Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Over ‘optimistic’ leaders drag council down to ‘inadequate’

A council has received the lowest possible rating for its adult and community learning provision after leadership and management was found to be ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted.

Despite being rated as ‘requires improvement’ in every other area, North East Lincolnshire Council has been left with an overall ‘inadequate’ grade after inspectors warned leaders had been “too slow in tackling areas for improvement” and “too optimistic” about the service.

The council’s Community Learning Service (CLS) received a grade three rating from Ofsted in February 2014, April 2015 and December 2016, and the latest report, published today, accused leaders and managers of failing to tackle weaknesses “that have persisted over the past five years and that were identified at three previous inspections”.

The service delivers adult and community learning provision to 729 learners in Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Immingham, but inspectors found that too many learners “do not achieve their qualifications because they do not attend their examinations”.

Leaders and managers were said to not use data “incisively enough to manage the performance of their staff”, while members of the improvement board were criticised for not sufficiently challenging reports about the service’s performance.

The report said attendance is “poor”, with just over half of learners attending their sessions on the main employability study programme in 2017/18. The pace of learning is “too slow” and progress made by learners is “insufficient”, but tutors were said to know their learners well and “provide good personal support”.

Ofsted also said that in 2017/18 around a quarter of learners returned to not being in education, training or employment after they left CLS.

Not enough learners on 16 to 19 programmes make the progress expected of them, and tutors for adult learning programmes do not do enough to “motivate and inspire learners”.

However, the report did say leaders had developed a curriculum that “serves the most disadvantaged members of the community”.

Some of the wards covered by North East Lincolnshire Council are among the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country, and the report acknowledged that a high proportion of CLS’ users were looked-after children, unaccompanied asylum seekers, those recovering from mental health problems or unemployed.

“For many of these young people and adults, CLS offers their only option to continue with their education after having failed at school and other providers,” it said.

“Learners demonstrate a high level of respect for one another and for their tutors and support workers. Learners from a wide range of different backgrounds and with many challenges in their personal lives work together effectively in lessons. They support each other well.”

Councillor Peter Wheatley, the cabinet member for skills, said progress had been made “in lots of areas” but the council “recognises the need for focus and pace in some key areas and as a result accepts the findings”.

“CLS is delivered to some of the most disadvantaged members of our community, and that can sometimes present its own difficulties in terms of attendance and progression options for the users,” he said.

“Whilst we accept the findings of the report, inevitably, we will always face some challenges in delivery.”

Shadow minister demands IfA hands over private levy overspend presentation

The Institute for Apprenticeships has been criticised for refusing to publicly share a presentation given to employers about a worrying imminent apprenticeship overspend.

Gordon Marsden, the shadow skills minister, described the latest example of a lack of transparency at the institute as “disappointing” and has said he will write to the government agency demanding its release.

FE Week revealed on Monday that the apprenticeships budget for England is set to be overspent by £0.5 billion this year, rising to £1.5 billion during 2021/22 – which has raised many concerns across the education sector.

The IfA is obviously getting closer to government and is catching the non-disclosure germ

It came after Robert Nitsch, the IfA’s chief operating officer, presented the figures during an event for employers held at Exeter College on Friday.

When FE Week learned of the presentation we asked for the full slide pack but the IfA has refused to release it.

A spokesperson for the institute said the decision to keep the presentation hidden was made because “the slides were produced specifically for the stakeholder engagement event and were not intended to be shared beyond this”.

After being informed of the secrecy, Mr Marsden (pictured) said: “It is certainly disappointing and slightly undermines what I imagine was the purpose of the exercise which was to reassure stakeholders and employers.

“The IfA is obviously getting closer to government and is catching the non-disclosure germ from the attorney general in parliament yesterday.

“I don’t have the ability to hold the IfA in contempt but I will be very happy to write to the institute about why this can’t be made more accessible.”

He added that it could be the case that it is the Department for Education who has told the institute not to share the full presentation, in which case he will “be writing fairly sharply to the minister”.

Robert Nitsch’s slide from Friday’s employer engagement event

This isn’t the first time the IfA has been criticised for not being transparent.

FE Week reported in August that the institute refused to publicly reveal the recommendations from its controversial funding band review of apprenticeship standards – despite sharing them with the employer groups involved.

The institute also heavily redacts the minutes of its board meetings on a regular basis.

The levy overspend problem – which comes despite the volume of starts dipping – is understood to be the result of higher per-start funding than first predicted, largely driven by the sharp rise in management apprenticeships with high prices.

As more and more people start on these expensive apprenticeships, the monthly on-programme costs quickly accumulate.

Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, has demanded an “open debate on how the levy operates” following the revelation.

An example of redacted minutes from an IfA subcommittee board meeting

Reform higher apprenticeships, but beware of unintended consequences

Let’s not lump all higher apprenticeships together – some are genuinely about re-training and progression, says Iain MacKinnon

The government needs to sort this out, and fast. We cannot allow the apprenticeship reforms to be de-railed by employers upsetting the balance of the programme by spending so much of the levy on management apprenticeships.

But we also need to be careful: Anne Milton quite rightly said in her discussion with David Hughes (do watch it if you haven’t) that we need to be careful about unintended consequences. If we are committed to encouraging long-term structured training, and committed to progression, we ought not to restrict apprenticeship support to lower level programmes for the under 25s.

Let me explain.

Ask yourself what we’re trying to do here. The prize for government in setting apprenticeship policy is to use just enough leverage, no more, to get employers to do something that is good for the economy and good for our society, and which they wouldn’t have done anyway.

Government wants more employers to offer high quality, structured training programmes that give people an excellent foundation for career progression. That means investment, and however promising the returns, investment always means money up front. The government’s subsidy is meant to help get employers over that initial hurdle.

It’s early days, and let’s be fair, it’s hard to do – but it’s clear now that the government hasn’t got that balance right. It needs to sort this fast before it becomes a real problem.

Employers, acting rationally to secure their self-interest (at least as defined in the short-term) are using the government’s subsidy to put managers on management programmes – even worse, on MBAs – re-badged as apprenticeships. (There’s too much lazy talk about re-badging by people who’ve never sat in a trailblazer meeting, but much of this does deserve the label).

That’s a fail for government policy, even if those programmes are inherently valuable. In economic terms, it’s deadweight: this is the government paying companies to do what they would have done anyway. A waste of money.

By no means all higher level apprenticeships are like that

But by no means all higher level apprenticeships are like that. The norm in the maritime sector is that people have two-stage careers; it’s common to spend seven to ten years at sea, then you “come ashore” while still in your mid-20s, and have to start again.

The ideal, of course, is that you get proper re-training that builds on your sea-going skills, and a structured training programme that enables you to push on, but many don’t get it. The apprenticeship programme therefore gives us a great tool to get employers to provide structured career training for people who might not otherwise get that.

And it’s working. Because of the levy, we now have a national standard for marine pilots (at level 5), where we didn’t have a national standard before. And work is about to start on a standard for harbour masters (also at level 6), which again, we’ve never had before. (Ports, you may have noticed, are very much in the news these days, now that politicians have spotted that 95 per cent of our trade comes to us by sea). Numbers aren’t huge, but these are good wins for national policy.

So when Anne Milton said in her discussion with David Hughes that apprenticeships “have also got to be about progression”, I think she was talking about people like this.

People who train to be officers in the commercial shipping sector (i.e. managers) get an HND or a foundation degree when they do their initial three-year training programme. It’s great training (with, T-level planners please note, a full year’s training at sea as a mandatory element), but in no sense are they in the same category as a graduate manager ashore getting a chance to do a further degree.

The government needs to take control of the runaway train of management apprenticeships, and do so fast, but let’s please be careful not to damage other higher apprenticeships, which are very much in line with key policy objectives.

Ofsted understands the challenges for further education

From funding problems to T-levels and the apprenticeship levy, Ofsted seems to have a good handle on the main challenges for further education, says David Hughes

It was nice knowing, as I travelled to the annual presentation from the chief inspector of Ofsted, that I was going to hear reasoned, calm and evidence-based views on quality and improvement in education. And that’s what we got this year from Amanda Spielman, who has a great knack of setting out very clear, stark statements based on evidence, which tend to cut through all sorts of sacred cows and sensitivities.

Now, it’s not been a bad year for colleges in terms of the improving the picture on quality. Today’s annual state of the nation report from Ofsted revealed that 76% of further education colleges are rated at least good, a better picture than last year and rising fast.

It comes as no surprise because, despite clear evidence that funding is inadequate, colleges continue to be strong and robust, working to deliver solutions for more than two million people, including over 600,000 16- to 18-year-olds. Every college I visit has a great story to tell on the impact they are having, the students they are supporting and the employers they are working with.

So, with that improving picture all set out, where were the interesting observations this year?

For me there were a few. Perhaps top of the list is just how explicitly the chief inspector describes the negative impact of inadequate funding for colleges. She points out all the issues we have been campaigning on – how it makes governance and leadership so much harder, how teaching time and resources are being cut and how student choice, support and breadth of offer are worsening as colleges struggle to make ends meet.

It was a nice calm morning of sensible observations

I obviously will always agree with Amanda Spielman’s assertion that “the real-term cuts to FE and skills funding are affecting the sustainability and quality of FE provision. My strong view is that the government should use the forthcoming spending review to increase the base rate for 16 to 18 funding after inspections found a lack of cash has directly led to falling standards in FE”.

Beyond that, I liked the focus on apprenticeships that meet the letter of the rules, but perhaps fall foul of a softer and subtler test of meeting the spirit of the apprenticeship levy. I have said time and again how worried I am that management and degree apprenticeships for people in senior roles in big organisations, and for the highest achieving young people, don’t feel like a priority, when SMEs are being denied apprenticeship funding because of non-levy cash restrictions. It’s great to see Ofsted recognising that and asserting that attention needs to be paid to it.

I’m also struck at how much Ofsted recognises that further education is a rapidly changing policy environment. T-levels are set to come in place into place in 2020; the way apprenticeships are funded has changed since the introduction of the levy; and college mergers are becoming increasingly common. Dealing with all those changes can sometimes hinder leadership and management; taking away time that would be better spent improving quality.

Finally, I was pleased to see the focus on where our future leaders will emerge from. Over the last few months we’ve seen an increase in the spate of principal resignations and concerns from prospective future leaders about the risks of being a leader. The job of managing a college is a tough one as many principals will know all too well, especially with the tight funding constraints many of them are having to juggle. Cuts to their budgets, struggles over the recruitment and retention of staff, balancing college mergers – principals have a lot on their plate and proper planning is needed to mitigate the risks that come with this.

So all in all, it was a nice calm morning of sensible observations, which give us all food for thought as we strive to achieve a better education system that works for everyone, everywhere at all stages of life.

Skills minister will ‘look at whether it is right to continue to fund all apprenticeships’

The skills minister has said she will “look at whether it is right” for the government to “continue to fund all apprenticeships”.

Anne Milton made the remarks as part of a wide-ranging video interview with Association of Colleges’ boss David Hughes this afternoon, after she was unable to stay for questions at the association’s annual conference last month.

“We will need to look ahead, when the system is really running well – and I think we’re nearly at that stage – when we need to look at do we continue to fund apprenticeships for people who are already in work, people doing second degrees,” she said.

We now need to look at whether it is right to continue to fund all apprenticeships

“We now need to look at whether it is right to continue to fund all apprenticeships, particularly at the sort of levels that we’re talking about,” she said.

Ms Milton’s comments come just a day after FE Week exclusively revealed that the apprenticeships budget could be overspent by £0.5 billion this year alone – in large part because of the surge in people doing expensive management apprenticeships.

And Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman raised concerns about levy funds being spent on higher level apprenticeships at the expense of young people on lower levels, during today’s annual report launch.

“Levy funding is, in many cases, falling far short of the intended spirit of the policy. In some cases we’re seeing levy funding subsidising repackaged graduate schemes and MBAs that just don’t need it,” she said.

Ms Milton was responding to a question from Mr Hughes specifically about the points raised by Ms Spielman on “degree apprenticeships, apprenticeship for people who are already in work, people who are in decent jobs, doing an MBA”.

She acknowledged that such courses “cost a lot of money”.

We are now starting to look at the future of the apprenticeship levy

“We are now starting to look at the future of the apprenticeship levy. I think business might see that as a signal that we’re going to change it, and I think that’s extremely unlikely,” she said.

“I think in the first stages it was not unreasonable to have a very open system, taking money off business, as long as it’s an apprenticeship, 20 per cent off the job, lasts for more than a year, ticks all our boxes, you can do it,” she said.

The apprenticeships system “should be about that second, third, fourth chance” and “it’s also got to be about progression” – particularly in sectors where “people do a level two and stop there”.

“We want to increase their aspiration, that they could do a level three and critically a level four where we have traditionally been weak on in this country

“We’re looking at it all at the moment. I don’t want to set any hares running,” Ms Milton said.

Photo caption: Skills minister Anne Milton being interviewed by AoC chief executive David Hughes. The exchange above starts at 10 minutes into the video.

Revealed: The 30 apprenticeship standards included in IfA’s new funding band review

The funding bands for a further 30 apprenticeship standards have gone up for review today.

The new list (see table below), revealed by the Institute for Apprenticeships on its website, includes two standards currently set at £27,000 – the maximum upper limit, meaning their rates can only fall.

The institute expects the full review to be completed by “summer 2019”.

It follows the launch of the institute’s first funding band review in May which saw 31 apprenticeships, including many of the most popular again, revised at the request of the Department for Education.

The IfA said today that the reviews will “ensure value-for-money for employers and taxpayers; and consistency in the way older and newer standards are funded”.

“Our aim is to make sufficient funding for apprenticeships available to as many companies as possible,” he added.

“We understand the review might be a concern to employers which is why we are working collaboratively to ensure the review is carried out in an open and fair way, and as quickly as possible.”

The first funding band review is still ongoing and has proved controversial so far. Many employer groups are opposing large cuts that would render the apprenticeships “financially non-viable”.

The two apprenticeships in the new review with current funding rates of £27,000 are the level 3 gas engineering standard and the level 3 engineering design and draughtsperson standard.

Both band reviews come at a time when the IfA is warning of imminent apprenticeship over-spend.

Rate reviews got underway after the institute moved to having 30 funding bands – the maximum rate paid for from the levy – to choose from, up from the previous 15.

The new structure gives the institute more choice regarding the rate it applies to each standard.

Ofsted figures reveal it is the new private providers letting the sector down

The drop in the percentage of training providers rate good by Ofsted is a direct consequence of the government’s sloppy approach to approving new providers, says Mark Dawe

Now that the cat is out of the bag on the true state of levy funding, it is very useful to have Ofsted’s input on where the apprenticeship reforms should go from here.

As the 3 million starts target disappears into the ether, we should be asking – in the context of the somewhat phoney “quality over quantity” debate – to what extent the quality of provision is being enhanced by the reforms.

There is general agreement that the introduction of standards has been a very positive development – with the proviso that they are appropriately funded at all levels, especially in key sectors post-Brexit. So in her annual report, the chief inspector is right to air concerns over the fall in apprenticeship opportunities for 16- to 18-year-olds and at level 2, because the funding changes have made it extremely challenging to deliver high quality apprenticeships for those groups of learners.

The fact that nearly four out of five independent training providers (ITPs) are still delivering good or outstanding provision, is testament to how hard they have worked to meet the higher expectations required by the standards, and how well they have responded to the individual demands of employers, many of whom are new to the apprenticeship programme.

The percentage (78%) of grade 1 and 2 ITPs has slipped a little this year, but this is a direct result of dogma being given priority over common sense in taking forward the reforms.

This led to the government being far too loose in its approach

Previous DfE ministers were very keen to open up the apprenticeship market to new providers and this led to the government being far too loose in its approach to establishing the register of apprenticeship training providers. We have ended up with a third of those on the register still not delivering a single apprenticeship after 12 months, and the Ofsted annual report now reveals that of the 42 providers found to be requiring improvement or inadequate this year, 30 were new ITPs. It’s easy then, if still disappointing, to explain the slippage overall.

The register’s refresh, which starts on 12 December, offers the opportunity to sort things out. AELP understands that providers and employers will now have to prove they have actively traded for 12 months, are financially stable, skilled and are able to deliver quality apprenticeship training, before they apply, rather than when they begin delivery.

At the same time, we expect that providers with an outstanding or good grade from Ofsted will be exempt from certain questions on the leadership and management of their delivery.

The end result should be that as well as no more opportunistic new entrants, we will say goodbye to those providers who are still not delivering apprenticeships and have never shown any intention of doing so. The hope is that we will then have an approved list of good quality providers ready for all employers to confidently choose from.

This is obviously very important for when the non-levy employers start joining the digital apprenticeship service from next August. Knowing that any provider on the register is of officially recognised quality should give all employers some assurance, which in turn should allow the ESFA to essentially run an employer demand-driven system, rather than act as queen bee over how much contract growth each provider gets.

Ofsted is pleased that the amount of subcontracting throughout the sector is decreasing, but continues to find poor practice as well as good. Successful arrangements rest mostly on good management on the part of the lead contractor, and this results from having a good governance structure in place, such as the one set out in our best practice code published with support from FETL earlier this year.

The chief inspector has expressed her doubts about the wisdom of the government continuing with its compulsory GCSE resits policy for English and maths. With the aid of an initial assessment, young people should have the choice to do functional skills instead, but ministers can’t expect good provision, often undertaken one-to-one in the workplace, to continue at half the classroom funding rate.

Major apprenticeship provider to Santander goes bust after Ofsted mauling

A major new apprenticeship provider has gone bust following a scathing Ofsted monitoring report which found its directors were claiming funding for delivering little to no training.

FE Week understands the company, AMS Nationwide Ltd, had its contracts terminated by the Education and Skills Funding Agency when the findings were revealed to officials.

The private provider has now called in administrators David Rubin and Partners, and gone into voluntary liquidation.

Apprentices have been on programme for three quarters or more of their planned timeframe and completed very little work

AMS was delivering over 400 apprenticeships at the time of Ofsted’s visit, including for some levy-paying employers such as the high-street bank Santander.

Inspectors were blunt in their criticism of the training on offer: “Leaders and managers do not ensure that programmes meet the requirements of levy and non-levy-funded apprenticeships,” they said.

“Most apprentices are unaware of the components of their programme and many are unsure of the planned timeframe for their apprenticeship.”

Inspectors added that in “many cases”, apprentices have been on programme for “three quarters or more of their planned timeframe and have completed very little work”.

Learners “do not know what they need to do to meet the requirements of the programme or the end-point assessment”.

Ofsted found that managers were recruiting apprentices on “inappropriate programmes”.

Learners who have senior management roles, for example, were being put on customer service apprenticeships at level 2, and as a result, “fail to develop new knowledge, skills or behaviours”.

“Many apprentices have been in their job roles for significant periods of time and are merely accrediting the skills that they already have rather than learning new skills,” inspectors said.

AMS’ directors were slammed for chasing profit while ignoring the poor delivery.

“The board of directors has met twice since AMS became a levy and non-levy-funded provider,” inspectors said. “Directors focus on sales targets and finance during board meetings.

“Directors are unaware of the progress that apprentices make or the quality of the training that they receive.”

Critically, they did not hold leaders to account for not having “sufficient oversight of apprentices’ progress” and being “unaware of apprentices who may be at risk of not completing their programme”.

Issues with off-the-job training were also raised by Ofsted.

“Where off-the-job training is recorded, the records show that the quality of the training is not high enough and is not personalised to ensure that it meets apprentices’ individual needs or job roles,” the report stated.

“Training advisers often complete off-the-job training records for apprentices, and they do not record the time taken to complete the training. As a result of the weaknesses in off-the-job training, apprentices fail to develop their knowledge, skills and behaviours sufficiently.”

Directors focus on sales targets and finance during board meetings

Training advisers were also criticised for not developing apprentices’ English and math skills “well enough”.

In a “few cases”, training advisers have “poor English skills, and they mark spelling, grammar and punctuation incorrectly in apprentices’ work”.

Ofsted’s report said AMS’ managing director left in June following a “staffing restructure” in April this year, and leaders made “improvements to the planning and development of apprenticeship programmes”.

The company was established in 2012 but was only accepted onto the Register of Approved Training Providers in September 2017.

Santander confirmed that AMS has gone into liquidation.

The bank told FE Week it had 32 apprentices at the time of the company going bust, but the vast majority of them had completed their training and were due to take their end-point assessments.

It added that AMS informed the bank of its decision to go into voluntary liquidation and has been cooperative and supportive to ensure apprentices complete their final qualifications.

AMS and the liquidators, David Rubin and Partners, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Our priority now is to support those employers and apprentices affected to ensure they are moved to alternative high quality provision so they can successfully complete their programmes with the minimum of disruption.”

AMS’ damning Ofsted report was published on the same day of Ofsted’s annual report for 2017/18, in which chief inspector Amanda Spielman said: “Whenever any significant new funding is injected into a sector, some unscrupulous providers will see an opportunity to make a quick profit.”

Ofsted annual report warns apprenticeship levy being spent on graduate scheme rebadging

Amanda Spielman has amplified Ofsted’s concern that too much apprenticeship levy funding is being spent on higher levels, which is squeezing out the recruitment of young people onto lower level programmes.

The chief inspector (pictured) raised the issue in her second annual report, published this morning.

“We are concerned that in many cases, levy money is not being spent in the intended way,” she wrote.

This might meet the rules of the levy policy, but it falls well short of its spirit

“We have seen examples where existing graduate schemes are in essence being rebadged as apprenticeships. This might meet the rules of the levy policy, but it falls well short of its spirit.

“We hope the government will give greater thought as to how levy money can be better directed at addressing skills shortages.”

It follows yesterday’s FE Week exclusive which revealed the Institute for Apprenticeships is expecting an imminent levy over-spend, understood to be the result of higher per-start funding than first predicted, largely driven by the sharp rise in management apprenticeships with high prices.

Ms Spielman said today that along with the “sudden expansion in the number of providers offering apprenticeships”, the inspectorates “continues to be concerned about access to apprenticeships for the third of students who leave school without a full level 2”.

The number of under 19s starting an apprenticeship has been in decline for the last two years, falling from 78,500 last year to 62,000 this year alone.

“In contrast, the number of learners starting a higher apprenticeship has been growing year-on-year since 2011/12, increasing by around 10,000 apprentices a year for the past four years,” the chief inspector said.

She added that while Ofsted does “welcome” more apprenticeships at higher levels, “particularly when there is clear progression in an occupation from level 2 to degree level”, it will not address skills shortages in England if they are done at the expense of getting young people onto the programmes.

Ms Spielman’s fresh criticism follows her annual report from last year which first raised the issue.

“Most apprenticeships being delivered in 2016/17 were at levels 2 and 3, yet over a third of the standards ready for delivery were at level 4 and above,” it said.

“If this trend continues, there will not be enough approved standards at levels 2 and 3. This could have a detrimental impact on the recruitment of 16- to 18-year-olds into apprenticeships.”

FE Week was first to warn of the ‘unstoppable rise’ of management apprenticeships in 2016, and last month reported that just 10 management standards were responsible for a fifth of all apprenticeship starts on standards, according to provisional data for 2017/18.

The proportion has grown over the years, from nine per cent in 2015/16 and 15 per cent in 2016/17.

It looks like as a result, the apprenticeships budget for England is set to be overspent by £0.5 billion this year, rising to £1.5 billion during 2021/22, according to figures from the IfA.

Speaking to FE Week at this morning’s annual report launch, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, echoed Ms Spielman’s concerns.

“There’s some really interesting stuff about apprenticeships and how the levy seems to be being used a lot for people who are already in work, in management positions, for higher level and degree apprenticeships,” he said.

“I’m really worried about that – as Ofsted is – because we really must make sure apprenticeships are particularly for young people entering the labour market.

“That’s what the spirit is all about, rather than giving people who are already privileged in the system more skills that probably would have been funded differently by employers in the past.”

And Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said he’s a “big supporter” of apprenticeships at all levels but “the level 2 and 3s are the most important and that is where government money should be focused”.

FE Week asked the Department for Education if it shared the same concerns as the chief inspector, Mr Dawe and Mr Hughes, but it would not comment directly on this.

Instead, a spokesperson said: “Our apprenticeship reforms, the largest government has ever made, have put control back into the hands of employers so they will gain the skilled workforce they need to compete globally.

“By working with employers to develop new, higher quality standards we can ensure that young people are getting the training they need to get a great job while businesses can be confident they are getting the skilled employees they want.”

Senior Quality Officer