Colleges are being invited to bid for cash in a new round of the strategic college improvement fund – but it’s unclear how much is left in the £15 million pot.

A pilot for the SCIF was run last year in which 14 struggling colleges shared £2 million (the winners of which can be found here).

The Department for Education then reopened bidding in June for the first official round, but the winners from this haven’t been finalised yet, leaving it unclear how much of the remaining £13 million has been used up.

Despite this, the DfE has today launched another tender round for new bids. A spokesperson said this was to ensure colleges have enough time to submit their expressions of interests.

This will mean more opportunities for people to access high-quality education and training

The SCIF was created to allow struggling colleges, with the support of a stronger institution, to gain extra cash to help them improve in specific areas.

“I’m thrilled to invite even more colleges to apply for funding from the SCIF,” said skills minister Anne Milton.

“By working together with top colleges, they will get the support they need to make sure their learners get the very best education and training. This will mean more opportunities for people right across the country to access high-quality education and training.”

Applications for stage one of this second round are due by December 3.

To be eligible, FE and sixth-form colleges must be rated grade three or four either for overall effectiveness or in any of a number of headline fields, including outcomes for learners, and leadership and management, in their most recent Ofsted inspection report.

A recently merged college will be eligible to apply if at least one of the pre-merger institutions meets this criteria.

The area of improvement must have been identified during a recent Ofsted visit, a diagnostic assessment carried out by the FE commissioner, or another commissioner intervention.

They must have a “suitable approach for addressing this need” and “have the capacity and capability to deliver the improvement activities that they’re proposing”.

The college will be expected to work with a stronger partner, which will use its expertise to bring about the changes, but they do not need to have identified a partner for stage one.

Partners could be – but do not have to be – a college headed up by one of the National Leaders of FE (NLFE), which is a group of seven leaders from ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ colleges.

Colleges will be told by January 11, 2019 if they’ve made it through stage one.

Many colleges are now harnessing the best practice that exists within the sector

The DfE said it expects to launch a third round of applications in “winter 2019”.

The SCIF is one of a number of new initiatives intended to support colleges at risk of failing before they hit rock bottom.

Other measures include the NLFE programme and the FE commissioner’s diagnostic assessments which help struggling colleges identify areas where they need to improve.

Sixth Form Colleges Association chief executive Bill Watkin said: “The SCIF has already made a difference to several colleges and the students who attend them, with its focus on identifying where needs are and how those needs can best be met.

“We are delighted that round two has been launched and highly recommend that colleges take this opportunity to work with each other to raise, and sustain, standards across the sector.”

Deputy FE commissioner SCIF lead Teresa Kelly added: “It is very exciting that the SCIF has been taken up so positively by the sector and is proving to be a significant tool for quality improvement in colleges.

“Through the SCIF many colleges are now harnessing the best practice that exists within the sector and applying proven best practice in order to improve the quality of their offer and provision.”

The list of successful colleges and their partners from the first application round will be published later this month, the DfE said.

Ofqual has launched a consultation into how best to regulate the government’s new digital skills qualifications, which will be provided for free to adults lacking in basic skills.

The exam regulator’s proposals for the new qualifications include not setting any rules on the number of assessments required and implementing a single pass/fail grading model.

All adults without basic digital skills will be able to enrol on the new qualifications free of charge from 2020, as previously reported by FE Week.

Free digital skills training for adults was first announced by the government in October 2016, and became law in April 2017 as part of the Digital Economy Act. Funding for the courses will come from the existing £1.5 billion annual adult education budget.

The Department for Education launched its own consultation into the new national standards for digital skills last month, including plans for new qualifications at ‘beginner’ and ‘essential’ levels.

The Ofqual consultation document said the DfE has “set out an expectation that flexibility and innovation should be encouraged in the development of these new qualifications” to ensure that the needs of a “diverse range of learners” can be met.

“We recognise however that the more flexibility we allow in the design of the qualifications, the less comparable the qualifications offered by different awarding organisations will be. This is an inevitable trade off.”

One of the proposals Ofqual is consulting on is the requirement to make sure that all basic digital skills qualifications comply with all the skills areas set out in the DfE’s standards once they are drawn up.

“We think that this is key to ensuring that learners gain the digital skills needed for life, work and further study, as government intends,” the consultation document said.

“We are not proposing to set any detailed rules on the number of assessments required, assessment time or availability of assessments.

“While this approach may reduce the comparability of assessments offered by different awarding organisations, we feel that it is important that awarding organisations have flexibility to design qualifications that meet the needs of various groups of adult learners, and that it is valuable to users for these qualifications to be available on demand.”

Ofqual is also consulting on whether to allow “unitisation” within the new qualifications, and is proposing that centres should be permitted to mark the beginner level qualifications, while essential level qualifications should be marked by awarding organisations.

It is also proposing to make it a condition that learners have a minimum of 45 hours guided learning time, carrying out a “technical evaluation” of all new qualifications to consider their design and proposed delivery and requiring all awarding organisations to develop an assessment strategy document to explain their approach to each qualification.

 The consultation is open for 10 weeks, and will close on January 13.

The government has launched its Trip Advisor-style review tool to let employers rate apprenticeship providers, and Ofsted intends to use the data to inform inspections.

The tool, called “what employers are saying”, allows employers who have registered apprentices on the apprenticeship service to feed back on specific aspects of their programmes.

Employers rate training providers on a four-point scale, ranging from ‘excellent’ to ‘very poor’. They can also identify the provider’s strengths and weaknesses from a list, but are not able to submit any written responses.

The feedback is not moderated before it appears online, and is visible to anyone searching for a  specific training provider. Apprentice feedback is also being gathered, but the Education and Skills Funding Agency says this is in a test phase and is not ready for publication yet.

A spokesperson for Ofsted confirmed it was still establishing how it will use the data. He said the inspectorate “is in discussion with the ESFA about the sharing of information”.

Speaking at a fringe event at the Conservative party conference earlier this month, skills minister Anne Milton said that allowing employers and apprentices to give “smiley faces” as reviews of training providers is a better indicator of quality than “tickbox” inspections, which she said “often miss the point”.

When asked if employers who train apprentices directly will be able to give feedback on themselves, a spokesperson for the ESFA said users will be told not to give feedback if there is a conflict of  interest, and the tool’s terms of reference will be updated to clarify that.

FE Week took a look at some of the reviews given to some of the country’s biggest training providers.

The largest, Bristol’s Lifetime Training Group, had 15,210 apprentices in 2016/17, according to the ESFA’s latest achievement-rate data, on a range of qualifications from hospitality to childcare.

As of October 26, it had received 76 reviews, including 24 votes for ‘excellent’ (31.5 per cent), and 44 for ‘good’ (58 per cent). Voters judged its strengths as including reporting on the progress of apprentices, communicating with employers and providing the right training at the right time.

The provider had an employer satisfaction rating of 86.4 per cent in the most recent FE Choices survey, published last week, and has been rated ‘good’ by Ofsted since July 2012.

Slough-based IT and business specialist QA, which had 2,230 apprentices in 2016/17, had the most reviews of the large providers, having received 134 appraisals from employers as of October 26.

 Of these, 14 per cent (19) rated the provider as ‘excellent’ and 58 per cent (78) said it was ‘good’. However, 27 reviews (20 per cent) judged it as ‘poor’, and 10 (7 per cent) as ‘very poor’. Employers listed QA’s strengths, including improving the skills of apprentices and its training facilities, but said it could improve on reporting on progress and communication.

According to FE Choices, QA has an employer-satisfaction rate of 85.6 per cent, and it is currently rated as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted.

 Kaplan Financial, based in Manchester with 2,530 apprentices in 2016/17 on courses including law, accounting and finance, received 119 reviews. Of these, 17 (14 per cent) were rated ‘excellent’ and 77 (65 per cent) were rated ‘good’. It also received 16 (13 per cent) ‘poor’ reviews and nine (7.5 per cent) ‘very poor’ reviews.

Employers were most impressed by the provider’s facilities and ability to get new apprentices  started and to work with small numbers of apprentices, but said it could improve on communicating and adapting to the needs of employers.

In comparison, Kaplan Financial – which is rated ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted – had a lower employer satisfaction of 74.6 per cent in the FE Choices survey.

Finally, the tool has been positive for West Sussex’s HIT Training, which specialises in hospitality and catering and had 8,460 apprentices in 2016/17.

Of the 50 reviews the provider has received, 20 (40 per cent) rated it as ‘excellent’ and 28 (56 per cent) as ‘good’. HIT Training received an  employer satisfaction rating of 94.2 per cent in the FE Choices survey, and is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted. 

Prime providers should demand a higher top-slice from “risky” subcontractors to reflect the extra work that comes with them, according to new subcontracting guidance from a leading FE body.

The Association of Colleges’ guidance, published on October 22, tells main providers that “risk is a key assessment factor when determining fees and charges” and should be assessed “in addition to all due diligence checks”.

Other FE representative bodies have warned that providers should not be working with any subcontractor deemed to be a risk, but the AoC’s head of policy, Teresa Frith, has insisted the policy is sensible for providers who are having to spend more time and money with subcontractors with whom they have less of a relationship.

She told FE Week: “The amount of money you charge should reflect the level of risk, which should in turn reflect the amount of provision and support you provide to that subcontractor.

“In the whole of the apprenticeship world now, it is not in any way one-size-fits-all. It’s supposed to fit the circumstance you find yourself working with.

“If I don’t know you the risk of working with you is much higher for me. Because I am the main provider, I’m the one exposed. It’s my responsibility to spend the money wisely.”

She added: “It’s certainly not saying ‘just charge more because you can because they’re higher risk’. The service you provide has to reflect the risk.”

The guidance document said risks could include the duration or value of the contract, its geographical spread, previous track record and the qualifications and turnover of a subcontractor’s staff, and main providers need “a method of scoring risks in order to determine how the level of risk exposure is reflected within the fees and charges offered for each subcontract”.

In March, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, Collab Group and HOLEX put their names to best-practice guidance on subcontractors, which included a stipulation that management fees charged by main providers should not be more than 20 per cent of the programme funding.

FE Week has discovered many examples of colleges charging much bigger top-slices in recent years. Stephenson College, for example, charges up to 57 per cent management fees, and John Ruskin College charged 39 per cent on average in 2016/17. Five other colleges charged top-slices of over 30 per cent in 2016/17.

AoC’s individual guidance states that if the lead provider is not directly delivering anything related to the subcontractor’s provision then “it would be highly unusual for any fee to exceed 20 per cent and generally it would be expected to be less”.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of AELP, said the association was “encouraged” by the AoC’s agreement on the 20 per cent figure, but added: “Our view is that anything above this would suggest a level of risk that the lead provider simply shouldn’t be taking on.”

Sue Pember, director of policy at HOLEX, said it was “reassuring” there was “consensus over the benefits of quality subcontracting”.

 “If more than 20 per cent is kept back over management costs, there is a concern that the learner experience will be compromised and a question over why use that subcontractor if they need intensive costly support,” she added.

 The guidance document was written with input from bodies including the Education and Skills Funding Agency and Ofsted, but neither would be drawn on whether they support the recommendations.

 A spokesperson for the ESFA pointed FE Week to its existing guidance on subcontracting, including plans to publish its “final expectations” by the end of the year, but would not comment whether it supported the AoC’s approach to risky subcontractors.

 An Ofsted spokesperson said the inspectorate had provided input on how it inspects subcontracted provision, but it was not in its remit to “advise or comment about the financial contracts” between providers and subcontractors.

Mystery surrounds a “confidential” review of further education in Cornwall as pressure grows on the region’s two colleges to work more closely together.

Glimpses into the workings of the secretive review have come as Cornwall College Group announced the resignation of its principal amid an ongoing struggle to secure emergency government funding.

The review, which began in June, came at the urging of Cornwall Council. FE Week understands the council wrote to skills minister Anne Milton to persuade the government to look into post-16 education in the county.

Truro and Penwith College has just over 5,000 16-18-year-old learners, while Cornwall College – which has previously been warned over falling learner numbers – has closer to 3,500.

The secret review comes after an area-review report covering Cornwall, as well as Somerset, Devon and the Isles of Scilly, was published in August 2017 without recommending any mergers.

However, it did recommend “collaboration” between Cornwall College and Truro and Penwith College, including the establishment of “a joint project group with an independent chair to oversee the relationship between the colleges and facilitate closer collaboration”.

This closer collaboration was to include the delivery of higher education, apprenticeships and provision for students with high needs, as well as future curriculum developments at the new Callywith College.

“By working together on areas of mutual interest the colleges will be able to reduce unhelpful competition,” the report said.

However, this formal collaboration has never materialised, and the two colleges remain as rivals.

The review is a source of concern for Truro and Penwith College, which said its governors were asked by the FE commissioner to “take part voluntarily in a confidential wider post-16 review of Cornwall to assist with ongoing interventions at Cornwall College in their ‘fresh start’ process”.

A spokesperson added: “Some interim drafts with a range of potential recommendations have been produced for discussion at the review meetings. Several of these draft recommendations do not reflect the position of governors here.”

 More information on the draft recommendations, the reasons behind the review or its scope have not been forthcoming. The Department for Education confirmed it was conducting the review “following a request from Cornwall Council” but would not go into any further details and Cornwall Council would only confirm it was participating. Cornwall College and the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership, which is also taking part, would not comment.

Cornwall College Group, which received £4.5 million emergency funding in 2016/17 and £3.5 million in 2017/18, is still waiting to hear if it has been successful in applying for a restructuring grant, rumoured to be in the region of over £30 million.

On Wednesday, it announced that its principal and chief executive Raoul Humphreys was resigning.

In a statement, Mr Humphreys said he was “proud of the contribution that I have made in leading the college’s recent financial recovery and getting close to finalising a refinancing package through the fresh start programme.

 “To expedite this process, I have decided to step down with immediate effect to allow a new team to implement the next phase of the college’s development.”

Announcing the resignation in an email to staff, chair of governors Ian Tunbridge said the board was “optimistic about the future as we go through the fresh start and the post 16 Cornwall review”.

The fresh start approach means colleges must commit to significantly changing their business or operating model, including potentially changing senior leadership. It is not clear if the fresh start approach or the resignation of Mr Humphreys – who is the seventh high profile resignation since September 25 – is connected to the post-16 review.

 An FE commissioner assessment summary of the college group, published in July 2017, said Mr Humphreys and the new leadership team were not responsible for the “loss of financial control” experienced by the college under the previous principal Amarjit Basi, who resigned in July 2016 with a £200,000 payout.

 The report specifically noted “increased competition in the technical and vocational market from Truro and Penwith College” as one of the key challenges facing the college, and warned that it had a “significant problem” with small class sizes caused by “the specialist and highly technical nature of some of its courses and also the low attainment of a larger-than average percentage of many of its students”.

The spokesperson for Truro and Penwith College said the “close working” between the rival colleges would “follow the outcome of the fresh start process, which will restore stability to Cornwall College”.

A total failure of leadership and governance at a cash-strapped London college are laid bare in a new FE commissioner report, published today.

Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College received two visits from Richard Atkins and his team over the summer, prompted by its precarious financial position which has now left it dependent on government bailouts for its survival.

The subsequent report, published today, catalogues a series of failings by the college’s former principal, Garry Phillips, and its governing body and recommends placing the college in administered status – a recommendation accepted by skills minister Anne Milton. 

“Governance urgently requires improvement. The leadership provided by the chair of the board is ineffective,” it said.

“The relationship between clerk, chair and principal / CEO, those holding power, was over supportive and referred to it as being ‘cosy’, with little challenge and feeling a difficulty in asking questions,” the report said.

Furthermore, “it would appear from comments made in meetings that the principal / CEO did not share information and that decision making was held tightly at the top, not cascaded, debated or explained”.

Mr Phillips announced his departure from the college in March. Despite EHWLC’s financial difficulties, he received a 31 per cent pay rise in 2016/17, up to £260,000 – making him the fifth highest paid principal in the country.

“The principal / CEO left in early July to take up a principal’s post at City College Plymouth. His departure was announced, staff noted, at approximately the same time that they found the executive director finance had left.”

The college’s former chair, Tony Alderman, has also now left.

None of the governors interviewed by Mr Atkins’ team “said that they had received an effective induction that equipped them for their role and some noted that their requests for training and support had not been followed up”.

“Governors expressed frustration that this meant they were then not in a position to fully grasp issues, question or challenge,” it said.

They also expressed “concern” that “they had not been kept abreast of issues and some felt they had been misled”.

“The chair said that information given to governors was not always accurate.”

The college’s finance and general purposes committee only met twice in 2017/18, the report said, “the first being attended by only the chair and the principal / CEO, the second by all four members, but the June meeting was cancelled”.

It continued: “There is neither an accountant nor someone with property experience sitting on this committee: it was unlikely that the membership would have been able to provide sufficient support or challenge even if all three meetings had taken place and been attended.”

The report notes that a “lack of holistic and measured strategic thinking and direction in the college leadership and governance” had been noted by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

Merger discussions, including a planned partnership with Kensington and Chelsea College that was quashed by Mr Atkins earlier this year, are described as “a distraction at best and some without obvious perceived advantages”.

As a consequence of these failing, the college had an “immediate need for external cash flow support” and would be “unable to meet its commitments from early October without support”.

According to the college’s published accounts, it went from a £5.7 million surplus in 2015/16, to an £8 million deficit in 2016/17.

“It is recommended that, given prevailing financial concerns and historic financial performance over a number of years, further consideration be given to conducting an external review to test whether there is a sustainable financial position for the college going forward,” the report said.

Karen Redhead took over as principal at the college at the beginning of September.

“There is an urgent need for the new principal to recruit to and stabilise the leadership team,” the report said.

“The college welcomes the support given by the FE commissioner and is already making rapid progress addressing the recommendations in the report,” a spokesperson for the college said.

 “The intervention, based on emerging short-term financial pressures and recent turnover of managers, will give our leadership team access to some of the best expertise available.”

“We are delighted with the recent appointment of Karen Redhead to the role of chief executive and principal and the expertise that she will bring.”

Multiple training providers have attempted to poach staff and apprentices from the now-defunct Aspire Achieve Advance using underhand tactics – and have been warned their own funding could be withdrawn because of it.

Apprenticeship giant 3aaa was put into compulsory liquidation last week after it ceased trading on October 11 when the government pulled its skills contracts following a second investigation into success-rate inflation.

The scandal, which has since been reported to the police, put 500 people out of work and left up to 4,500 apprentices without a training provider.

We’re considering whether we stop a small number of providers from delivering because of the action they’re taking

Many of the company’s top former seniors have already found themselves new employment at other training providers.

However, an FE Week investigation has found that some of their new employers have since been “misrepresenting their position” to others affected by the 3aaa collapse, in an effort to recruit them.

Tactics include alleged false claims that the Education and Skills Funding Agency and 3aaa have asked the providers to take on hundreds of people affected.

Questions have been raised about how these providers were able to obtain private email addresses of staff, apprentices and employers – leading to concerns that general data protection regulation laws have been breached.

There is said to be £17 million of on-programme payments due for apprentices affected – a huge prize for anyone that can win transfers.

Keith Smith, the ESFA’s director of apprenticeships, told the Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference this week that he is aware of questionable actions by some providers in the wake of the 3aaa collapse and warned them that there could be severe ramifications.

“We’ve had a few providers who’ve been misrepresenting their position,” he said.

“Now, I have to say to those providers, when you do that, you’re putting your own position at risk. And we’re considering whether we stop a small number of providers from delivering because of the action they’re taking in relation to this example.

“There’s no place for people to come in and misrepresent to people who are feeling very vulnerable at this stage, employers and apprentices.”

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the AELP, added: “One thing I want to make clear – when we hear from the ESFA that providers are telling employers they are officially appointed by the ESFA to take on 3aaa learners, when no such thing has happened – lies in other words – I couldn’t agree more with Keith Smith. Those providers need the book thrown at them.”

Babington is a large provider with ESFA contracts worth more than £16 million in 2017/18. It has taken on 3aaa’s former operations director.

This person was part of a group of around 40 affected 3aaa staff that was kept on and paid by the ESFA until the end of October to help with the transfer of apprentices.

Babington told FE Week it was ready to take on a “few hundred learners” from the collapsed company, but would not comment on how many affected staff would be joining.

An email, seen by FE Week, from the provider to one former 3aaa employee who claims to have had no intention of joining the company, states that Babington is “delighted to be able to offer you a position”.

The recipient, who did not want to be named, is concerned about how Babington got hold of their personal contact details.

Babington said it takes its obligations under GDPR “very seriously” and it was “unaware of any specific breach regarding communications to former 3aaa learners or employers”.

Geason Training has meanwhile taken on 3aaa’s former quality director.

It is understood that the provider, which has never been inspected by Ofsted or had its own ESFA contract, is trying to recruit around 40 other former 3aaa staff.

One concerned senior FE executive, who did not want to be named, said: “We have supported over 30 non-levy employers who had apprentices with 3aaa. What has happened subsequently has been astonishing. Within days, these employers had taken calls and emails from their former 3aaa assessor stating that they will be transferring the apprentice to Geason.

“Some emails included a second email to be forwarded to the apprentice themselves and the apprentice was even named. The speed with which the plan was executed could only have happened if the provider had access to 3aaa learner-and-employer data.”

Geason’s director, Robert Kilpatrick, said: “Geason Training’s focus has been ensuring that [3aaa] apprentices are able to continue their programmes with as little disruption as possible and that the loss of employees who are highly knowledgeable and experienced in the industry is avoided.

It’s a criminal offence to obtain or share personal information without the consent of the controller

“Geason has been liaising with ESFA since the liquidation of 3aaa to ensure that we are doing all we can to support this.”

He would not comment on how his company obtained employer and apprentice personal information.

Estio Training, a provider that received its first direct apprenticeships contract last year, which totalled £1.7 million, has taken on 3aaa’s sales director.

It has offered to backdate pay for any 3aaa staff to the start of October if they join the company. Lee Meadows, the provider’s commercial director, told FE Week they were looking to recruit around 30 staff and 300 apprentices.

One email, attempting to poach a former 3aaa apprentice, said: “3aaa have reached out to us at Estio to help out with the transfer of nearly 4,500 apprentices on to new courses and they have asked us to contact you regarding your current course.

“Estio are offering the same digital marketer course as 3aaa and we can transfer you over to us let you continue your apprenticeship where you left off with 3aaa.”

Estio would not respond to repeated requests for comment about this email.

FE Week understands letters have been sent to some providers from the ESFA telling them to stop misrepresenting themselves. The agency did not deny this.

A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner’s Office said: “It’s a criminal offence under Section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018 to obtain or share personal information without the consent of the controller.”