Ofsted criticised for delaying 3aaa inspection despite multiple warning signs

Ofsted delayed inspecting the beleaguered Aspire Achieve Advance for years despite its achievement rates plummeting when apprentice numbers nearly quadrupled and severe safeguarding concerns were brought forward by a whistleblower.

An FE Week investigation has uncovered the serious failing by the education watchdog, which has now come under fire from chair of the influential Public Accounts Committee, Meg Hillier, who fears the situation mirrors the Learndirect scandal.

The apprenticeship giant, commonly known as 3aaa, was rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted in October 2014.

Ofsted should have gone in sooner given the sudden plummet in results

Inspectors went back into the provider this year and were due to give it another grade one before declaring the inspection “incomplete” following the launch of a second Education and Skills Funding Agency investigation into its achievement rates.

Since then its co-founders have resigned, the agency has suspended it from recruiting apprentices and the company has put itself up for sale – but is falsely claiming it achieved an ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating in May 2018 and is using that as a key selling point.

In the education watchdog’s 2014 report, 3aaa was lauded for its overall success rates being “high” while rates for completion within the expected timescale were “extremely high”.

Its achievement rates for 2014/15 sat at 82 per cent for teaching a cohort of 560 apprentices.

But a year later when the provider’s apprenticeship numbers nearly quadrupled to just under 2,000 its success rate plummeted to 65 per cent – a 17 percentage point drop.

It placed 3aaa below the national average and close to the government’s minimum standard of 62 per cent.

On top of this, in 2016, the government launched its first investigation into 3aaa and found dozens of funding and success rate “overclaims”. Ofsted was, however, kept in the dark about this significant but confidential report.

But FE Week’s investigation also discovered the watchdog failed to act on serious safeguarding concerns from a whistleblower in May 2017. The complaint was also sent to the ESFA who joined Ofsted in telling the person to take the matter up with the provider instead of taking action, even though the whistleblower was a 3aaa employee and feared losing their job.

An Ofsted document published in May 2018 states that ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ FE providers will be risk assessed based on their “achievement rate data, complaints about provision, and the size and complexity of the provider and any recent changes to these”.

If red flags against those factors are raised then a full inspection should be triggered.

When asked why it failed to go back into 3aaa earlier than this year, Ofsted blamed a lack of funding from the Department for Education for not having enough resource, as well as a change in the way the Education and Skills Funding Agency reported achievement rates.

3aaa previously, however, admitted to FE Week that its success rates drop was nothing to do with the change in algorithm, it was simply a decline in performance.

A spokesperson for the inspectorate said it was still “waiting for further information before deciding when to complete” its current inspection of 3aaa.

We all pay our taxes to get a decent service and people are profiting and not delivering

“No judgement about a provider is final until the inspection has been fully completed, and a report has been published,” she added.

Ms Hillier was sympathetic to the inspectorate for its lack of resource but criticised it for not going in sooner considering the private provider was growing through taxpayers’ money.

She told FE Week it reminded her of the Learndirect saga – where the inspectorate delayed revisiting the nation’s largest FE provider when it put itself up for sale even though its achievement rates plunged and learners suffered from poor training while its government skills contracts grew to £100 million.

When Ofsted finally came knocking, four years after being rated ‘good’, Learndirect was branded ‘inadequate’ and eventually had its government skills contracts taken away.

3aaa’s apprenticeship allocations have grown rapidly since being launched by co-founders Peter Marples and Di McEvoy-Robinson, who resigned from the company last month, in 2008.

Direct ESFA funding has increased from just £390,000 in 2012/13 to more than £31 million in 2017/18.

 

Ofsted’s defence

“Our risk assessment process at the time did identify a decline in performance at this provider during the 2015/16 performance year; achievement rates fell to 65 per cent,” a spokesperson said.

“However, it is worth being aware of the wider context that year, when achievement rates declined nationally to 67 per cent following the strengthening of achievement rate reporting rules introduced by the funding agency.

“As this was the first time performance had declined in this provider, and as performance was around that of similar providers, and not in the bottom 20 per cent of all providers, we did not select this provider for inspection. Ofsted has limited resources and needs to prioritise inspection to providers that are in most need.

“When performance data for 2016/17 was published and risk-assessment completed, although the provider’s performance data had improved to above national rates, our risk assessment process did identify two consecutive years of performance data that suggested the provider was no longer outstanding.

“This data, together with other risk factors led to the provider being selected for inspection. Our risk assessment process is kept under continual review and any lessons learned are incorporated into revised methodology.

“We believe the approach taken to the inspection of this provider is appropriate and proportionate. Inspection and risk-assessment is not all about one year’s data.”

 

PAC chair lays into Ofsted and DfE

The head of the Public Accounts Committee hit out at Ofsted for not going in “sooner” when 3aaa’s success rates sank but learner numbers and apprenticeship funding surged.

“Frankly this is our money, we all pay our taxes to get a decent service and people are profiting and not delivering,” Meg Hiller told FE Week.

Following the Learndirect fiasco last year, the PAC criticised Ofsted for not taking “full account of the company’s size and the consequences for learners of its declining performance”.

Meg Hillier

It recommended the watchdog “urgently” revisits how it “prioritises its use of resources and the different type of risk attached to a private sector failure, in a way that takes account of risks to high numbers of learners and the changing provider-base in FE”.

“Ofsted should have gone in sooner given the sudden plummet in results,” Ms Hillier said when shown the evidence of 3aaa’s size and declining performance.

“If a provider is growing that fast then that should also trigger an inspection.”

Ms Hillier extended her condemnation to the Department for Education for “handing out taxpayers’ money” to private providers without giving the education watchdog “proper resource to inspect them”.

“The resources they [Ofsted] have got are stretched ridiculously thin,” she said.

“They have all these new [apprenticeship] providers they need to keep an eye on and they’re inspecting schools less frequently.

“If we are going to have a market set up like this then we have got to make sure we have the proper safeguards and regulation to do so.”

She continued to lay into the government: “The government should be wary of handing out taxpayers’ money for a private provider to expand.

“You wouldn’t ask someone who is building an extension on your home to suddenly build a new house next door without doing some major checks on their capabilities of doing that.

“It is the learners who get caught up in the middle of this.”

 

Ofsted kept in the dark about damning KPMG report

Ofsted was kept hidden from a damning government investigation into 3aaa in 2016, which found dozens of funding and success rate “overclaims”.

FE Week revealed last week that the investigation, carried out by auditing firm KPGM and code named “Project Vanilla”, was conducted in the same year that the Department for Education gave the provider a £7 million apprenticeships contract increase.

Prompted by a whistleblower, claims about 3aaa included: incorrect start dates resulting in failure to reach minimum duration; incorrect use of “break in learning” status which is inflating success rates; apprentices with long periods without learning activity.

The probe found dozens of “errors which support the allegations or which have an impact on funding of success rates”.

FE Week understands the investigation resulted in the company paying back a substantial six figure sum.

Despite the significant findings of the report, Ofsted was never informed of its existence.

When asked for a response to the KPMG report, a spokesperson for the inspectorate would only say: “We can confirm that Ofsted has no record of being informed about the investigation carried out in 2016.”

FE Week asked the DfE why it hid the report from Ofsted. “We do not comment on individual provider investigations,” is all they would say.

 

Whistleblower’s concerns batted away

A whistleblower raised “serious concerns” about safeguarding of 3aaa “learners’ personal data” in May last year, but both Ofsted and the Education and Skills Funding Agency refused to act on them.

Instead, the person was told to take up the issue with the company itself, even though they were a staff member and feared any complaint would put their job at risk.

The whistleblower said learners were not “protected against safeguarding issues on the internet, such as those detailed in the prevent duty, as we no longer have any form of web filtering”.

“We also have no firewalls in any academy, or even up in the head office where the computers that hold all the student data are,” they added.

“We have had complaints from our students that the site they upload their work to is not even secure – google advises them of this each time they log on, but so far IT have taken no action as far as I can tell.

“None of the laptops used by staff are encrypted – these have got student information on them – what happens if they get stolen?”

The whistleblower concluded: “The company presents a great facade claiming grade one Ofsted, but underneath the surface there are huge issues which need investigating, which will tell a very different story.”

In response to the concerns, the ESFA said: “We understand that you have not issued a formal complaint to the training provider. Therefore, we would not be able to formally investigate your concerns.”

Ofsted also told the whistleblower to “formally raise your concerns through the provider’s own complaint process” but said “a summary of your concerns will be available to the lead inspector for consideration at the provider’s next inspection to assist with their inspection planning or at the next monitoring visit where these are taking place”.

When quizzed by FE Week about the situation, Ofsted confirmed the whistleblower’s complaints were passed onto the 3aaa inspection team.

A spokesperson added: “Ofsted’s role is to inspect and report as we find. We are unable to investigate individual complaints about FE providers – this falls to the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

“Complaints of this kind when received by Ofsted are held so that inspectors can access them when it comes to the next inspection. They are one source of information, that will be considered alongside a range of other information, before arriving at inspection judgements.”

 

3aaa up for sale

3aaa has put itself up for sale with the government’s backing, but is falsely claiming it achieved an ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating in May 2018 and is using it as a key selling point.

The company hired accountancy firm BDO to seek potential bidders and the deadline for indicative offers was October 4.

There are however concerns that the sale will further delay Ofsted’s reinspection of 3aaa, like it did for Learndirect.

The watchdog originally planned to visit Learndirect at the start of November 2016, but agreed to defer its inspection when the provider claimed it was negotiating the sale of its apprenticeships business.

This sale never actually went through but delayed inspection for four months.

Following its inquiry into Learndirect, the Public Accounts Committee told Ofsted to develop a “specific deferral policy for commercial providers, to ensure that learners’ interests always take priority over the pursuit of profit”.

At the time Ofsted said it will “always put the interests of learners before any commercial considerations”.

3aaa finalised a significant cash loan of around £5 million in April 2018 from Beechbrook Capital.

FE Week understands that one reason for the sale is because the terms of that loan have been broken and the lender wants to claim their money back.

It is also understood that the ESFA is supportive of the sale on the basis that its co-founders, Peter Marples and Di McEvoy-Robinson, will not benefit from it financially.

An “investment opportunity” document, code named ‘Project Alphabet’, has been obtained by FE Week and states: “The ESFA has placed a temporary block on new learners whilst an investigation is undertaken in to achievement rates, prompting the shareholders to seek an exit.”

A separate “overview information” document about the sale, claims that the business “delivers the highest quality learning provision with all areas graded outstanding in the draft Ofsted report (May 2018)”.

Fears over ‘market instability’ in rush to roll out AEB devolution

The rushed timeframe ahead of next year’s devolution of the adult education budget means providers will struggle to “hit the ground running” next August and may lead to “market instability”, an expert has said.

The warning comes as the first combined authorities are gearing up to start their tender process this month, with contracts due to be in place in April – just four months before the authorities get control of the cash.

Dr Gareth Thomas (pictured above right), managing director of consultancy firm Skills and Employment Support Limited and an expert on devolution, told FE Week that while the authorities “may be able to complete the procurement and contracting” it was less certain that providers would “be able to adapt their delivery models and put appropriate partnership arrangements in place” in time.

“A lot will depend on how different the delivery requirements look area by area, and how different they are to current requirements,” he said.

“Hitting the ground running from August 1 will be a big challenge.”

There was also a risk of “market instability”, Dr Thomas said, as providers that lose out would be left with little time to “put other arrangements in place”.

This could lead to a “knock-on impact” in other areas, such as apprenticeships, as AEB cash has “previously provided much needed stability for some providers”.

Mark Dawe (above left), chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said that providers were “facing dramatic changes across all their programmes of delivery”.  

“It is the uncertainty as to what is changing when and therefore the ability to plan and vary resource that is and will cause the greatest destabilisation,” he said.

He urged the combined authorities to ensure the “initial transition” is “smooth and avoids destabilisation, but then it should be followed quickly by a clear plan and commissioning of all AEB”.

This approach “appears to align with their thinking”, Mr Dawe said.

The Greater London Authority and six other mayoral combined authorities are due to get control of their AEB funding from 2019/20.

FE Week reported on Monday that the GLA is set to go out to tender next week for £130 million of its estimated £311 million annual budget.

Private providers will be able to bid for their share of the cash in two lots, while grant-funded providers, including colleges, will receive similar allocations to their existing Education and Skills Funding Agency allocations.

Both Tees Valley and the Liverpool City Region combined authorities told FE Week they would be launching their procurement processes by the end of this month.

A Tees Valley spokesperson said its tender would involve a “single stage application process for its current base of over 170 education, skills and training providers”, with a minimum contract value of £50,000.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority didn’t say when it would be going out to tender, but did say it was “currently finalising its procurement plan which will culminate with contracts being awarded in April 2019”.

The West Midlands Combined Authority will be issuing its pre-procurement notice “shortly”, and the procurement process “will be launched early in the new year”, a spokesperson said.

A spokesperson for Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which launched a pre-procurement exercise in July, said further details of its plans would be available shortly.

The West of England Combined Authority said it was still finalising its approach.

Degree apprenticeships a ‘concern’, says skills minister

The skills minister has highlighted the “risks” associated with degree apprenticeships after her predecessor evangelised about how they are his “two favourite words”.

Anne Milton and Robert Halfon engaged in a heated exchange about the high level qualifications during a fringe event at the Conservative party conference.

Mr Halfon, now chair of the education select committee, said there needs to be a “radical change at the Institute for Apprenticeships and a lot more funding” going into degree apprenticeships, which are seen as being central to the government’s plans to put technical education on a par with academic education.

His remark follow comments by IfA chief Sir Gerry Berragan who previously told the committee he was “agnostic” about the qualifications.

The danger is the word degree is linked to universities

Ms Milton jumped to the defence of “poor old Gerry” and said he was “not agnostic” about them, but she and he think “we need to be careful we don’t crowd out levels 2, 3, 4 and 5”.

FE Week’s editor Nick Linford interviewed the skills minister after the showdown and quizzed her on her concerns.

“I think there are risks around degree apprenticeships,” she said.

“One is that all that’s happening is that people who would have gone through a traditional full-time degree are doing a degree apprenticeship.

“That’s great, possibly for the productivity of the country, because you get your degree and you’re working at the same time.

“But actually the whole idea of apprenticeships is that it gives people an opportunity that you wouldn’t otherwise have.”

She added that the “danger” is that the word degree is “linked to universities and one of the problems that I have is struggling to get the word further education out in the public domain”.

“Because the conversation in the mainstream media is about degrees and universities, everyone talks about degrees and universities,” Ms Milton continued.

“Parents think that’s the only option for their children, and so you can end up unwittingly reinforcing the fact that it’s got to be a degree.

“In fact 50 per cent of people don’t go to university, currently. So what’s happening to those 50 per cent? A lot of them had a bad experience at school.

“So FE plays a crucial part. What matters is getting the pathway for people to do even a level one.

“I was talking to the principal from an FE college in Birmingham today, and they’ve just had a graduation ceremony and I think she said 100 students graduated in the ICC.

“Of those students graduating were people who came to them to do level 2 qualifications who never thought in a million years they would do a degree.

“And I don’t want the conversation about degrees to crowd out.”

Asked if degree apprenticeships were in danger of taking the rungs out of Mr Halfon’s ladder of opportunity, she replied: “Or to take the paving stones out on my path.

“The point is that it mustn’t crowd it out. We mustn’t see, because in some jobs level 4 and 5 is absolutely fine.

“And you can go on and get to quite a senior level even run the company without having a degree. Look at me, I don’t have a degree. I got to be minister of state for skills and apprenticeships.”

IfA loses funding rate review battle but uncertainty drags on

An employer group that won an appeal over the Institute for Apprenticeships’ handling of funding rate recommendations is still waiting for a final decision, FE Week can reveal.

We reported in May that the education and training trailblazer group had rejected the IfA’s recommendations for the three FE teaching standards it is developing.

The group lodged an appeal against the IfA’s process, and was told in July that it had succeeded – leading to the original recommendations, which ranged from £5,000 to £9,000, being binned by the appeal panel.

This meant the three standards were sent back to the IfA’s route panel to have new funding bands assigned to them, which should have happened at a meeting on September 13.

Instead, the panel deferred its decision, according to Jo North, chair of the trailblazer group.

She told FE Week that the group hasn’t been told the reason for this delay, only that the panel needed to carry out “further work with training providers to inform the funding band recommendations”.

According to a letter sent by the IfA to Ms North, dated July 5, the group appealed on four bases: failing to comply with agreed procedure; failing to take account of relevant information; making a decision based on a mistake of fact; and the institute exceeding its powers.

The appeal was turned down on three out of four of these points, but “the appeal panel considered it was, on balance, persuaded by some of your arguments” in relation to the first point.

These related to the “transition of the process from the Education and Skills Funding Agency to the institute” and the “request from the trailblazer group regarding their attendance at route panel”.

Ms North told FE Week she had asked three times to attend the meeting and “each time it had been declined saying there was enough expertise on the panel”.

Despite the ruling, she was also excluded from the September meeting – even though she said she was asked to be on standby.

The level five learning and skills teacher standard was first published in August 2015, while the level four assessor/coach and level three learning mentor standards were published in October the same year.

Ms North said the level five standard had actually been approved for delivery in March 2016, subject to a number of small changes, but because of a lack of communication between the ESFA and the IfA this was never published.

That miscommunication had cost “at least 2,500 starts”, Ms North said.

“We want some action. Everyone is wanting to deliver. My inbox is full every day of people wanting it,” she said.

An IfA spokesperson said it was “working to establish appropriate funding bands to support high quality delivery and provide value for money, and bring these standards through to delivery as quickly as possible”. 

“We are grateful to the education and training trailblazer group for all of their hard work so far. We are aware of their concerns, and are already in contact with them to get these resolved.”

Tory conference 2018: what was said about FE and skills?

Brexit is grabbing the headlines. But many debates at the Conservative Party conference concluded that lifelong learning and apprenticeships are central to life beyond March next year, says Stephen Evans

There are some great debates at party conferences if you know where to find them. They’re usually away from the main conference halls, though Damian Hinds’s announcement of new capital funding for T-levels was welcome.

At this year’s Conservative Party conference, there were two main themes at these debates. The first was about next steps on the apprenticeship levy. The chancellor announced that employers would be able to transfer 25 per cent of their levy funds to their supply chain, up from 10 per cent, and that its operation would be reviewed. Speaking to a number of employers and employers’ groups, the key message I picked up was that it needs to be simpler and more flexible, but please don’t rip it up and start again!

The latter point is really important. The levy is a good idea. It needs change, but to start from scratch now would be to repeat past mistakes. Further education is perhaps the most over-reformed sector, to within an inch of its life. What we need now are stability and evolution.

There were some good ideas for this evolution. These include making the standards process quicker and simpler (time for an “even faster and better” initiative from the Institute for Apprenticeships, perhaps?).

We also should benchmark standards against the best in the world, and we definitely need more action on access to apprenticeships. Learning and Work Institute research has shown systematic inequalities, including underrepresentation of people from BAME backgrounds and gender segregation. That’s why we’ve argued for an apprentice premium, targeting extra resources at under-represented groups like the pupil premium does in schools. But whatever the method, we need to turbocharge our efforts on fair access to apprenticeships.

To start from scratch now would be to repeat past mistakes

The second theme was a broader one about getting beyond Brexit and back to the prime minister’s commitment, on taking office, to tackle burning injustices. Living standards have flatlined and it’s clear some people and places feel left behind. The combination of an aging population and a new technological revolution risks worsening these inequalities, unless we act.

Most of the debates I attended argued that more lifelong learning should be part of the answer, but things got a bit vague when it came to how to do this. Apprenticeships, T-levels and the national retraining scheme were all mentioned. But I think we also need an overarching vision, a strategy for how these building blocks fit together.

The good news is that, between us, we’ve got lots of answers. It was great to see so many people from FE taking part in these debates, raising the sector’s profile and providing solutions.

Will all this result in greater investment in FE and lifelong learning? It’s too soon to tell – we’re higher up the political agenda, but it’s a long way to next year’s spending review.

The skills minister Anne Milton told our Festival of Learning reception earlier this year that it’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. To be as squeaky as possible I think we need to:

  • Continue raising our profile. Things like Colleges Week can help show the difference FE makes. But we also need to convince the treasury we’re a good investment.
  • Build a coalition of support. We need employers and leaders from other sectors to say how vital further education is. Sharing personal stories of the impact of learning, as we do through our Festival of Learning, can help.
  • Inspire employers and individuals to learn. This is not just about government. In our survey, the biggest reason individuals give for not learning, is not seeing the relevance. We also need to raise employer investment and engagement. There are lots of great examples of this – how do we scale them up?

Memories of conference debates soon fade; we need to keep the pressure on to win hearts and minds.

How will reducing low-skill foreign workers impact FE?

The UK has long relied on EU workers. Now employers must improve the training of homegrown staff, says Tom Richmond

“What we want to see is people here in the UK being trained to take on the jobs which are available” said the prime minister to Radio 4 listeners during the Conservative Party conference. With almost 1.3 million EU citizens currently employed in low-skill (e.g. cleaning) or lower-middle-skill roles (e.g. drivers), a new set of rules for who can enter the UK might force a major shift in employers’ thinking.

Achieving such a dramatic shift in employers’ attitudes will not happen overnight

Mrs May’s proposed approach is a sensible one. In our report Immigration After Brexit published earlier this year, Policy Exchange called for our immigration system to clamp down on low-skilled EU immigration (with some exceptions such as reintroducing the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme) but adopt a lighter-touch approach for students and professionals who wish to study and work in the UK. This was because we believe that the government must do more to encourage businesses to invest in their staff, particularly lower-skill roles, instead of simply allowing them to import workers from other countries. Since the mid-2000s businesses have too often cut their training budgets after gaining access to huge pools of migrant workers from Eastern Europe. This will no longer be tenable once the prime minister has implemented her new vision.

Several strands of government policy in recent years have attempted to encourage employers to engage with education and training in a more substantive way. For example, employers were asked to design new “apprenticeship standards” for their industry sectors. The new “T-levels” for 16 to 19-year-olds that the government wishes to introduce from 2020 are being overseen by panels of employers in each sector as well.

The apprenticeship levy for large employers that commenced in April 2017 was another clear signal from ministers that they wanted employers to invest more in their staff as part of the drive towards the target for three million apprenticeship starts between 2015 and 2020. Although the target has been frequently criticised (by me and many others) and the design and implementation of the levy have been far from perfect, the underlying goal of making employers pay closer attention to their recruitment and training strategies has only become more important following this country’s vote to leave the EU.

Mrs May’s proposed approach is a sensible one

Achieving such a dramatic shift in some employers’ attitudes will not happen overnight. The levy may have generated hundreds of millions to be spent on training but many low-skill roles that require minimal instruction are being routed through the government’s apprenticeship reforms. When standing at a hotel reception desk or serving customers in a coffee shop are labelled “apprenticeships” by employers, it seems that some businesses are still not taking their responsibilities seriously.

The fact that many employers are choosing to spend their levy money on providing management-training courses (including MBAs) for experienced members of staff will also do little to improve the prospects of current and future employees at the other end of the labour market. What’s more, it remains unclear whether the levy has increased the amount of training provided by each employer or merely encouraged them to rebadge their existing training schemes as “apprenticeships”.

Needless to say, any employer that has continued to recruit UK workers as well as develop and train their employees has no reason to be concerned about a new immigration system. If we are serious about providing better job opportunities, improving our economic productivity and helping people of all ages to progress in their chosen career, an over-reliance on low-skill EU workers is unlikely to help.

Many organisations, both large and small, view investing in their staff as the right decision for their business, and they deserve praise for doing so. Any employer that has not yet shown this same commitment to training and professional development should heed the prime minister’s words sooner rather than later.

Does the IfA really believe in degree apprenticeship?

The IfA’s review of the DTSP will be a key test of whether it really listens to employers (and apprentices), says Mandy Crawford-Lee

The Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA) has started a review of existing standards on the digital route, which includes the flagship Digital Technology Solutions Professional (DTSP) degree apprenticeship.

To date the DTSP has been the most successful degree apprenticeship. It is used by employers that include Accenture, Capgemini, IBM, Lloyds Bank, Fujitsu and Quicksilva and it’s being offered by a growing number of leading institutions, including Aston University, BPP, the Open University, Manchester Metropolitan University, the University of Portsmouth and the University of Salford.

We’ve also seen some really new and innovative delivery partnerships that also involve colleges and independent training providers. Employers love it, as do individuals, and early evidence from the Department for Education’s Degree Apprenticeship Development Fund projects suggest it’s having a positive impact on attracting women into tech roles.

There’s one major negative: the twice-run Education and Skills Funding Agency procurement for non-levy-paying employers means a postcode lottery in the availability of DTSP provision for SMEs. But overall we’ve got the rare example of an English approach to vocational learning that’s applauded and, more importantly, is working for employers and fulfilling the objectives of the apprenticeship programme.

So in terms of the IfA review, if it’s meeting a major skills need, is supported by employers and is starting to make an impact on widening participation and access, then given a bit of updating this should be a formality, shouldn’t it?

Unfortunately, no. The problem is the IfA’s so-called “faster and better” approach to approving apprenticeship standards and assessment plans introduced earlier this year, with negligible consultation. And, more specifically, its mandatory qualification rule.

A trailblazer can only specify a mandatory qualification in an apprenticeship standard, including a degree, if it’s a requirement of a professional body, regulator or used in hard-sifting for job interviews.

This will be a key test of whether it believes in degree apprenticeships

The DTSP meets none of these requirements. If the IfA applies its mandatory qualifications rule to the DTSP, the degree will be removed and the IfA will scuttle its own flagship apprenticeship standard.

This would be a tragedy. The trailblazer, large employers and SMEs have all emphasised the importance of the degree in the apprenticeship and its role in opening up a new talent pipeline to senior level digital occupations. Every DTSP degree apprentice I’ve met says the degree is essential to the credibility and standing of the apprenticeship and is a, if not the, key reason why they chose the apprenticeship route.

To resolve this “problem” UVAC has proposed to the Office for Students (OfS, the higher education regulator), the DfE and the IfA that for the institute’s mandatory qualification, the following criterion be introduced:

“Employers through the trailblazer process can also specify a mandatory degree in an apprenticeship where they can demonstrate its inclusion will support social mobility and is in the interests of employers in the sector (eg, the degree ‘professionalises’ an occupation, helps attract new talent, raises performance standards for the occupation).”

Given the OfS’s role in protecting the student interest, and the importance to a student of a degree in terms of national and international recognition, transferability and the breadth of skills developed, OfS supports our proposal. Not to put too fine a point on it, the IfA’s mandatory qualification rule when applied in higher education runs counter to the student interest – it is OfS’s role to protect this “interest”. I also suspect the DfE will want to ensure the future success of the DTSP. But the decision will rest with the IfA.

The IfA’s approach to the review of the DTSP will be a key test of whether it believes in degree apprenticeships, whether it really listens to employers, if it wants to transform apprenticeship in England into an aspirational choice and if it’s committed to ensuring we have an employer-led apprenticeship programme that delivers the skills needed by the UK economy. We would support leaving this one to carry on as it is without tinkering and, instead, concentrate review resources on standards that are less successful at delivering core objectives.

Dame Asha WILL stay on the IfA board despite West Notts resignation

Dame Asha Khemka remains a “valued” Institute for Apprenticeships board member and will not be leaving the role, despite her resignation from West Nottinghamshire College earlier this week.

FE Week reported yesterday that the institute had refused to say if it still backed Dame Asha, more than 48 hours after news broke of her departure from WNC.

This morning a spokesperson finally confirmed that “Dame Asha Khemka remains a valued member of the IfA board”, even though she is no longer a serving principal.

Dame Asha, who led WNC from 2006, stepped down from the top job on Monday following a “special meeting of the board of governors” held “in light of the current challenges faced by the college”.

It was forced to go to the Education and Skills Funding Agency in July for a £2.1 million bailout, just 48 hours before it would have run out of cash.

Dame Asha was one of two college principals appointed to the IfA’s board in January 2017.

She is also a member of the Cabinet Office’s education honours committee, which is responsible for reviewing honours nominations for people involved in education.

This is a fixed-term position, and the Cabinet Office confirmed on Tuesday that she will remain in post until her contract expires.

Dame Asha was one of the most highly-paid principals in the FE sector, with a remuneration package worth £262,000 in 2016/17.

She receives £15,000 a year for her role on the IfA board. Following her appointment last year, a spokesperson for WNC refused to say whether Dame Asha would keep the money herself or give it to the college.

 

IfA silent on support for board member Dame Asha following resignation

The Institute for Apprenticeships has refused to say if it is backing its board member Dame Asha Khemka, after she resigned from West Nottinghamshire College on Monday.  

The former principal was one of just two FE college leaders appointed to the IfA’s board in January last year.

FE Week reported on Monday that she had stepped down from the top job at WNC following a “special meeting of the board of governors” held “in light of the current challenges faced by the college”.

It was forced to go to the Education and Skills Funding Agency in July for a £2.1 million bailout, just 48 hours before it would have run out of cash.

Despite this, the IfA has so far remained silent about Dame Asha’s position on its board – despite numerous enquiries.

However, its website still lists her as one of 10 board members.

According to the job advert for the role, advertised by the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in June 2016, applicants should be “senior figures with expertise in business, employer representatives, academics, and other senior representatives with expertise in particular aspects of apprenticeships and skills”.

Dame Asha is also a member of the Cabinet Office’s education honours committee, which is responsible for reviewing honours nominations for people involved in education.

This is a fixed-term position, and the Cabinet Office has confirmed she will remain in post until her contract expires.

Dame Asha was one of the most highly-paid principals in the FE sector, with a remuneration package worth £262,000 in 2016/17.

In addition she received £15,000 a year for her role on the IfA board. Following her appointment last year, a spokesperson for WNC refused to say whether Dame Asha would keep the money herself or give it to the college.

The college has hit financial troubles in the past year.

Earlier this year WNC blamed changes in apprenticeship subcontracting rules, which reduced their income from management fees, for having to cut more than 100 jobs in an effort to make £2.7 million in savings.

Board minutes from April say the college was running low on reserves which were below the £9 million set in its banking covenants. 

The minutes also reveal the college’s worryingly low cash days – the number of days an organisation can continue to pay its operating expenses given the amount of cash available.

For colleges these are benchmarked by the FE Commissioner at 25 but they sat at just 11 for WNC, according to the minutes.

The college’s accounts for 2016/17 have yet to be published.