A provider with learners not writing their own assignments has been rated ‘inadequate’ across the board in a damning Ofsted report.

Inspectors warned that students at the private company, Impact College based in Manchester, “do not use their own words” in assignments and had been given high grades even when awarding organisations identified malpractice.

Leaders at the provider were found to “lack an understanding of their obligations for delivering courses funded directly by the Education and Skills Funding Agency” and fail to complete relevant safeguarding checks when recruiting new staff.

Impact College is the trading name of Awaaz Enterprises Limited, which appears in the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s allocations data as receiving £455,481 funding for advanced learner loans.

The report, published today but based on a visit last month, warned that “too many learners continue to use and submit information that is not their own work, despite managers and governors being aware of this.

“Learners copy much of their work from internet sites. The awarding body also identified this concern during its sampling of learners’ work.”

It added: “Even where this is identified, learners have gained higher grades, contrary to the explicit requirements of internal and external quality processes.

“Previous achievement data for 2016/17 and 2017/18 is unreliable. Significant concerns exist about the reliability of assessment practices. For example, when awarding organisations had identified malpractice, learners continued to receive high grades.”

It added that concerns about plagiarism had been raised at the last inspection and has been identified by plagiarism software and in internal and external verification reports.

Impact College had been rated as ‘requires improvement’ in March 2017, but Ofsted warned that “strengths identified at the previous inspection are now weaknesses”, despite leaders taking the decision to reduce the provision in December 2017 to try and focus on improving quality.

At the time of the inspection, 24 learners were studying for a level three diploma in health and social care.

The report said leaders are too reliant on external support, and are “correct to accept that they do not understand fully what they should do when they run their own ESFA contract”.

Inspectors also found that tutors “confirm that responses are accurate when they are incorrect”, fail to routinely correct spelling and grammatical errors including abbreviations such as ‘y this’ and ‘y that’ and provide teaching resources which contain spelling and terminology errors.

Work was described as “of a very poor standard”, and learners “had not completed any assessed work” since the start of their course in September. The majority of lessons take place in a “generic classroom” without textbooks or research opportunities, and referencing was described as “poor, often out of date and inappropriate”.

All learners are making “insufficient progress”, and inspectors found that many were “on the wrong level of course” and receiving “insufficient and unrealistic” careers guidance. Destination for learners in 2017/18 were described as “not as positive as college documentation originally indicates”.

However, inspectors also found that attendance and punctuality had improved slightly since the last inspection and that learners “enjoy their learning and grow in confidence”. 

The report said the company was previously a subcontractor of a national provider of further education and skills qualifications which supported Impact College by making sure all necessary procedures were in place, but the contract ended in July 2018.

Although the national provider is not named in the report, Impact College’s website boasts of a close working relationship with Learndirect.

Impact College was contacted for comment.

Fears are growing for the future of a popular management apprenticeship as the government deliberates on whether to slash its funding by a third.

The level four associate project management standard is in line to have its funding rates cut from £9,000 a year to £6,000, according to the Association for Project Management (APM) which is campaigning to stop the reduction.

The standard had 180 starts in 2016/17, but provisional figures suggest this number rose to 2,005 starts in 2017/18.

The proposed cut is part of the Institute for Apprenticeships’ funding band review, which began in May and covers 31 standards. A spokesperson for the IfA confirmed the government was deciding on the final funding for the associate project management standard, but would not confirm if it had proposed the £3,000 cut.

APM has warned that such a drastic fall in funding would render delivering the standard “a virtual impossibility” and has today written to skills minister Anne Milton urging her to reject the proposed cuts. It said initial estimates from employers suggest starts on the standard are set to rise to at least 2,600 next year if funding is not reduced.

APM, the chartered body for the project profession, said it has received backing from several high profile corporations in its campaign to save the standard, including BT, British Airways, Royal Mail, Savilles and awarding organisation NCFE.

Debbie Dore, chief executive of APM, said the proposed cut “would render it financially non-viable for providers to continue to run high quality apprenticeship programmes.

“Ultimately this will result in a reduction of the talent pipeline and a very real impact on the UK Economy, which is heavily reliant on the project profession for success.”

APM said it has consulted with employers who make up over 50 per cent of all project management delivery, and the evidence suggests businesses “will simply not be willing to enrol apprenticeships onto lower quality programmes and will be unable to afford to stump up the 33 per cent shortfall themselves”.

A spokesperson for the IfA said: “The recommended reviewed funding band for the level four associate project manager standard is with the secretary of state for consideration, and we cannot comment further at this time.”

In October the final funding bands for 12 of the standards under review were signed off. Of these, seven had their funding cut, two saw an increase and three standards remained the same.

However, a decision has not yet been made about the fate of three of the most popular management standards after the employer group behind them launched an appeal against proposed cuts.

The level five operations/departmental manager standard, which made up two thirds of all level three standards last year, was set to drop from £9,000 to £7,000, while the level three team leader/supervisor standard, which accounted for a fifth of all level three starts, faced a cut from £5,000 to £4,500. The level six chartered manager degree apprenticeship could also see its funding cap cut from £27,000 to £22,000.

The outcome of the appeal is still pending.

The IfA said the outcomes of the remaining 19 standards in the funding band review would be published in “due course”.

FE Week revealed last week that the proportion of learners taking management apprenticeships has doubled in the last two years, with just 10 management standards now making up a fifth of all apprenticeship starts on standards.

The government has been urged to commission an independent review into whether the Careers and Enterprise Company is doing a good job helping poorer students get work experience.

The Commons youth select committee, run by the British Youth Council charity, has also said Ofsted should inspect provision that is funded by the CEC to check on its quality.

It comes as the organisation, which came under fire from MPs in May for spending almost £1 million on research and not frontline careers advice, is set to face the education select committee for a second time on Wednesday.

The department must ensure the CEC does not replicate the mistakes of the past

Now, the ‘Realising the potential of work experience’ report, which reviewed 50 submissions of written evidence and two days of oral evidence, has warned of the “patchy and unequal nature” of students’ access to work experience.

It welcomed the CEC’s role in helping schools meet the Gatsby benchmarks, which are markers of excellence in careers guidance, but warned previously similar attempts have failed to reverse a trend in which privileged students get the best opportunities.

“The department must ensure the CEC does not replicate the mistakes of the past,” the report said.

Instead the youth select committee called on the DfE to commission an independent review of the CEC’s impact on helping the most disadvantaged students to access good work experience roles.

The CEC – which has been given more than £40 million funding from the government – has previously been criticised for a lack of evidence over its impact. It led to MPs blasting chair Christine Hodgson earlier this year when she admitted £900,000 had been spent on research since it was set up in 2015, despite it not being a think tank.

That, and a confusing staff structure, led one critic to call the organisation an “overbloated quango”.

But this week the CEC pointed to an improved national picture in its 2018 State of the Nation report, which looked at whether nearly 3,000 schools and more than 350 FE institutions met the Gatsby benchmarks.

It found the best-performing areas were actually in deprived communities and coastal areas including Hull, the Isle of Wight and Norfolk and Suffolk coasts, possibly because these areas are “prioritising careers support” to improve poor social mobility.

Overall, schools and colleges are achieving 2.13 of the eight Gatsby benchmarks compared to 1.87 last year. Meanwhile, the proportion of schools and colleges not achieving any benchmarks has fallen from 20.6 per cent to 18 per cent.

There remains more to be done since only 21 schools and colleges now achieve all eight Gatsby benchmarks, added the CEC report.

Claudia Harris (pictured), chief executive of CEC, said it was “positive news that we are moving in the right direction and getting closer to offering all young people the support they so fundamentally need”.

But she said the Gatsby benchmarks set a “deliberately high bar”, adding that “as a country we are still a long way off”.

A CEC spokesperson pointed to comments from Ofsted which acknowledge its role in supporting pupils, and which “found careers education in schools is improving”. 

In its careers strategy in December the government pledged £4 million to train “careers leaders” in schools, and £5 million to set up more employer-school networks, both of which have previously been run by the CEC.

Education secretary Damian Hinds announced a further £5 million for the scheme at the Conservative Party conference last month, which comes on top of the £70 million the CEC is set to receive by 2020.

The government has confirmed there are thousands of apprentices with no organisation responsible for checking the quality of their training – but has committed to fixing the issue following revelations by FE Week.

However, a solution might not be found for some time as its proposed regulator, the Office for Students, has said no arrangement will be decided on until the huge task of signing off on applications to its provider register is completed, which is likely to run into late 2019.

Last week this newspaper revealed that providers who deliver level 6 and 7 apprenticeships that have no prescribed HE qualification, such as a degree, and are not on the OfS’ register, go without any regulation.

We need to finish the OfS registration process before we can say which providers will become eligible for these new arrangements

Ofsted’s inspection remit only extends to level 5 apprenticeships.

FE Week analysis shows there are 15 approved standards at higher levels with no degree element, which have had a combined total of 4,443 starts on them since 2016/17.

One of the standards, the level seven accountancy and taxation professional, had over 3,500 starts in 2017/18 alone.

The Department for Education stayed silent on the embarrassing situation last week but has now confirmed there is currently no regulator responsible.

A spokesperson then told FE Week: “The OfS and the DfE are working together to make sure apprenticeship training is high-quality at levels 6 and 7, whether the provider is registered with the OfS or not.

“All providers are required to be on the register of apprenticeship training providers – including the small number of providers offering non-degree apprenticeships at Level 6 and 7 – and must deliver high quality programmes that meet our strict funding rules.”

The OfS confirmed an arrangement was being thought up, but added it would not be decided on until it completes the current application round to its own provider register, of which there are over 300 applications.

“We are developing arrangements with the DfE to assess quality and standards for providers delivering apprenticeships at level 6 and above, but which have not registered with the OfS,” a spokesperson said.

“However, we need to finish the OfS registration process before we can say which providers will become eligible for these new arrangements. DfE and OfS will make an announcement when this is clear.”

She continued: “While the OfS regulates higher education, we are not an inspectorate like Ofsted. In that capacity, we have been assessing hundreds of applications from all kinds of higher education provider through our registration process, including all apprenticeships and other provision at level 4 to 7, whether this has a qualification or not.

While the OfS regulates higher education, we are not an inspectorate like Ofsted

“If an application doesn’t meet our high quality threshold we can put conditions on a registration, add extra scrutiny or we can refuse their application altogether.”

Any HE provider that is delivering higher apprenticeships that do not have a degree element is still subject to OfS regulation if they’re on its register, so some of the starts in question would have been assessed.

The issue of no oversight lies with providers, such as Kent County Council, which deliver the high-level apprenticeships but are not on the OfS register and therefore not subject to their regulation.

Nick Hillman, the director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and a former adviser to HE minister David Willetts, said last week that answers are needed “as to why these qualifications are being allowed to fall through the cracks”.

“I am sure it is a cock-up rather than intentional, but it could be unfair to the students involved and reflects the complexity of the new arrangements,” he added.

Twenty ‘insufficient’ apprenticeship providers have now been banned from taking on new starts as Ofsted’s scrutiny of new providers continues.

Four new providers have been added to the barred list in the latest update to the register of apprenticeship training providers, published today, after making poor progress in at least one area monitored by the education watchdog.

The update means the Education and Skills Funding Agency has temporarily barred all 20 providers who have been judged as making ‘insufficient’ progress by Ofsted in reports published up until October 25.

 

Two of the providers to face the ban – Construction Gateway and Develop-U – received ‘insufficient progress’ judgements in every category.

Bedfordshire-based Construction Gateway was criticised for not improving the quality of teaching or sufficiently challenging apprentices, with assessors said to “solely focus” on completing workshops and task sheets and “too many” agency staff not having up-to-date safeguarding training.

And inspectors found that “disruptive behaviour” and poorly motivated apprentices at Rotherham’s Develop-U was impeding the “progress and prospects” of apprentices, who “repeatedly” fail English and maths examinations.

Safeguarding was also an issue at Develop-U, when during the visit “inspectors became aware of an at-risk apprentice about whom leaders were not aware”.

Also banned are Invisage and NSL, which both received two ‘insufficient’ ratings.

Inspectors warned that managers at London-based Invisage had not “implemented the apprenticeship standards well enough” or ensured apprentice make good enough progress.

Apprentices at Slough’s NSL were found to be making “slow progress”, and leaders and managers were criticised for not having “sufficient oversight” but were commended for their “vision and ambition”.

Guidance published by the ESFA in August confirmed that any provider making ‘insufficient progress’ would be barred from taking on new apprentices, either directly or through subcontracting arrangements.

These restrictions will continue until the provider receives a full inspection and been awarded at least a grade three for its apprenticeship provision. Full inspections should take place within a year of the monitoring visit.

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

The banning of these providers is the fourth group to be announced. Ten providers were banned in October – in a group of six and a later group of four – and another six providers were banned in September.

A provider has been slammed with a grade four after Ofsted found its 500 learners received “no teaching” and some were “not aware” they had taken out an advanced learner loan.

Harrow-based Academy Training Group was branded ‘inadequate’ across the board in its first ever inspection, published today, which claimed the provider has “no strengths” and does not use funding “appropriately”.

However, the provider challenged the judgement before it was made public and is continuing to do so. It insists that Ofsted “lacks understanding of the environment we work under and the constraints placed on us” to deliver loans provision.

Too many learners are not aware that they have taken out an advanced learning loan

At the time of inspection Academy Training Group was training nearly 550 adults, who fund their courses using the government’s advance learning loans, in areas including carpentry, fenestration, occupational work supervision and painting and decorating.

The provider has received £4.2 million from the ESFA ever since 2014 to deliver this provision.

Ofsted found that staff do not provide learners, many of whom speak English as a second language, with “appropriate information about the qualifications they are enrolled on or the advanced learning loan prior to the start of the course”.

They added that “too many learners are not aware that they have taken out an advanced learning loan to pay for their course and that they are required to pay this back”.

The provider’s operations director, Paul Marsh, hit back at this “widely biased” finding, claiming that the Student Loans Company has vetted its recruitment process itself.

“It is explained to learners through the registration process that it [the qualification] is a loan,” he told FE Week.

“They have to apply for it themselves through the SLC loans portal, and there are various checks they do.”

He admitted that the provider has had a “very small number of learners who have queried whether it is a loan or not” since 2014, but the SLC “has shown them the documentation and cleared it up”.

An SLC spokesperson said: “Anyone taking out an Advanced Learner Loan signs a declaration that makes it clear that it is loan that is repayable.  Both the online and paper applications make it clear that the learner is applying for a loan, and they are issued with a notice of entitlement which confirms that a loan has been granted.

“Payments are not released to a provider unless this signed declaration has been received and recorded on our systems.”

Ofsted also criticised the provider for having “failed to establish an appropriate training programme”.

“Learners do not develop any new or more complex construction skills,” inspectors said. “No teaching takes place and assessors merely accredit learners for what they already know or can do as a result of working in the construction industry.

“They do no teaching and only a minimal amount of assessment through the completion of a small number of questions to test learners’ skills and knowledge.”

Mr Marsh claimed it was not the job of the provider to teach the learners new technical skills.

“These guys are not apprentices, they are very experienced workers who have been doing their trade for 10 years but just haven’t got their qualification,” he told FE Week.

Unlike a college, we’re working on construction sites where we have no authority

“What we are largely doing is verifying their skills. Unlike a college, we’re working on construction sites where we have no authority.

“We have been largely criticised because Ofsted does not believe the qualification is appropriate for funding. We argued throughout that it is not our place to change or alter the qualification.”

He claimed that ESFA officials have visited the provider themselves and “said our work was exemplary in terms of making sure the loans were appropriate”.

Mr Marsh added that Academy Training Group is “already starting to put things in place where we might be able to give training to these learners outside of the working environment.

“We’re in talks with Stanmore College to provide functional skills help.”

Ofsted said the report is “clear about our findings and judgements, and we stand by them entirely”.

The provider has a £1.6 million Education and Skills Funding Agency loans contract for 2018/19. The agency typically gives providers a three month termination warning notice following a grade four.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We will always take action to protect learners if a training provider is not fit for purpose. We are currently assessing Ofsted’s findings and will be contacting Academy Training Group Limited to set out the action we will be taking in due course.”

The spokesperson would not confirm or deny if the ESFA has visited the provider itself.