Controversial management fees in subcontracting are set to be capped for the first time, FE Week can reveal.
The Greater London Authority has set out plans to introduce a 20 per cent limit on top slices for adult skills provision when devolution kicks in next year.
It follows sector-wide concerns that in many cases cash meant for learning has been diverted as prime providers levy what are widely seen as excessive management fees to cover administrative costs.
The Department for Education’s decision about introducing a cap was kicked into the long grass in August – delaying any verdict until at least the end of 2018 despite calls for a quick outcome.
We are not convinced that establishing a ‘norm’ on subcontractor fees would be helpful
But while ministers continue to mull over their decision, London mayor Sadiq Khan (pictured) has made up his mind and is currently changing the GLA’s funding rules.
A briefing document published ahead of a GLA meeting about the adult education budget this month states two “key proposed changes in our approach, compared with that of ESFA” regarding “conditions of funding”.
The main change includes a “requirement for providers to seek approval for any in-year changes to subcontracting and a proposed cap of 20 per cent on subcontracting fees”.
The briefing document also provides an interim analysis report of the consultation responses gathered through the GLA’s ‘Skills for Londoners Framework’.
“There was majority support for a 20 per cent cap on subcontractor management fees, providing higher or varied fees could be negotiated where required,” it said.
A GLA spokesperson told FE Week the cap will apply to all funding, both procured contracts and grant awards.
The news of the limit is likely to send alarm bells ringing at London providers that charge higher than 20 per cent top-slices as it will make a heavy dent in their income.
Using ESFA subcontracting data for 2016/17, FE Week identified eight colleges that entered arrangements where they charged more than 20 per cent fees.
At Capital City College, for example, it had subcontracting deals totalling £1,159,424 last year and top-sliced £486,280, or 42 per cent.
If the GLA’s 20 per cent cap had been introduced last year the college would have lost £254,391.
The college group said its member, the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London, would be most affected by the limit.
“The college negotiates its management fees with sub-contractors based on the extent of services it provides,” said CONEL’s interim principal Kurt Hintz.
“Any caps, although well intended, will interfere with this process and make sub-contracting less flexible and potentially disadvantage or exclude especially unique or small providers from accessing the support they need from a large ‘prime’ contractor.”
New City College, which had top-slices of up to 34 per cent in 2016/17 for AEB deals, told FE Week it did not support the proposed cap as it believes it is “motivated by the wrong reasons”.
“Some smaller providers need substantial support to build their capacity and this justifies a higher subcontracting fee,” a spokesperson said.
Richmond upon Thames College had management fees reaching 31 per cent last year.
Mary Vine-Morris
Its principal, Robin Ghurbhurun, said that while a 20 per cent cap is “not unreasonable” and it poses no problem for the college “as we have planned to move” to the amount, there should be the “flexibility to locally negotiate a higher per cent rate if additional services are provided”.
Given the college responses, it came as no surprise that the Association of Colleges wasn’t supportive of the plan.
“We are not convinced that establishing a ‘norm’ on subcontractor fees would be helpful,” said Mary Vine-Morris, the AoC’s area director for London.
“Subcontracting receives misleading attention. It can be an enabling mechanism that allows smaller organisations and niche providers to contribute to the delivery of a comprehensive package of learner support.”
Several FE sector representative groups, with the notable exception of the AoC, published best practice guidance in March stating that management fees in subcontracting should not be more than 20 per cent.
Mark Dawe, boss of the AELP – which led on the guidance – welcomed the GLA’s cap.
“This means more taxpayers’ money reaches frontline delivery for the benefit of London’s businesses and adult learners,” he told FE Week.
“There is no reason why the 20 per cent cap shouldn’t be adopted as a maximum nationally and in many cases it should be substantially less.
“We very much welcome the lead that the GLA has taken on this.”
Phil Sayles, principal and chief executive, Selby College
Start date: September 2018
Previous job: deputy principal, RNN Group
Interesting fact: When Phil was doing his A-levels at South Nottinghamshire College, his part-time jobs included ‘Chilli juggling’ and ‘cheese sprinkler’
Chris Todd, principal and chief executive, Derwentside College
Start date: September 2018
Previous job: Acting principal, Northumberland College
Interesting fact: Chris claims to be the strongest FE principal in the sector, with a powerlifting total of 655kg
Alan Pease, deputy principal, Suffolk New College
Start date: August 2018
Previous job: Assistant principal, South Essex College
Interesting Fact: Alan had trials with Norwich City Football Club in his youth and is a keen music lover
Bill Meredith, principal and chief executive, Bishop Burton College
Start date: August 2018
Previous job: Deputy principal, Bishop Burton College
Interesting fact: Bill began his career as a field trials officer in North Wales and claims he can still identify every native grass species
The Association of Colleges has this morning published its proposed new senior staff pay code for colleges.
FE Week revealed last night that refreshed remuneration guidance was being developed as top level pay across the education sector continues to be heavily scrutinised.
A consultation for the new code, which encompasses “three core principles: fairness, independence and transparency”, has now been launched.
FE Week has pulled out the main proposals.
1. Seniors mustn’t get a pay rise unless all staff do
Tension within some colleges between lecturers and their bosses have intensified over recent years as leaders enjoy bumper wage increases while pay for lower-level staff has reportedly failed to keep up with inflation.
The AoC wants to put a stop to this.
“Senior post holder remuneration should be determined in the context of each college’s approach to rewarding all its staff, and in particular, consideration should be given annually to the rate of increase of the average remuneration of all other staff,” it recommends.
2. The top boss cannot be involved in deciding pay
No individual should be involved in determining their own remuneration, according to the AoC.
Principals are often members of their pay committees to act as an observer without voting rights.
But the association’s new code says the chief executive/principal must “not be a member of the remuneration committee” in any circumstance.
“Remuneration committees must be independent, competent and should not be chaired by the chair of the governing body,” it adds.
3. Colleges should publish principal salaries publicly and separately to all senior staff
Although the AoC says each college should provide justification for senior post holders remuneration to its governing body, it wants the remuneration of the chief executive/principal to be “separately justified, published and related to the remuneration of all staff within the organisation”.
Colleges should publish a “readily accessible annual statement, based on an annual report to its governing body” for senior pay.
This should include: a list of senior post holders within the remit of remuneration committee; its policy on the remuneration for post holders within the remit of Remuneration Committee; its choice of comparator college(s)/organisation(s); its policy on income derived from external activities; the pay multiple of the principal and the median earnings of the institution’s whole workforce, illustrating how that multiple has changed over time and, if it is significantly above average, an explanation of why; and an explanation of any significant changes.
4. Keep bonus and severance payments ‘fair and reasonable’
“Awards made in respect of annual bonus arrangements linked to the achievement of specific annual objectives should not be consolidated,” the AoC recommends.
“Any severance payments must be reasonable and justifiable.”
5. Seniors must justify income they receive from outside organisations
The AoC recommends that there should be a “clear and justifiable rationale for the retention of any income generated by an individual from external bodies in a personal capacity”.
This would apply to any college seniors who are members of the Institute for Apprenticeships board, for example, who are paid £15,000 a year.
Three new apprenticeship providers have been found to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in at least one area under review this week – but it’s yet to be seen what the repercussions will be.
Elsewhere, an independent learning provider was rated ‘good’ following its first ever inspection, in the only full FE and skills report published this week.
Leaders at Care Training Solutions Limited was slammed for their “not effective enough” management and for having “not implemented any governance arrangements”.
The Oxfordshire provider was deemed to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in all three areas under review, in a report published September 14 and based on a visit in early August.
There were just 16 apprentices on programme at the time inspectors visited the provider, which was previously a sub-contractor before getting a place on the register of apprenticeship training providers in May 2017.
The “vast majority” of these were making “slow progress”, and “too many apprentices are behind on every element of their apprenticeship”.
Leaders were criticised for not placing “sufficient emphasis” on complying with safeguarding requirements.
“For example, the provider has not obtained a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check for the designated safeguarding officer” and “the role has not been explained to apprentices and employers”, the report said.
As previously reported by FE Week, two other new apprenticeship providers were deemed to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in at least one area this week.
Entrust Support Services Limited, a joint venture company between Capita and Staffordshire County Council, was deemed to be making poor headway in two of the three fields judged, while Unique Training Solutions Limited, based in Hertfordshire, was ‘insufficient’ in one area.
All three face the possibility of being barred from taking on new apprentices, following new rules published by the Education and Skills Funding Agency last month.
However, the Department for Education is still considering what action it will take, a spokesperson said earlier this week.
Elsewhere, there was much more positive news for the London Hairdressing Apprenticeship Academy Ltd, which was rated ‘good’ in its first ever inspection report, published September 10 and based on a visit in late July.
Most learners and apprentices made “swift progress in their vocational studies, develop good technical and customer service skills and achieve their qualifications,” the report said.
“High quality training environments using exceptional resources” ensure that learners and apprentices “improve their practical skills” and “meet the standards required in the hair and beauty therapy industries”.
However, employers were not sufficiently involved in “too many reviews of apprentices’ progress” meaning “some employers are unaware of what knowledge and skills they need to help their apprentices improve”.
There was also good news for four other new apprenticeship providers this week, as they were found to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in all themes under review.
Programmes at the University of Suffolk “prepare apprentices effectively for a wide range of job roles in the NHS”, according to a report published September 11 and based on a visit in early July.
“Apprentices develop new knowledge and skills and they apply these successfully in their workplace roles,” it said.
Leaders and managers at Fuel Learning Limited, in Coventry, work “cohesively” to “meet the high expectations that employers have for their apprenticeships programmes”, according to a report published September 10 and based on a visit in early August.
“Apprentices are well motivated, enjoy their learning and the large majority make secure progress in their learning.”
Most apprentices at East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust make “good progress”, thanks to “carefully planned and organised off-the-job training”, according to a report based on a visit in late July and published September 10.
“The service provides well-equipped training centres that have the technical and specialist resources essential to ensuring that apprentices learn quickly using suitable and relevant tools and learning resources,” it said.
Managers at Knights Training Academy Limited have “put in place comprehensive and largely effective arrangements to make sure that provision is high quality”, according to a report published September 11 and based on a visit in mid-August.
“Apprentices make good progress from the start and develop new occupationally specific knowledge, skills and behaviours.”
One of the original founders of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers has died after a short illness.
Frank McMahon was the vice chair and treasurer of AELP from its creation in 2002 until April 2018, and helped develop its membership to over 900 providers in that time.
Martin Dunford, chair of AELP, said Mr McMahon was “very committed” to the association’s cause.
“It is worth remembering that the association’s establishment was not an easy endeavour and we were greeted with scepticism and opposition in some quarters. Frank was one of those who were determined to make it succeed,” he said.
“Frank was a very good vice chair, colleague and confidant to me, who served AELP diligently over many years. As well as keeping a close eye on AELP’s balance sheet, he was not afraid to make constructive challenges in the formulation of our national policy inputs.
“He will be sorely missed.”
Mr McMahon was also the owner and managing director of YH Training Services, which has over 1,200 learners across Yorkshire and Humberside. Mr McMahon committed YH to training unemployed adults to help them achieve their career aspirations.
The company won the Yorkshire and Humber Apprenticeship Employer of the Year and NHS Training Provider for the Yorkshire Humber Region in 2011.
On August 17, YH congratulated Mr McMahon on Twitter for making it through to be a finalist at Yorkshire Coast Radio’s Toast of the Coast awards in the ‘best boss’ category. He died on September 5.
Mr McMahon was also a member of the government’s bureaucracy review group from 2003 to 2009, which led to a reduction of the data collected from providers.
In Yorkshire, he set up and chaired a local learning provider network, Providers in Partnership, between 2005 and 2010, and was regional chair of the Yorkshire and Humber Training Providers Network.
A resident of Scarborough, Mr McMahon invested a lot of time in regional voluntary commitments and was asked to judge the National
Apprenticeship Awards on numerous occasions.
A spokesperson for the AELP said the association extends its “deepest condolences” to Mr McMahon’s wife, Chris, and his family.
Mark Dawe, chief executive of AELP, wrote in the association’s newsletter: “Last week we heard the very sad news about the death of Frank McMahon, who will be greatly missed by many, especially in the ITP world, given the incredible contribution to education and
training he made through his life.
“He also gave me an amazing lesson on apprenticeships for fishermen in Whitby – if ever a national policy undermined a quite special and high quality programme, I think this might be the best example.
“But that was Frank – passionate about every employer, every apprentice, every young person he worked with.”
The Department for Education is still denying it conducted a formal review of studio schools – despite FE Week discovering an attempt to cover-up internal emails which openly discussed the existence and timescale of the review.
However David Nicoll, then chair of the SST which supports and promotes studio schools, claimed that a review was “definitely not on the agenda of any meeting I attended”.
Under the freedom of information act, FE Week requested all written correspondence between ministers and employees at the Department for Education and the SST from September 1, 2016, to March 6, 2018. Many of the emails between Mr Nicoll and officials were released but were heavily redacted.
However, FE Week has seen full copies of the documents and discovered that many of the blacked out sentences mentioned a “review” of studio schools.
The small, vocationally-focused 14- to-19 studio schools have struggled to survive due to poor Ofsted ratings and low pupil numbers, with 26 closing or planning to close since the scheme was introduced in 2010 – despite millions of pounds of government investment.
One previously redacted message showed that, on February 16, 2017, Mr Nicoll asked the DfE if he could postpone a meeting with Lord Nash “since it seems that the review will not have been completed in time”. Four days later Mr Nicoll said he would be “back in touch as soon as we know what is happening with the review timing”.
On March 10, Mr Nicoll emailed: “I thought it was time to ask again if there was any progress and/or timetable you could share regarding the studio school review. I appreciate that this may seem impatient, but I am fending off enquiries on a daily basis at the
moment”.
Three days later he received a response from a government official saying “we are making progress and hope to be in a position to make a decision shortly”.
All mentions of a review were redacted in the government’s official FOI response. The DfE stated the sentences were withheld under FOI rules because ministers and officials “need the freedom to make decisions based on the best advice available, including
correspondence from outside bodies, without fear of this advice being disclosed”.
When asked about the legitimacy of the DfE’s redaction response, Maurice Frankel, director of the UK Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: “They are trying to conceal that 18 months ago there was a review, or some other word they prefer, and they are trying to keep it from the public.”
Asked about the review in the light of the redacted emails, a spokesperson for the DfE said: “There has been no formal review of studio schools and we have never set out the expectation that there is one.”
The spokesperson added that while studio schools “can be popular, we know that there have been challenges which is why we will continue to look into their performance”.
The DfE would not give any further details about what the “monitoring” of the programme consisted of. Mr Nicoll could not be reached for comment.
The motion: This house believes the T-level reform implementation timeframe is ambitious but not reckless
More than 200 figures from across the FE and skills sector gathered at the Houses of Parliament on Monday, September 10 for FE Week and Pearson’s second great debate, this time on the implementation of T-levels.
Just a week after the launch of the controversial invitation to tender to find a single awarding organisation for three T-level pathways, the debate focused on whether the government’s timetable for offering T-levels by 2020 was ambitious or reckless.
It was hosted by Robert Halfon, chair of the education select committee and facilitated by Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week’s publisher LSECT.
Speaking for the motion was Catherine Sezen, the Association of Colleges senior policy manager for 14 to 19 and curriculum, while FE Week editor Nick Linford argued against it.
The panel also featured Susan Lovelock, deputy director of the technical education implementation division at the Department for Education, and Rod Bristow, Pearson’s UK and core countries president.
Ms Sezen faced an uphill struggle in the debate, with only Ms Lovelock voting in favour of the motion at the start. Nonetheless, she managed to win over one audience member by the end, as did Nick Linford.
The rest of the audience remained as they had been, the majority against and some undecided.
Catherine Sezen
For the motion
The Department for Education’s timetable for introducing the first T-levels in 2020 is ambitious – but it has to be, argued Ms Sezen.
“We need to be ambitious for our young people, for our economy and for our future,” she urged as she set out her case as a champion for the government’s approach.
“You could argue that it’s reckless to keep the status quo,” she said.
This was the central theme of Ms Sezen’s arguments, as she focused on the need for everyone involved – providers, employers, assessment organisations and government – to unite behind the DfE’s timetable.
Nowhere was this more the case than with industry placements, which have so far proved to be the most contentious element of the new qualifications.
In the face of many concerns about employers’ ability to offer enough placements to meet demand, Ms Sezen struck a more aspirational note.
“Think how attractive it is for young people to experience the workplace, be part of a team and involved in a project,” she said.
“It is incumbent on all of us to make that work. We all need to make sure we’re offering opportunities for those placements.”
There is “no doubt” that meeting demand will call for “thinking outside the box”, she said.
“Colleges are currently embracing this challenge, and so must we all.”
Colleges are currently embracing this challenge, and so must we all
The government is taking a “measured approach” to the overall implementation of T-levels, Ms Sezen told the audience.
“It is being managed to allow for gradual implementation,” she said.
“There are just 54 providers, all of which are outstanding or good, who will be delivering in 2020.”
And while the timeframe for implementation is undeniably tight, “currently the timelines that were published in May are being kept to”, Ms Sezen pointed out.
“I don’t doubt there will be challenges as we go forward,” she admitted, but “all our energies should be centred on getting it right”.
Speaking on behalf of the government, Ms Lovelock insisted it was “making very strong progress” against its “undoubtedly ambitious” timetable, and was “monitoring delivery and managing risks at every stage”.
She acknowledged that industry placements were the “part of the programme that’s going to test and challenge the most”.
But, she said, “we’ve got a comprehensive programme of work in place to support” their delivery, including “research and evaluation and analysis, lots of new guidance and support material that’s available for employers and providers, and a pilot programme that we ran last year”.
“I think this is an area where we are genuinely investing years ahead of delivery,” she said.
“We’re investing in capacity this year so that we can really test out and start to work through some of the challenges.”
The department was working closely with the first 54 providers to “really get into the detail of implementation” and to “use their experience with the planning,” Ms Lovelock said.
“We’re learning at every step of the way from what they do at a local level to see how we can support providers at a national level,” she added.
The DfE’s requirement for those first providers to have “existing provision in those subjects” they’ll be delivering in 2020 will “really make sure we’ve got the right workforce and the right facilities in place to teach T-levels in a high-quality way”.
Ms Lovelock acknowledged that there may be challenges in recruiting skilled people to teach the new courses – particularly in digital and construction – but insisted that the government was “investing in those areas” to encourage more people to get into FE.
“If we are setting off on a big reform programme it clearly makes sense to do that in those subjects where we know there are skills gaps and we want to plug those gaps,” she said.
In his opening speech as host of the debate, Mr Halfon also appeared to back the government’s approach – although he recognised that there were problems that needed to be ironed out.
“I am keen to get them introduced sooner rather than later because I believe that we’re so far behind many other countries in terms of skills that I don’t think we can delay introducing T-levels,” he said.
Nick Linford
Against the motion
The government’s timetable for introducing the first T-levels is “reckless”, according to FE Week editor Nick Linford, because a rushed process raises the risk that “bad decisions are made”.
Furthermore, he said, it was reckless because the government is “not being honest with you about the systems they are designing”.
Following on from education secretary Damian Hinds’ decision in May to overrule his most senior civil servant’s request to delay the introduction of T-levels by a year, there had been a number of “speedy consultations” with “unheard of” short deadlines, Mr Linford said.
“The consequence of that, and the reason why I think reckless is an appropriate word here, is that bad decisions are made. Ill-informed,” he said.
“You in this room, you are the experts. Yes, we have employer groups, but they are not the experts on assessments. They are not the experts on teaching 16-year-olds in classrooms.”
There is still so much to do before September 2020, Mr Linford added.
This included the seven-and-a-half week tendering process for the single awarding organisation that will deliver each T-level, which requires awarding organisations to plough through “over 500 pages of legal documents”.
Reckless is an appropriate word here, because bad decisions are made
“That’s before you start responding by putting in what I hope are going to be extremely high quality bids, because it’s then down to the officials to make sure that they choose wisely,” he said.
Once the awarding organisations have been chosen, they’ll have a year to design the qualifications – leaving providers just three and a half months to get up to speed with the content before delivery begins.
“I accept they’re being briefed, but they don’t have the content yet, they don’t have the awarding organisations – they don’t even know who they are yet, they’re still to be picked,” he said.
All of this raises the chances that the first T-levels will be “not the best qualification”, delivered by an “under-developed, unprepared workforce” in September 2020.
As a result, “rather than being gold standard in the first few years, we actually let down our young people”.
The damage to the T-level brand would be “immediate”, and “there’s no going back from that sort of damage”, he said.
Points made by members of the audience, around bridging, progression and switching between T-levels and other courses, showed just how much uncertainty still surrounds the reforms.
Many of these same questions were first raised in the skills plan that set T-levels in motion back in 2016.
“All of these the government is very familiar with, but we haven’t moved on. We’re asking the same questions, with not even a clue as to what are those answers,” Mr Linford said.
“My fear is because of the speed we now need, all energy will be on September 2020” and there will “no energy” left over for these other challenges.
One final reason why the timetable was reckless, Mr Linford argued, was because the DfE was not being honest about its design – which, he said, was “to only have T-levels where in that locality there is progression to skilled employment where there are currently gaps”.
In some areas of the country there is “no one to sell the work placement concept to”.
“Now, if the department were being honest with you, that is the design,” he added.
“One of the things the department needs to decide very quickly is whether the industry placement needs to have been determined at the start of the course” otherwise there was a risk that providers will “recruit young people with the best intentions and never find an employer – because they’re not there”.
Panel member Mr Bristow expressed his concern about the DfE’s decision to grant exclusive licences to awarding organisations to develop T-levels, warning that the approach risked stifling innovation.
“We’ve got a lot of people in this room, all of whom have a lot of expertise, and make a big contribution to the success of T-levels and technical education, and it’s vital that we use that expertise and we build on the capacity in the system that we’ve got, because we need all the help we can get to make this work,” he said.
Audience comments
We are facing a serious ultimate problem with workforce capacity. If you look at the kind of salaries that people with the skills and industry experience that T-levels are looking for could demand in industry, and then you look at some of the salaries in the FE sector, then it’s quite difficult to see how some of those initiatives are going to work in practice.
Simon Martin, executive consultant, Academy Transformation Trust Further Education
In many sectors a classroom-based programme with very little on-the-job training will not lead to progression onto level 4. It will be back to level 3 again, on an apprenticeship with everyone else, and that seems wrong. I don’t think there’s been enough debate about progression, particularly into work, and I think that could undermine the whole programme.
Mark Dawe, chief executive, Association of Employment and Learning Providers
We have been involved in some of the pilots for industry placements, and the feedback from the young people and the employers has been really poor – so it is a huge concern for us. In an NHS hospital we’re all massively understaffed. How are we going to support these placements at the volumes that we’re being asked to do?
Lucy Hunte, national programme manager for apprenticeships, Health Education England
I just wanted to make some comments on the bridging provision for the young people moving from level 2 to level 3, given that 99,000 out of 137,000 people who had to retake their GCSE English failed. Just how prepared are we in the bridging provision, moving somebody from those level 2 qualifications to level 3?
Colleges hit the headlines this summer – but for all the wrong reasons.
Louis Makepeace, an 18-year-old with dwarfism, claimed to have been rejected for a catering course at Heart of Worcestershire College because his height would make him a health and safety risk.
His story was reported nationally, prompting criticism of the college and the way it handled the situation.
We outline what happened – and offer advice for other colleges that might find themselves in a similar media storm.
Louis’ story hit the national headlines
In the space of less than a month, 18-year-old Louis Makepeace has been catapulted from wannabe chef to working in the kitchen of a Michelin-starred restaurant, with an apprenticeship with Gordon Ramsay on offer – and the subject of a Channel Five documentary.
Just how did this happen?
The saga started on August 16, when Louis went for a one-on-one interview with the course leader of the level one introduction to professional cookery course at Heart of Worcestershire College.
“The first thing he told me in the interview room was that I’d never get any future employment if I wanted to be a chef. There was no point in me going to the college and learning the trade,” Louis alleged.
He said he asked about having a kitchen adapted to his needs, but was told “it would be far too much work to put in” and “it would disrupt the other students”.
“I said, well, can’t I just use a stool in the meantime? And he said it’d be a health and safety risk to have a stool in the kitchen,” Louis told FE Week.
The college interview left him “heartbroken”.
“I’d never been discriminated against like that before – I didn’t even think that was acceptable.
“This is my education they’re ruining. I want to be a chef, and they’re stopping me from getting a chance a train,” Louis told FE Week last month.
He said he’d been told by the course leader that he had a conditional offer of a place, subject to a health and safety check.
But he claimed he never heard back from the college – and when his mother chased it up a few days later she was told by the course leader that Louis should look for another course.
However, the college has refuted Louis’ version of events [see below].
The apparent rejection prompted the pair to go to the newspapers, with his story featuring on the BBC, Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Star, and on ITV’s This Morning show on August 29, among others.
Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay even muscled in on the action, with a tweet that he would “offer him an apprenticeship any day”.
That wasn’t the only apprenticeship on offer, with Michelin-starred restaurant Pied-a-Terre also inviting him to train with them.
Meanwhile, the college still hadn’t said whether it would be able to offer Louis a place.
“I think it’s outrageous the way they’ve treated me, making me wait so long just to get an answer if I could be in their kitchen or not. It’s just disgraceful,” he said.
Earlier this month the college confirmed that Louis had told it he no longer wished to study there.
“We wish Louis the best of luck with his future career,” a spokesperson said.
Louis has yet to decide exactly what his next move will be, describing the interest in his future as “overwhelming”.
He told FE Week this week that he’d been for a training day with Pied-a-Terre in London, working alongside its head chef in the heat of the kitchen.
He used a stool – the very thing the college had said would be a health and safety risk.
“It was a busy kitchen with other chefs around me, and they adapted very smoothly,” he said, with “no collisions, no hazards”.
“I worked in the busiest part of the kitchen, too, so it proved a point.”
Even though I’ve been knocked back from the college I’ve been able to turn that into a positive
He has one more training day at the restaurant, when he will be preparing canapes for a food festival. After this shift he expects to be told if they want to take him on or not.
Regardless of the outcome, Louis is upbeat about the experience: “I’ve definitely had a very good time working in the restaurant. Even if they don’t ask me back, I’ve done it and I’ve learned from it.”
As for Gordon Ramsay’s apprenticeship offer, Louis said that talks with the celebrity chef’s agent haven’t moved forward, although he hasn’t yet ruled it out.
Another unexpected outcome from the media frenzy is that Louis will star in a Channel Five documentary focusing on “people with restricted growth trying to create a career for themselves”.
It’s being filmed at the moment, and is expected to air some time in 2019.
“I feel it’s really important for me to show that even though I’ve been knocked back from the college I’ve been able to turn that into a positive and carry on trying to gain as much experience as I can and to create a career,” he said.
If the offers from Pied a Terre and Gordon Ramsay don’t work out, Louis has his sights set on doing an apprenticeship elsewhere “working in the kitchen alongside real chefs”.
He wouldn’t go back to college because “I think it’ll set me back”.
“I’ve got so many opportunities and I don’t really want to be wasting time in a college environment.”
The college’s side of the story
When Louis first hit the headlines, the story was told entirely from his perspective.
According to the first articles published on August 27, the college said “we do not wish to make a comment” as “the student’s place is still under discussion”.
It was only the following day, August 28, when the college belatedly tweeted a statement refuting the allegations.
That statement said it was carrying out a “review process” to “ensure all the appropriate adjustments to the kitchens that Louis needs to allow him to safely and successfully commence his course” and to meet his needs throughout his course were “in place in time for the start of his studies”.
“We would like to state that at no point has Louis been told he could not attend his course but both Louis and Mrs Makepeace have been informed that the adjustments Louis requires will need to be agreed before an unconditional offer can be given.”
It also told FE Week that the course leader had not made the comments that Louis and his mother alleged he had made.
The college had attempted to make contact with Louis’ mother but had been unable to speak to her and she had not responded to messages asking her to make contact, a spokesperson said.
But by the time the college responded to the allegations it was too late.
Following the widespread coverage of Louis’ story, the college was condemned on social media for its treatment of the teenager.
And tweets by Gordon Ramsay and Warwick Davis, an actor and TV presenter who also has a form of dwarfism, helped stoke that outrage.
“This is so sad,” Warwick Davis tweeted.
“In a world that is supposed to promote diversity, equality and inclusion, Louis Makepeace has the right to access this cooking course with the proper adaptations and the college has a duty to provide.”
FE Week asked the college if it wanted to comment on the media coverage of Louis’ story and how it handled the situation, but it declined to do so.
‘Nine times out of 10 you should comment’
Ruth Sparkes is managing director of EMPRA, an award-winning specialist education sector PR and communications agency.
She offers her advice to colleges what to do if – like Heart of Worcestershire College – they find themselves at the centre of a media storm.
“Being called by a journalist out of the blue to corroborate a negative story is always difficult,” she said.
But the best thing to do in most situations is “get as much information as possible” and then “put together a response”.
If the information the college is being asked to comment on has come from someone willing to be named “then the story will run and nine times out of 10 you should comment”.
“Remember, journalists have a job to do, and if you don’t engage with them, they may well run with commentary from anyone who appears to be in the know or even moderately informed, however inaccurate they turn out to be.”
What to ask the journalist
Get as much information as you can from the journalist, Ms Sparkes advised. Ask them what the story is, where it has come from, what proof they have of what you’re being asked to comment on, and if anyone else has been asked to comment.
Ask the journalist to send you a list of their questions. You don’t have to answer all of them, but it can be helpful to see them as it can give you a clue on the line they’re hoping to take.
And be clear on their absolute deadline.
What to do
Find out what actually happened, who was involved, who was consulted and what the current state of play is, Ms Sparkes said.
What to share
Your statement should be short and clear, without using waffle or ‘eduspeak’, Ms Sparkes advised.
It must highlight that you understand and accept the situation, and apologise if appropriate – although you may need to take legal advice here depending on the issue.
It should show there is a positive journey ahead – that you’ve learned lessons, implemented training or engaged an expert external organisation to ensure this sort of thing won’t happen again.
What to expect
If the story has the potential to be picked up nationally, Ms Sparkes said colleges should plan for the worst.
One clear indicator that a story is going to go national is if the journalist works for a news agency rather than a local paper.
If it’s a local journalist but they work with a news agency, or the local paper is part of a large newspaper group, there’s a high chance the story will be syndicated.
Monitoring social media in these circumstances is important, Ms Sparkes said. She advised colleges to keep an eye on readers’ comments or the social media sites for the papers that have covered the story, and to respond where appropriate.
If the story is covered on the TV or radio, you should only put forward a spokesperson that has had media training.
Make sure they know the college’s public statement and key message – and give them practice answering the most horrible questions you can think of.
What else?
Colleges will need to think about their learners, parents, staff, feeder schools and wider community: what do you need to tell them, and how?
The college website and social media channels can be useful for this, Ms Sparkes said, but they should be monitored and any comments or questions responded to if appropriate.
Think about whether anyone else needs to know what’s happening before publication, for example the chair of governors, student union president or relevant MPs.
What is the college legally required to do?
Colleges, like other education providers, are covered by the Equality Act 2010, which means they can’t discriminate against disabled learners.
They’re also required to put in place ‘reasonable adjustments’ so that disabled learners are able to access the same standard of education as other learners.
“Everyone must have the opportunity to reach their potential through education and education providers must make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled students are not discriminated against or treated unfairly,” a spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said.
This duty applies to the college’s policies, procedures and activities. It also applies to physical features including entrances, exits, toilets, lights, flooring and furniture, and to any auxiliary aids such as supportive equipment or staff.
Examples of reasonable adjustments include giving a learner more time to complete an exam if their disability causes them to write more slowly, or providing a sign language interpreter for deaf students.
Everyone must have the opportunity to reach their potential through education
There are a number of factors that colleges and other education providers can take into account when deciding if a particular adjustment is reasonable, including its cost and practicability.
In Louis’ case, the course leader allegedly said that he would present a health and safety risk to the other students.
According to the EHRC, health and safety is a “relevant factor to take into account when assessing the needs of a disabled student” but it “must not be used inappropriately to avoid making reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs”.
Guidance published by the EHRC in 2015 on reasonable adjustments for pupils says “there might be instances in which, although an adjustment could be made, it would not be reasonable to do so because it would endanger the health and safety either of the disabled pupil or of other people”.
However, “health and safety issues must not be used inappropriately to avoid making a reasonable adjustment”.
The Ofsted inspection handbook states colleges will be judged on how well they “prepare learners who have special educational needs and/or disabilities to become more independent in their everyday life”.
And in a survey of FE providers commissioned by the Department for Education, only five per cent of respondents said they found all schools have been compliant in their area in allowing providers to enter schools to speak to learners.
From September 1, academies, free schools and colleges should publish details about the careers programme delivered to pupils from Year 8 until Year 13, contact details for their careers leader, how the school measures the success of the careers programme and when the published information will next be reviewed.
However, none of the 10 biggest trusts in England have 100 per cent compliance from all of their secondary schools. FE Week’s investigation has unearthed empty careers webpages, expectations that the “vast majority” of pupils will simply attend university
and some websites that do not mention careers at all.
A spokesperson for the DfE said if a school does not provide this information, the department “will write to the school and ask for
evidence of compliance”.
She added: “If this is not followed, we will take appropriate action.” But she would not give details on how compliance is being monitored or what action will be taken against schools.
Oasis Academy Don Valley, run by Oasis Community Learning, has a blank careers page, while Oasis Academy Enfield and Oasis Academy Hadley have only published careers information in a section for post-16 learners, which states: “We expect that the vast majority of our Year 13 students will go on to university when they leave.”
An Oasis spokesperson said its academies will publish new information “in the coming weeks”.
Less than half of the 31 secondary schools run by Ormiston Academies Trust have followed the requirements for publishing careers guidance, and as have only two of the 11 run by the David Ross Education Trust.
A spokesperson for Ormiston said the trust would ensure its complete compliance by the end of September, and added that its careers guidance “has not been driven by a need to meet website regulation, which is not an indication of quality, but by a firm belief that best-practice careers guidance transforms life chances”.
Kemnal and Greenwood academies trusts said their schools were working towards being fully compliant, and Delta Academies Trust said new websites for all of its academies will go live this month. A spokesperson for Academies Enterprise Trust said the trust expected all its academies to be compliant and was supporting them to make sure they were.
Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said it had to be asked “whether the schools failing on careers guidance are really serving the interests of their students.
“They should surely be explaining that apprenticeships are now available up to and including degree level with top employers, good salaries and no debt.”
FE providers have also revealed that schools are not fully complying with the Baker Clause requirement, which says schools must open their doors to providers to speak to pupils about technical and vocational training.
AELP carried out a survey of 74 providers on behalf of the DfE in June. Although the government has not made the results public, FE Week has obtained them through a freedom of information request.
They showed that just five per cent of respondents said they had experienced full compliance in their area, while nearly 20 per cent found no compliance at all.
Mr Dawe said the survey results “demonstrate why this is such a vital issue”, and said local networks of apprenticeship providers should be “fully engaged in the fulfilling of the Baker Clause requirements”.
