Ofsted will soon call on FE providers to help it undertake a “huge” amount of FE-related research projects, according to its director of corporate strategy.

The education watchdog has set aside around £2.4 million, or 4 per cent of its inspector resource, to spend on 20 studies over the next two years.

It is part of Amanda Spielman’s drive for a more evidence-based inspection regime after Ofsted went years without basing judgements on research, under the leadership of former chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw.

We would be doing a disservice if we weren’t making sure that our inspections were based on latest evidence

But of the 20 upcoming projects (see table below), not a single one has been dedicated solely to FE and skills.

Despite this, Ofsted director Luke Tryl told FE week that a “huge number” of them will be “related to FE”.

“A lot of what we do is cross remit,” he said.

“The educational effectiveness literature review is specifically looking at the evidence related to FE, and the project we’ve just carried out – ‘inspection methods and practice’ – tested lesson observations and work scrutiny in FE providers.

“Both of those, which are our two major evaluation projects, are very much applying to FE as well as schools.”

Mr Tryl continued to list more of the research projects which will be FE-related: “The project looking at how to measure intent, implementation and impact in a model of curriculum quality is with FE providers.

“We are doing a specific project on the 16 to 19 curriculum which is going to be an FE specific study focusing on the vocational curriculum and the curriculum as applied to apprenticeships.

“The workload and wellbeing project includes FE providers who we surveyed and followed up with visits, and the knowledge gaps for students is specifically a college project.”

Ofsted’s research into knife-crime, special educational needs, and initial teacher training will also be carried out using FE providers.

“We think we’re doing quite a lot in FE but because it doesn’t specifically say it in the title it looks like it’s only schools,” Mr Tryl added.

All of this work is being carried out with the ambition of ensuring the 2019 inspection framework is the “most evidenced based in Ofsted’s history”.

“When it comes to our own inspection practice gone are the days where an inspector walks into an institution and based on their experience they can come to a judgement,” Mr Tryl said.

“Actually their judgement should all be grounded in the evidence. We would be doing a disservice if we weren’t making sure that our inspections were based on latest evidence and they are valid and reliable.”

He explained that spending £1.2 million each year until 2020 on research “represents an increase” compared to recent years – although Ofsted could not provide actual figures for past years as “these aren’t comparable and aren’t readily available”.

“It [researching] is going back to something we used to do a lot more of,” Mr Tryl said.

“Pre-Sir Michael there was a much bigger focus on research and it is something Amanda has brought back.”

He added that FE providers can expects calls asking them to take part in the projects soon.

 

Ofsted’s 20 upcoming ‘major research and evaluation projects’

The government’s decision about introducing a cap on subcontracting management fees has been “kicked into the long grass” – delaying any verdict until at least the end of 2018.

An update about the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s approach to top-slicing was published this afternoon after FE Week revealed on Friday it was getting ready to publish its first ever policy on the issue.

It was expected that guidance on management fees would be offered instead of introducing a hard cap, following a review which got underway in April. Any changes in rules from this would have come into effect this month.

The evidence and the arguments have been around for months

However, the ESFA says it hasn’t done enough work on the problem to date and further investigation is needed.

“In the coming months, we will undertake further work to develop our expectations about the services that providers should offer to their subcontractors with the sector,” today’s update said.

“Our key priorities will be to develop an approach which: increases the amount of funding that reaches front line delivery, and increases transparency by ensuring that providers explain in detail the make-up of their fees and charges.

“We plan to publish our final expectations by the end of the year and any changes will come into force in 2019.”

The news will frustrate training providers and sector leaders who’ve been waiting for the ESFA to decide whether to introduce a hard cap on the percentage that can be claimed by a prime provider as a management fee.

“It’s good to see the intention to increase the amount of funding that reaches the front line, but why the kick into the long grass?” said Simon Ashworth, the AELP’s chief policy officer.

“The evidence and the arguments have been around for months which make a strong case for a maximum cap or recommended limit.

“If this is too difficult for the agency, then we hope the select committee will do the job and make the right recommendation to ensure that unjustifiable top-slicing finally comes to an end.”

But Teresa Frith, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said that until the government and FE sector is “clear as to precisely what is and is not included within ‘fees and charges’, a percentage cap makes no real sense”.

“We will continue to work closely with them and others to ensure the English apprenticeship offer continues to develop into the world class offer we aspire to,” she added.

Skills minister Anne Milton previously said she was “hesitant” to introduce a cap, and that the funding agency might be better instead to review each subcontract relationship to decide if further investigation is needed.

Lead providers often claim management fees are needed to cover administrative costs, but many in the sector, including MPs on the education committee led by chair and former skills minister Robert Halfon, believe that too much money is being diverted from frontline learning.

FE Week has exposed many situations where primes levy excessive management fees of up to 40 per cent.

The AELP, Holex, and provider group Collab signed-up in March to new best-practice guidance on relationships between primes and subcontractors – which stated management fees should not be more than 20 per cent of the programme funding.

However, it was quickly undermined when the AoC confirmed it would not commit to any recommended limit.

It claimed it was developing other guidance “properly” with the ESFA and University Vocational Awards Council.

Sector leaders have urged Ofqual to reconsider its proposal to only allow T-level exams in the summer, as it means students would have to wait a whole year for retakes.

One representative body warned the plan represents a “significant capacity risk for the whole exam system” while also being “overly burdensome” on learners.

Ofqual received the feedback in its consultation about how it will regulate T-levels – which launched on July 10 with just a four-week turnaround.

This represents a significant capacity risk for the whole exam system

Despite the short deadline, over 50 awarding organisations offered formal responses after 100 people attended its consultation events and 40 joined its webinar on the topic.

FE Week has seen a number of the responses, in which the proposed grading system and monetary and capacity issues were high on the list of concerns.

But Ofqual’s plan to only allow assessments to be taken in the summer, thus forcing students who need to re-sit their exams to wait a whole year to do so, was most alarming.

“If a learner fails an assessment at the end of year one they may well need to undertake further learning [in year two] to support the development of their skills and knowledge,” said the Federation of Awarding Bodies, which represents over 125 AOs.

“It is important to consider whether it would be overly burdensome on a learner to undertake this volume of learning, how it might impact on the time the learner needs outside of their studying for wider responsibilities (e.g. part time working).”

The federation added that only having exams in the summer is “not appropriate for the more vocational-style assessment that will be required for the occupational specialisms” and “smaller chunks” of assessments throughout the year would be better.

It also said that the May/June exam period is “already a busy and resource intensive time for providers and we are concerned that on a very practical level, there is not the capacity in the system to support additional assessment”.

Exam halls, invigilators, and examination staff will “already be under immense pressure at that time”.

The FAB added: “If T-levels are intended to scale up then this represents a significant capacity risk for the whole exam system.”

The Association of Colleges backed up the fears expressed by awarding organisations.

“Lessons need to be learnt from the roll out of previous qualifications which have in many cases required additional assessment windows and a safety net approach to grading,” said David Corke, the association’s director of policy.

“There must be additional assessment opportunities other than just the summer. It is important not to impede learners progressing to employment or further study, it is equally important that these reforms are in line with accountability reporting time frames for providers.”

He added that government must also “cost the impact of these changes” in monetary terms, “including exam fees, resit fees, invigilator costs, exam hall hire and extra exam staff salaries”.

In Ofqual’s webinar about the T-level consultation, held on August 1, the watchdog’s regulatory development manager, Steve Hickmott, explained why it only wants exams and retakes to happen in the summer.

“We’ve proposed this because we think this is the most robust approach in terms of maintaining standards and it saves the qualification being broken down,” he said.

“But we do fully appreciate this is likely to have implications with both the centres and students themselves that wish to retake sooner, and for employers who may be looking not just to recruit students each summer.”

He added that Ofqual has “flagged this as one of the key issues” and is “keen to hear what alternatives may be preferred”.

The NCFE suggested that an exams system similar to A-levels, in which assessment periods also take place in January, would be better.

This would “reduce the time lag between assessments, support learners in their achievement and keep them motivated throughout”.

The responses to the consultation also highlighted concerns with the proposed triple grading system.

If a student passes, the regulator wants to give an overall “pass”, followed by the core component of the qualification graded A* to E, while using Pass, Merit and Distinction for occupational specialisms.

Awarding organisations disagreed with this approach and said the grades should all be standardised for “ease of clarity, understanding and aggregation of final pass or fail”.

Mr Corke said the grading structure is “definitely more complex”, but “we do recognise the usefulness of separate grading scales for what are essentially the theory and practical components of the qualification”.

Ofqual is expected to formally respond to its T-level consultation in the next few weeks.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency will imminently publish its first ever policy for management fees in subcontracting – but it is unlikely to enforce a hard cap, FE Week understands.

The announcement, which could come as soon as this afternoon, will be the outcome of the agency’s review into top-slicing which got underway in April.

Rather than introducing a strict cap on the percentage that can be claimed by a prime provider as a management fee, it is likely that guidance will be offered.

It will undoubtedly please the college sector, who has been lobbying hard against the introduction of a hard cap, but at the same time disappoint the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which wants fees to be restricted to 20 per cent.

The announcement is expected to align with what skills minister Anne Milton told the education select committee last month, where she stated she was “hesitant” to introduce a limit.

“I hesitate, because how would you assess what that limit should be and for what?” she said.

“You would have to categorise all the different work that the prime contractor did and put a price on that, which would not be that easy because the sector is so variable.”

She added that one alternative would be that “all subcontracted contracts are looked at— i.e. look at what percentage the management fee should be and have a level above which you might investigate further”.

FE Week has exposed many situations where primes levy excessive management fees of up to 40 per cent.

We revealed last month that more than 10 providers charged an average of over 30 per cent last year, while Learndirect took a £4.7 million (40 per cent) top-slice a deal involving £11.9 million of the adult education budget.

When presented with our findings, the Department for Education surprisingly said it had “no concerns” about the subcontracting fees.

But Ms Milton backtracked during her education committee appearance when quizzed on this.

“I most certainly did not say that,” she said. “It is not a line I approved.

“I do share your concerns.”

Lead providers often claim management fees are needed to cover administrative costs, but many in the sector, including MPs on the education committee led by chair and former skills minister Robert Halfon, believe that too much money is being diverted from frontline learning.

The AELP, Holex, and provider group Collab signed-up in March to new best-practice guidance on relationships between primes and subcontractors.

These state that management fees should not be more than 20 per cent of the programme funding.

However, it was quickly undermined when the AoC confirmed it would not commit to any recommended limit.

It claimed it was developing other guidance “properly” with the ESFA and University Vocational Awards Council.

Sadiq Khan is demanding London’s training providers collect more robust learner destination data as he ploughs ahead with plans to switch their adult education funding model to payment by results.

But in recognising this action could impact on the resources available in colleges and other providers, the mayor is looking at establishing an “outcomes development fund” to offset the costs.

It would be a pot of cash that providers can bid into to help them develop the systems to collect data “more effectively”.

City Hall will not rush into introducing payment by results models

Mr Khan (pictured) revealed the plan in the “Skills for Londoners Framework” that was put out for consultation two weeks ago, which supplements his skills strategy unveiled in June ahead of the takeover of the AEB for the capital in 2019/20.

It confirmed that London will eventually shift its AEB payment model away towards wider outcomes such as progression into work – something that the Greater London Authority has been researching since as far back as 2014.

But the move is likely to be controversial amongst training providers that for decades have simply been paid for delivering qualifications.

The Association for Colleges certainly isn’t a fan of the “clumsy” system, warning that it “generally requires more data collection, delays payment for training and can result in less money being spent on those furthest away from the labour market”.

“There are other interesting models like Outcome Agreements and Sector Skill Deals that might be more effective in delivering outcome-focused solutions than clumsy payment by results systems for which there is little evidence of successful large scale implementation,” said Mary Vine-Morris, the AoC’s area director for London.

“National adult education funding rates haven’t increased for nine years and we cannot afford for bureaucratic or burdensome systems to be introduced.”

City Hall recognises that destinations data collected by training providers is often “incomplete”, so it will look to improve this.

“Ideally, this would include drawing upon HMRC Real Time Information as used by the Department for Work and Pensions within the work and health Programme,” GLA’s framework said, before admitting access to this data is “unlikely” to be made available in the short term.

In the meantime, the authority will request that providers collect destinations data “more completely, and managers will work with providers who are unable to provide sufficient data,” it said.

The framework recognised that the resources required to collect destination data “could have an impact on the resources available for delivery”, so an “outcomes development fund” is being considered for providers to bid into to help them develop data collection systems.

Ms Vine-Morris said it is “good that the GLA paper recognises the need to first improve data collection and access to national data like HMRC”.

The GLA notes that without appropriate data on which to base payments by results models, there is a “significant risk they could damage provision through a range of unintended consequences”.

For example, if the payment model is “not generous enough for a certain type of training, it could lead to less investment in that training, or heavy investment in provision where the payment model is relatively more generous.

“Moreover, there are risks around some providers ‘cherry picking’ learners who they think are likely to achieve outcomes, and neglecting the most disadvantaged who may struggle to achieve them”.

Given this, City Hall said it will not “rush” the introduction of an outcomes-based funding model.

We cannot afford for bureaucratic or burdensome systems to be introduced

It will only be introduced when there is “confidence that there is sufficient data to allow robust payment models to be developed”.

This is likely to be possible only after City Hall gains access to Longitudinal Educational Outcomes data from the Department for Education or after running “robust, smaller scale trials”.

In the short term from 2019, the mayor expects to continue paying providers on a similar basis as that laid out in the current AEB funding rules.

The move to outcome-based funding will also look to include a focus on “social” outcomes.

GLA doesn’t yet know the full detail of how this will be measured, so consultants will be commissioned to work with providers to develop a “set of metrics”.

Ms Vine-Morris said the AoC “welcomes” the GLA’s “acknowledgment that outcomes are not just about supporting learners into work but include progression and the wider social benefits of adult education”.

She added: “We are pleased the GLA is taking a consultative and considered approach and will continue to encourage them to trial any of the changes they propose.”

The consultation closes on August 15.