippling loans in 2017

This week the government published the FE Commissioner’s Hadlow College findings and recommendations, based on four visits in February.

The description of what they found in terms of both leadership and financial failure is shocking, but will come as little surprise to FE Week readers.

We have been following the saga since being first to report the departure of the man in the middle of the scandal, the deputy principal at the time, Mark Lumsdon-Taylor.

But the report also hints at a major failing on the part of the Education and Skills Funding Agency in terms of failing to implement their intervention regime.

The report reveals that had the ESFA looked at Hadlow College’s published accounts in December 2017 they would have seen the full extent of the multi-million-pound loans and graded them as being “inadequate” for financial health.

Had that happened, a referral as part of the formal ESFA intervention process would have been made to the FE Commissioner’s team.

It is likely the resulting review would have exposed the seriousness of the situation by mid-2018 and a successful application to the restructuring fund could have been made.

Instead, the financial crisis only came to light in January 2019 after the FE Commissioner was tipped off that the college had run out of cash and the finance director was about to quit.

By then, it was too late to apply to the restructuring fund and the new insolvency regime was being implemented.

So had ESFA staff, more than a year ago, correctly graded the college as “inadequate” for financial health then the administration and “perilous position” as described by skills minister Anne Milton may never have come about.

Milton has said that an independent review will now take place to consider whether the ESFA financial oversight regime is fit for purpose.

The DfE should also review whether a college should ever again be allowed to go without an Ofsted inspection for more than nine years.

Like an ESFA financial score, a visit from Ofsted inspectors following Hadlow College’s falling achievement rates could have triggered FE Commissioner intervention.

The DfE review findings will probably never be published, but keep an eye on the three administrators now taking ownership of the college’s affairs.

They have a legal duty to investigate relevant activities leading up to the court order and will hopefully report on the extent to which the financial failure was hidden from, or missed by, the ESFA.

‘We were genuinely shocked by what we found’

The FE Commissioner, Richard Atkins, was due to visit West Kent and Ashford College following their Ofsted grade three late last year.

In the week before the scheduled visit, he was tipped off by another principal that Hadlow College had run out of cash and the finance director was about to quit.

They had approached the other college for help, but instead, the principal alerted Atkins to what “sounds really serious”. 

Here, in Atkins’ own words, tells FE Week editor Nick Linford what he found when he arrived at Hadlow College in early February.

Four of us went into the college four times in early February, including former principals and chartered accountants, and we were genuinely shocked by what we found.

After the tip-off, they were about to run out of money, I knew when we arrived things were going to be difficult.

When we walked through the door the vice principal, Mark Lumsden-Taylor, had already resigned and was on gardening leave.

He still lived on the premises but had already left his employment by the first day we arrived. 

The principal, Paul Hannan, was in the college on the day we arrived.

He was not well and he left the college at midday to see a doctor and he did not return, and I do not think he ever came back from that moment.

I was also told the vice-principal was suffering from ill-health.

So when I arrived, I was confronted with both the vice principal and principal saying they were suffering from ill health. 

But I was able to meet with key governors and other senior leaders, and it became really obvious to us very quickly – the governors had been failing in their fiduciary duty.

Hadlow was completely running out of money and would not be able to make the payroll in February without exceptional financial support.

There was a real determination not to receive difficult feedback

There had been very poor communication and lack of transparency and we had serious concerns about clerking and about audits.

We could see mission drift, very overly complex subsidiary company arrangements, over-complex relations between the two colleges and governance.

There were also irregularities in additional learning support funding which we had first begun to identify at the end of area review.

Then there were what I would describe as inaccurate self-assessments, with Hadlow still self-assessing as “outstanding” for overall effectiveness and for leadership.

And something I see in a number of colleges that fail – there was a real determination not to receive difficult feedback.

They were still celebrating their Ofsted “outstanding” from nine years previously, and they found any form of difficult feedback during area review, or during our intervention,
very difficult to deal with.

They couldn’t recognise it.

We found things like Betteshanger, which we struggled at first to understand – the vineyard, the cookery school.

Neither seemed to be financially successful, nor core business.

Hadlow would not be able to make the payroll in February

Given the combination of running out of money and the very poor governance and leadership at the college in previous years, it was inevitable this college would end up in
administration.

I’m saddened that has happened, but I think it was absolutely appropriate.

The education administrator has a legal responsibility to take forward investigations into the various concerns we have about what we found when we went there in February, in terms of mismanagement, poor financial info and potential irregularities, of which there are several.

Are you tough enough? FE Commissioner on the hunt for deputy and advisers

The Department for Education is on the hunt for a new deputy FE Commissioner and four advisers for the commissioner’s office.

According to an advert posted on the Cabinet Office website, the deputy commissioner role can earn up to £140,000 a year for a maximum of 200 days’ work and would involve supporting the commissioner, Richard Atkins, in diagnostic assessments, interventions, local provision reviews, and structure and prospects appraisals.

Colleges that are at risk from a quality or financial issue can receive a diagnostic assessment from the commissioner, where their approach to managing risks is appraised.

The much more serious formal interventions involve the commissioner assessing the capacity of the existing governance and leadership at a single, troubled institution, and recommending changes to help its outlook, and that of its learners.

Formal interventions have previously taken place at Hadlow College (see above), West Kent and Ashford College and North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College to name a few.

Local provision reviews were announced in April, and involve looking at an area, rather than an isolated institution.

The DfE was criticised by the Association of Colleges at the time for not including small “non-viable” school sixth forms, which it said are too costly and compromise too much on quality.

A structure and prospects appraisal is currently being carried out at Hadlow, and involves reviewing options for changing an institution’s structure.

Deputy commissioners also lead the FE advisers, who can earn up to £120,000 a year for the same maximum number of days, and who help determine the best way in which further education can be delivered in any given area.

Anyone interested in either role has until midday on 5 June to submit their applications, with final interviews scheduled for between 28 June and 3 July.