Ofsted given final say over new apprenticeship provider quality

Ofsted has officially been given the final say over poor-performing apprenticeship providers following an early monitoring visit, the Education and Skills Funding Agency has confirmed today.

FE Week reported back in May that the move was on the cards, following embarrassment for the government over apprenticeship accountability.

According to the ESFA’s ‘Removal from register of apprenticeship training providers and eligibility to receive public funding to deliver apprenticeship training’, updated today, any provider making ‘insufficient progress’ in at least one of the themes under review will be barred from taking on any new apprentices – either directly or through a subcontracting arrangement.

They can continue to work with existing apprentices, but must tell the employers, and any lead providers, about the monitoring visit outcome.

These restrictions will remain in place until the provider has received a full inspection and been awarded at least a grade three for its apprenticeship provision.

The ESFA can only overrule this guidance if it “identifies an exceptional extenuating circumstance”.

FE Week reported in May that Ofsted was set to be given these new powers – along with up to £7 million more cash to visit every new apprenticeship provider.

That followed an Education select committee hearing at which skills minister Anne Milton admitted it wasn’t clear who was accountable for quality at these new providers.

There had been considerable dismay at mixed messages from the ESFA, which recently permitted a provider to recruit apprentices once more – just two months after Ofsted branded its provision “not fit for purpose”.

FE Week has asked Ofsted if it has received the additional resources, and how soon after a monitoring visit a provider deemed to be making ‘insufficient progress’ would receive a full inspection, but has yet to receive a response.

North-east training provider on the verge of collapse

A training provider in the north-east that held subcontracts worth more than £3 million last year is on the verge of collapse.

JB Skills Training Limited, based in Sunderland, is in talks about bringing in the administrators, according to its managing director Dave Macmillan.

He told FE Week it was “highly likely” the provider would be closing down within weeks.

JB Skills Training, set up in 2014, delivered mainly functional skills provision on behalf of 10 lead providers in 2017/18.

According to the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s most recent list of declared subcontractors, these contracts were worth a combined total of £2.8 million, with the largest being £781,150 with HIT Training.

In addition, it held one subcontract to deliver apprenticeship provision worth £378,000 on behalf of one lead, Brooklands College.

It also had its own non-levy contract worth £686,492, having secured a place on the register of apprenticeship training providers in May 2017.

Mr Macmillan told FE Week that the provider’s demise followed an investigation by the ESFA between August and December 2017.

That was prompted by a “whistleblowing” incident, which he said proved to be “unfounded”.

Nonetheless, all the provider’s prime contractors except HIT Training “withdrew funding” while the investigation was ongoing, during which time “we continued to support learners at our own costs”, he claimed.

Although the other lead providers returned once they got the all-clear from the ESFA “it was too late to be able to recover from the period where there were no earnings,” Mr Macmillan said.

Falling apprenticeship numbers were also partly to blame, he added.

The provider has just 11 learners on programme at the moment, all of whom are on apprenticeships, he said.

“We are working with the ESFA to find new providers who will continue with the learners positively.”

Jill Whittaker, managing director of HIT Training, confirmed that JB Skills Training had delivered functional skills training on their behalf.

Their completion rates were “very high”, and HIT’s own internal compliance team “rated them as grade two”.

“I am sorry to see them go as they are a good organisation with the interests of their learners at heart,” she added.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We do not comment on any investigations, ongoing or otherwise.”

Tight deadline for ESFA survey on non-levy transition period for providers

Providers are being asked for their views on the expansion of the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s apprenticeships service– but they only have four days to respond.

The agency emailed all those currently on the register of apprenticeship training providers today, inviting them to complete a survey asking for their views on the “best way to manage the transition from the current system to one where all new starts are funded through the apprenticeship service”.

The deadline for completing the survey is midday on Monday, August 20.

Currently only large, levy-paying employers have access to the apprenticeship service. Starts with smaller, non-levy funded employers are still funded through contracts held by just 683 providers.

The plan had been for all employers to be able to use the service to access apprenticeship funding from April 2019, but the ESFA announced last week that this move had been put back by at least a year.

According to today’s survey, the agency is “exploring options for gradually phasing in the move to the digital system for non-levy employers – rather than moving instantly from the current system of funding through contracts to only funding new starts through the apprenticeship service”.

It is proposing a period of time in which any provider – regardless of whether they hold a non-levy contract – would be able to use the apprenticeship service to deliver starts with small employers, while those providers with a contract would be able to continue with their existing allocations.

“Over this period of time, we would aim to reduce funding starts through contracts and increase funding through the apprenticeship service,” today’s email said.

The agency is also “looking to develop the apprenticeship service to meet the needs of small businesses”.

Simon Ashworth, chief policy officer at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “While the time pressure over the holiday period is a little unfortunate, it is good that providers are being given the chance to contribute views on what the transition should look like and provide feedback on their own perceived state of readiness.”

He said he was “delighted” that a dual-running system was “now a real possibility”, as this was something the AELP had “been lobbying hard for”.

“Of course, we don’t know yet what the design of the digital system for non-levy employers will look like and how much support these organisations will need from providers to navigate it but the ambition should definitely be a transitional process rather than waiting to put all non-levy employers on the system at the end of the 2020 timelines being discussed,” he said.

Access the survey here: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/ESFA0818/ 

Allow UTCs and studio schools to select pupils, argues Toby Young

University technical colleges and studio schools should be allowed to select pupils on the basis of aptitude, a controversial new report authored by Toby Young has argued.

Furthermore, such a move would be legal and would only require a change in policy, according to ‘Technically gifted: How selection can save technical and vocational education’, published today by the Centre for Policy Studies.

Its author, Toby Young, was forced to resign from the board of the Office for Students in January following numerous offensive tweets, and subsequently relinquished his role as head of the New Schools Network. 

“If the government is serious about creating a revolution in technical and vocational education, it needs to allow the 14-19 specialist schools to select for aptitude so these institutions can become beacons of excellence, sending a message that this type of education is not for children who struggle in mainstream schools, but a valuable pathway for those with a real flair for it,” he wrote.

Such a change would only require a change in policy, rather than a change in the law, even though it would affect pupils from the age of 14, Mr Young argues.

This is because UTCs and studio schools are academies, and the requirement for them to comply with the School Admissions Code – which bans selection – is included in their funding agreements rather than the provisions of the 2010 Academies Act.

“That is a policy decision, not a legal requirement,” he wrote.

“There is no statutory duty imposed on the Secretary of State to insist that academies comply with the code or admissions law relating to maintained schools.”

The “poor performance” of UTCs and studio schools is “largely due to the fact that they cannot select pupils but must take all-comers”, Mr Young argued – which in practice means they are used as “dumping grounds” for badly-behaved and low-attaining pupils from nearby schools.

By allowing selection by aptitude, the schools would be able to choose the pupils who demonstrate a talent for their specialism, and turn away those who don’t.

While this would reduce UTC and studio school numbers in the short-term, “it would lead to a swift improvement in their GCSE results and a corresponding improvement in their Ofsted ratings – which, in turn, would make it easier to recruit in future years,” the report said.

Furthermore, selection by aptitude at 14 would help to increase the success of T-levels and apprenticeships, as it would “signal that it [the government] regards this type of education as suitable for children of all abilities, not just those who find themselves without the necessary qualifications to do three A-levels”.

UTCs and studio schools have both struggled with poor performance and low student numbers since they were first introduced in 2010.

In total, 26 studio schools and nine UTCs have either closed or announced plans to shut.

Of the 36 UTCs to have been inspected by Ofsted, 10 have been rated ‘inadequate’ and a further 13 have been rated ‘requires improvement’.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said while he agreed “with the premise that technical education should not be seen as a second choice to academic subjects” the report “falls far short in addressing what is a longstanding and deeply-rooted cultural and social issue”.

“In order to raise the prestige and profile of technical education and training we need much more investment of time, money and focus by government, employers and education providers at all levels,” he said. This included more funding for colleges, and more encouragement for employers to work with them. 

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said Mr Young’s proposal “requires a significant leap of faith in the power of selection”.

UTCs and studio schools are “most likely to work when they are part of coordinated local education plans,” he said.

“For too long our technical education has not had the same parity of esteem as our academic system, with many courses undervalued by employers and failing to provide students with the skills they need to secure a good job,” a Department for Education spokesperson said.

“This has to change which is why we are focused on creating a world-class technical and vocational education system that offers people a real choice of high quality training.” 

Monthly apprenticeship update: 3m starts target slips further away with just 22,300 starts in May

Apprenticeship starts for May are down 40 per cent compared with the same period in 2016 – but up 9,400 on last year.

There have been 22,300 starts recorded so far in May 2018, compared with around 36,700 in May 2016 according to the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s monthly apprenticeship statistics update, published this morning.

The 2016 figures are final, whereas the 2018 figures are provisional. May 2016 is a better comparator than May 2017 given that there was a huge drop in starts following the introduction of the levy. 

These are the first statistics published in which the year-on-year comparison is against post-levy figures. 

Comparing first recorded starts for May 2018 to May 2017 gives an increase of 9,400 or 72 per cent, which is the first year-on-year increase since the introduction of the levy last May.

However, starts for the month in 2017 were down 65 per cent on May 2016, according to final statistics for the year. There were just 12,900 starts in May 2017, compared with 36,700 in 2016.

Simon Ashworth, chief policy officer at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “On A level results day, it’s particularly disappointing to have further confirmation that the levy reforms have led to a massive drop in apprenticeship starts which mean opportunities are limited for those young people who want a debt-free alternative to university. 

“The picture looks no better for those getting their GCSE results next week who will want to start earning while learning instead of staying on in sixth form or college.

“When ministers return from their holidays, they really must get a grip on this if they are serious about social mobility and improving ‘home grown’ workforce productivity in a post-Brexit economy.”

Skills minister Anne Milton said: “Our reforms have driven up investment in the quality of apprenticeships to build skills and give people more opportunities to succeed. I’m pleased to see the number of people starting our new high quality apprenticeships – created in partnership with businesses and employers – continuing to rise.

“In the last 12 months more than 100,000 more people have started these new apprenticeships, putting them on the path to success in a range of cutting-edge and exciting industries such as aerospace engineering, nuclear science and architecture. As young people across the country receive their A level results today I would encourage them to consider the opportunities an apprenticeship can provide.

“Today’s figures also show more businesses are also getting on board with the new system and the chance to use their levy funds to kick start amazing apprenticeship programmes that will change their businesses – and people’s lives – for the better.”

 

We need three post-16 pathways: A-levels, T-levels and applied generals

Two post-16 education pathways are not enough: we need an academic route, an occupational route and a career route, argues Rod Bristow

There is a strong consensus in education that we need to do more to offer people a clear pathway to acquire the knowledge and skills they need to succeed at work. That’s why support for the idea of T-levels remains very strong. But as is so often the case with good ideas, concerns about T-level implementation are plentiful.

There are deep concerns about the proposed system of awarding bodies tendering for the new T-levels. These are concerns I share, and when GCSEs were involved, the government shared them too. But risk to T-levels associated with the tendering process pales, when compared to their insufficient clarity of purpose.

Making complex things simple is hard, but it’s usually worthwhile. Making complex things simplistic is much easier, but rarely useful.

The vocational qualifications landscape is complex. First, due to the sheer volume of qualifications – because there are a lot of different jobs, many of which overlap, and qualifications, as well as jobs, have evolved over many years. They will continue to evolve in the future too, adding further complexity.

A simplistic bifurcation between A-levels and T-levels will not meet the needs of learners

Vocational qualifications generally serve one of two broad purposes. Some enable access to a specific job or occupation, whereas others are broader and enable access to a number of different occupations within a sector – either directly or via university. Through T-levels, the government has made a creditable attempt to streamline a large number of occupations into coherent groups. But there is confusion as to whether these two different purposes ought to co-exist. It is essential to address this confusion before T-levels are designed.

With huge growth in AI and automation, most countries are thinking deeply about how their education system supports the future of work, and no country has done more thinking about this than Singapore.

Singapore’s success in education is underpinned by long-term thinking and deep coherence across the entire system. They promote three post-16 pathways:

  • A-levels taught in junior colleges are for those who want the academic skills that are useful in accessing university and in many careers.
  • Institutes of technical education provide the skills needed for specific occupations (what used to be called trades). These ITEs meet in effect, the purpose of T-levels originally laid out in the Sainsbury report.
  • Last, but not least, polytechnic institutes (focused on industry sectors not trades) that, as one Singapore Polytechnic Institute principal once put to me, educate technologists, not technicians.

This last pathway enables progression either directly into a job or into a job via university. The key point is that people are prepared for careers, not just jobs, which will themselves change enormously during the lifetime of a career. This career-focused pathway provides the combination of academic and practical skills that the future of work demands. Students learn about an entire industry, but also they learn by doing, how to apply that knowledge – and it’s the application of that knowledge that is assessed.

In Singapore, these three pathways provide the basis for a system of ‘bridges and ladders’ that meets the needs of the population and of employers too. Britain should embrace three pathways too.

A simplistic bifurcation between A-levels and T-levels will not meet the needs of learners. The 60 per cent of the population not doing A-levels will want a broader set of choices than to train for a particular job.

The applied general route provides this choice to young people and to adult learners too. But it should be given a better name – perhaps the ‘career route’. We’d then have an academic route, a career route and an occupational route. Of course Pearson has a vested interest – in that the career route is of course the route that BTEC best fits – but it is also in the interests of millions of young people, and our changing economy too.

Hull College overspent by almost £10 million in 2016/17, overdue accounts reveal

Cash-strapped Hull College overspent by even more in 2016/17 than the previous year, according to its recently published and long-overdue accounts.

The college, which reportedly received a massive £54 million government bailout earlier this year in order to balance the books, recorded a deficit before tax of £9.69 million in 2016/17 – an increase of £361,000 on the equivalent 2015/16 figure, and brought the college’s reserves down to negative £15 million.

A college spokesperson insisted the deficit was “in line with expectations” and “an indication of the extent of the challenging financial position which the group’s new senior leadership team has inherited”.

The college’s five-year recovery plan, in place since March and backed with the bailout cash, will “resolve previous significant financial and operational issues and achieve a strong and sustainable future for Hull College Group’s staff, learners and communities,” he added.

The latest revelations about the Hull’s finances come just two months after its 2015/16 accounts, published almost 18 months late, lifted the lid on the college’s vast debts.

It declared a pre-tax deficit of £9.33 million over the year – equal to 19 per cent of its £49.69 million income – compared with a much smaller loss of £492,000 in 2014/15.

Those accounts were published just weeks after FE Week reported that the college had received a massive £54 million from the government’s restructuring facility.

It’s believed to be the highest single payout from the restructuring facility, but neither the college nor the government has confirmed the figure, citing a confidentiality agreement.

Hull has been in dire financial straits since November 2016, when it was forced to request exceptional financial support from the Education and Skills Funding Agency after its bank withdrew support.

That led to a financial notice of concern, which in turn prompted a visit from FE commissioner Richard Atkins.

Among the issues highlighted by Mr Atkins in his subsequent report, published January 2017, were the college’s “unaffordable” staff costs, which stood at 78 per cent of income in 2015/16 and were forecast at 72 per cent in 2016/17.

The latest accounts reveal a drop in both staff costs and numbers from 2015/16 to 2016/17: from £33.94 million to £31.3 million, and from 934 to 902 full-time equivalent employees.

But while the number of teaching staff fell year-on-year, from 362 to 308, the number of non-teaching staff actually increased, from 572 to 594.

FE Week asked why this was, but did not get an answer. Instead we were told the college couldn’t comment on decisions made under its previous management.

Earlier this year the college was involved in a bitter dispute with the unions over plans to shed more than 200 jobs.

Members of the University and College Union walked out for three days in May in protest over the proposals, which the union said would reduce the workforce by a third.

But a final strike, planned for seven days in June, was called off after both sides reached an agreement that removed the threat of compulsory redundancies.

In an exclusive interview with FE Week in June, Michelle Swithenbank, Hull’s chief executive since June 2017, said the cuts were vital for the college’s survival.

With the imminent introduction of the FE insolvency regime, “we had to become a solvent college by the end of this academic year”, she said.

 

Delay of at least a year to apprenticeship system expansion could leave 1,500 providers out in the cold

Over 1,500 training providers on the government’s apprenticeships register will not have direct access to funding for small employers until at least a year later than planned.

An update from the Education and Skills Funding Agency revealed the news today which claimed it was “acting on user feedback”.

The agency had planned that all employers would be able to use the apprenticeship service to access apprenticeship funding from April 2019, but this has now been delayed.

“Having listened to feedback about the scale and pace of the apprenticeship reforms that we have introduced since May 2017, we want to make sure that future changes are introduced in a gradual, well-managed way,” the ESFA said.

“This is to give time for employers and training providers to prepare to take full advantage of the new approach and to keep stability in the marketplace.”

To “ensure a more gradual transition”, the government will not open up its apprenticeship service to  small employers to use in April 2019 as planned.

It will instead “extend current contracts for training providers delivering training for employers that do not pay the apprenticeship levy for 12 months, from April 2019 to March 2020”.

Over 1,500 training providers on the government’s apprenticeships register do not have a small employer allocation, so their only alternative will now be to subcontract from the 683 providers that do.

The ESFA said that over the summer it will “work closely with employers and training providers to plan what a gradual transition should look like”.

“We will provide further details in the autumn, including what this will mean for providers with existing contracts and plans to develop the apprenticeship service for all employers,” it added.

The AELP has mixed feelings about the decision.

“On balance this is probably a sensible decision in the sense that we don’t want the government to move to a new funding system in April 2019 which hasn’t been properly thought through and might lead to further instability,” said the association’s chief policy officer, Simon Ashworth.

“At the same time, we are acutely aware that this is not going to go down well at all with those good quality providers who weren’t awarded a non-levy contract at the end of 2017 and therefore we are keen to work with the ESFA to try and find a way to get these providers back into the non-levy market as soon as possible.

“Many of these providers are currently having to unnecessarily subcontract and we have already highlighted how some primes are taking advantage of this through inappropriately high fees meaning less funding is making it to the front line.”

He added that AELP still maintains that a “minimum annual budget of £1 billion is needed to meet SME demand for apprenticeships”.

The extension of non-levy contracts follows a shambolic procurement process that providers battled with last year in order to win a portion of the £650 million pot allocated.

The tender left providers fuming as it saw some defunct organisations winning contracts while ‘outstanding’ ones missed out. Several small providers simply went out of business.

Ofsted watch: Improvement for struggling FE providers

A training provider previously banned from taking on any new apprentices and a formerly ‘inadequate’ council have been making strong improvements, monitoring visits have found.

Key6 Group had its first revisit from Ofsted last month since it was told its delivery was “not fit for purpose” in March, as part of the inspectorate’s investigations into new apprenticeship providers.

Its latest monitoring visit, published yesterday, only reviewed the provider’s safeguarding arrangements, of which ‘significant progress’ is being made.

“Leaders and managers took seriously the significant weaknesses for safeguarding,” inspectors said.

“They have worked tirelessly to ensure that the safeguarding arrangements have improved significantly and these now meet the provider’s statutory duties.”

Key6’s first monitoring visit report, which found all areas including safeguarding to be making ‘insufficient progress’, was so bad that skills minister Anne Milton immediately put a stop to it taking on any new apprentices.

The ban was however lifted two months later because “there was demand from employers” to use the provider, according to the ESFA.

Despite this, Ofsted’s new monitoring report noted that the group has “not recruited any new apprentices since February 2018”.

Ofsted is expected to conduct a full inspection of Key6 later this year.

The Wiltshire Council, which was rated ‘inadequate’ in December 2016 before improving to ‘requires improvement’ in January this year, was also found to be making “good progress” in a new monitoring visit of its provision.

“Tutors have received appropriate training and are now taking a qualification to equip them to provide advice and guidance more effectively to learners before they start their courses and to prepare them for their next steps,” inspectors said.

“Managers now routinely and regularly undertake formal and informal observations of teaching and learning.”

Ofsted also published a monitoring visit report into ‘new’ apprenticeship provider KPMG Limited Liability Partnership this week.

The company is a member of the global KPMG network of professional services firms, and currently trains 366 apprentices for Civil Service Learning.

It was found to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in the three headline fields judged.

“Leaders and managers have a clear strategic purpose and direction to use their expertise in professional services to deliver high-quality apprenticeships,” inspectors said.

“They work in close partnership with CSL to deliver apprenticeships designed to meet skills shortages within civil service departments.”

Lastly, there was a short inspection report published for private training provider Didac Limited, in which the Bristol-based provider maintained its ‘good’ rating.

“The teaching and assessment of practical skills are good,” Ofsted said.

“As a result, apprentices and learners develop very good practical skills and self-confidence, and a high proportion achieve their qualifications.”

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Key6 Group Limited 17/07/2018 09/08/2018 M M
KPMG Limited Liability Partnership 11/07/2018 06/08/2018 M M

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
The Wiltshire Council 04/07/2018 08/08/2018 M M

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
Didac Limited 10/07/2018 06/08/2018