The government should fund the development of new higher level qualifications, paid for by a “higher technical levy” or top-slice from the apprenticeship levy, the Association of Colleges has said in a wide-ranging set of recommendations.

In a new policy paper called ‘2030 and beyond: An upgraded Post-18 education system’, the association calls for a major redesign of England’s higher technical route.

It says that by “common consent”, the country has “low numbers of students taking courses at levels four and five when compared to our OECD counterparts”.

In the first 10 years, a teaching grant should be introduced to reduce the loan required by the student

There is an “executive lift” taking 18 and 19-year-olds directly from level three courses to level six degrees and “very few taking courses at the levels in between”.

To combat this, a new suite of level four and five qualifications should be developed which include the introduction of “teaching grants” – where government would pay towards that level of education.

DfE would need to reform current “grant, fee and loan rules to incentivise and support new one and two-year courses at levels four and five”, the AoC said.

“The same fee cap and loan/maintenance arrangements should be made available for this route for students of all age – whether they are part or full time.

“In the first 10 years, a teaching grant should be introduced to reduce the loan required by the student.

“This might be in the region of, say, 25 to 50 per cent of the fee coming from teaching grant, with the loan available for the remainder. In addition, students should be able to access financial support for living costs, travel and childcare.”

Funding for both the development of the qualifications and the teaching grants “could come from charging a short-term higher technical levy (say 0.2 per cent),” the AoC proposed.

“Other options would be to top-slice the apprenticeship levy (using the funds currently spent on apprenticeships for those over the age of 25) or to redirect some of the higher education teaching funding currently spent on high costs subjects and student opportunities.”

It added: “We assume that the current accounting rules for student loans will not last and therefore that the annual costs of the new teaching grants we propose will partly be offset by lower student loan outlays.”

AoC chief executive David Hughes told FE Week that the 0.2 per cent levy “could be on the same basis as the apprenticeship levy, in which case it would raise around £1 billion”.

The association believes that some level four and five qualifications, such as Higher Nationals and Foundation Degrees, are “well developed in some sectors (e.g. engineering and construction and hospitality) but are too often seen only as a route to a degree level course in a university rather than an end point in themselves, leading into employment”.

“They are also less well known, understood and respected than degrees by parents, schools and employers in many sectors of the economy,” it said.

The AoC’s policy paper also calls on the government to scrap the 24 age limit on free first level two and three courses.

It should introduce a “statutory entitlement – with appropriate funding – to at least level three for all adults who have not previously attained that level”, which Mr Hughes estimates  “if it increases numbers by 200,000 a year (restoring them to the pre-FE loan position), this would cost £1 billion a year”.

Today’s review paper from the AoC further highlights the urgent need for post-18 reform.

“This would involve the Department for Education reversing the 17.5 per cent cut to funding at age 18 and increasing the adult education budget to replace learner loans,” the AoC said.

“As with access courses, the government could write off any level three fee on completion of a higher education course.”

There would be considerable costs to implement the report’s recommendations but Mr Hughes insisted “the aim is a long-term investment in the UK population”.

“The costs need to be set against the possibility of long-term savings if there is a shift away from full-time residential higher education,” he said, adding: “These are substantial sums but no higher than proposals to restore HE maintenance grants to their pre-2016 position.”

The government has set up a panel, led by Philip Augar, to review post-18 education.

Nick Hillman, the director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, “welcomed” today’s “imaginative” report from the AoC but predicts there is “zero chance” of all the proposals being introduced.

“Demand for level four and five qualifications has withered yet employers say they need far more people trained to these levels,” he told FE Week.

“There is zero chance that all the AoC’s proposals will be implemented but the overall approach of better level four and five provision, a more flexible apprenticeship levy and a fresh look at the old teaching grant make a lot of sense.

“I hope the Post-18 Review looks at these proposals very carefully alongside all the others it is receiving.”

Shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden added: “Today’s review paper from the AoC further highlights the urgent need for post-18 reform and contains a series of practical proposals to assist students with much-needed support including for travel and maintenance grants – issues we’ve consistently challenged Government over but they have consistently ignored.”

Ofqual will allow T-level exams to be taken more than once throughout the assessment year – meaning students will not have to wait a whole year for retakes, after FE Week exposed sector leader fears.

The exams regulator has also binned the idea of introducing a “working towards” grade for learners who narrowly fail the new technical qualifications.

Ofqual made the U-turns known today when launching its further technical consultation for how it will regulate T-levels, the deadline of which is October 28.

The regulator had originally consulted on the idea 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.

FE Week reported last month that awarding organisations across the country were majorly alarmed by this and urged Ofqual to reconsider.

“Following feedback, we will amend our approach as set out in the consultation to require an awarding organisation to provide a minimum of one assessment series for the Core and the Occupational Specialisms; with the option for an additional assessment series, if appropriate,” Ofqual said today.

It added that it will allow “each assessment series to be used both for students sitting assessments for the first time and those retaking assessments”.

The regulator will “not specify when in the year these should take place”, it will be “for an awarding organisation to determine based on the requirements of the particular Technical Qualification and to explain its approach to assessment scheduling as part of its assessment strategy”.

There was also concern when the regulator proposed setting a requirement for occupational specialisms in T-levels to have a “working Towards” grade below pass.

“As there is felt to be limited value in this grade, we will not proceed with this proposal,” Ofqual has now said.

Other areas that have been changed include results and certification.

“Taking account of responses received, we will dis-apply our Conditions, meaning awarding organisations will not be required to issue certificates for the Technical Qualifications,” Ofqual said.

“Instead, certification will be for the overall T-level. However, a statement of achievement will be implemented for students who do not successfully pass all elements of the T-level, to ensure students are not disadvantaged and that their achievements are recognised.”

With regards to setting and marking assessments, the regulator will “require that the core knowledge and understanding elements are assessed by an examination and marked by the awarding organisation”.

“We would also expect these to be marked by the respective awarding organisation,” it added. “However, in exceptional circumstances, our rules will allow for centre marking of core skills assessments and Occupational Specialism assessments.”

Other proposals, including Ofqual’s approach on grading, reviews of marking and accreditation, will be “adopted largely as outlined in the consultation”.

Chief regulator Sally Collier said: “Our decisions, along with the government’s Invitation to Tender, mark a significant milestone in the delivery of T-levels.

“We look forward to continuing our collaboration with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Department for Education on this important initiative.”

“The responses we received to our policy consultation will help ensure these qualifications, and the T-levels of which they are part, are valid and robust, and meet the demands of the work place.”

Ofqual’s new T-levels consultation, which gives interested parties the chance to have their say on the detail of Ofqual’s rules, including drafts of the Conditions and Guidance,  has been published alongside the DfE’s tender process for awarding organisations.

The first three T-level pathways set to start teaching in 2020 will be in digital (production, design and development), childcare and education, and construction (design, surveying and planning).

The Construction Industry Training Board is trying to force colleges to enter “reverse subcontracting” arrangements where it charges “unfair” top-slices of at least 28 per cent even though it won’t be the prime.

The bizarre deal, which the Association of Colleges believes would break government funding rules, has been thought up by the CITB after it failed to win a non-levy apprenticeships contract.

Whereas before the levy it would use its apprenticeships contract as a prime and subcontract the training out to colleges, the CITB now wants colleges to agree to a “reversal of our contracts”.

Colleges would be the prime but have to pay a huge management fee believed to range from 28 to 36 per cent, like a subcontractor, for which the CITB will give access to construction employers and provide other services such as inductions and health and safety training, according to a contract seen by FE Week.

It means that for apprenticeships on the carpentry and joinery level two standard, for example, the training provider would receive £12,000 government funding but have to give £3,360 of it to the CITB.

One college which did not want to be named told FE Week the deal was “unfair”.

“We would question the regulatory compliance of the current reverse contract proposal and it does appear to be ill-conceived and almost unworkable,” it said.

“It is unfair and not in the best interests of the sector, students and employers.”

The Association of Colleges, who the CITB deceptively said had endorsed the deal along with the ESFA, is “deeply concerned” about the proposed arrangement.

It is suggesting colleges do not enter into such deals without consulting the association first.

“We remain deeply concerned that the current deal is not compliant with the current funding rules and does not represent a fair and transparent deal,” said AoC boss David Hughes in an email sent to his members today.

“To try to work through this, we have a meeting with CITB next week to which we are inviting ESFA, because an urgent way forward is needed.

“It would be helpful to hear from every college involved in this so that we can communicate directly with you.”

Teresa Frith, senior policy manager at the AoC, added: “We need to ensure that the way of working is fully compliant with ESFA funding rules and that it is fair to all involved.

“It is unfortunate that miscommunication at CITB has led to their staff telling colleges incorrectly that AoC and ESFA support the current proposal, but at least this has led us to the opportunity to jointly consider a way forward.”

Part of the reason why this “reverse subcontract” will be deemed as uncompliant by the ESFA is that a number of activities the CITB contract proposes they will do are listed in the rules as ineligible for funding, such as recruitment.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The ESFA funding rules make clear that we expect a direct relationship between apprenticeship training providers and the employers and apprentices they are working with.

“We would not support or endorse any funding arrangements that are inconsistent with these rules.”

She added that the DfE will “take action” with training providers found to be operating outside of the funding rules.

Steve Hearty, CITB’s director of apprenticeships and standards, told FE Week that all arrangements “will be in accordance with the ESFA’s subcontracting guidelines” when agreed.

“Like a number of providers, CITB was not awarded a contract to provide apprenticeship support to non-apprenticeship levy employers from April 2018 to March 2019,” he explained.

“In response to this, we have agreed a reversal of our contracts with our partner colleges. This means CITB will be a subcontractor to colleges providing training for non-apprenticeship levy construction employers where they wish to do so, although colleges may choose to deliver services without CITB as a subcontractor.”

The employer group behind three popular management apprenticeship standards has the backing of more than 150 employers – including retail giant Tesco – in its fight to overturn plans to slash their funding bands, the Chartered Management Institute has claimed.

The chartered manager, operational manager and team leader standards are all facing cuts of between £500 and £5,000, following the Institute for Apprenticeships’ recent rate review.

The group behind the standards is appealing against the recommendations, and has enlisted the support of 152 employers, including BT, Asda, IBM, Aldi, ODEON, Tesco, Next and Birds Eye.

They all signed an online appeal, led by the CMI, against the proposed “extensive and highly-damaging cuts” and urging the IfA and the Department for Education to “undertake a full and transparent economic and social impact assessment” before making any final decision.

“We simply can’t see why government is shooting one of its most successful policies in the foot”, said Petra Wilton, director of strategy at the CMI.

“As the overwhelming outcry from employers demonstrates, it makes so little sense.”

Anne Thomas, education director at Serco, and co-chair of the employer group, said the proposals would “clearly undermine” the company’s “future ability to use our levy on the management skills we need for our future business growth”.

“It also frustrates the hard work of the employer trailblazer group which has invested significant time and resources into developing high quality apprenticeships which will no longer be funded as promised,” she said.

It’s not clear exactly who has signed the appeal, as FE Week’s request for a full list of signatories was turned down.

HMRC, one of the Trailblazer group members, would not say whether it supported the appeal.

Our request to the IfA for an employer who supported the recommendations was also denied.

FE Week exclusively reported two weeks ago that the three standards – which between them accounted for almost 20,000 starts in the first nine months of 2017/18 – were in line for funding cuts as a result of the IfA’s review, which launched in May.

The level management degree apprenticeship will have its funding cap cut from £27,000 to £22,000.

The band for the level five operational manager standard will go from £9,000 to £7,000, while the level three team leader standard will be capped at £4,500 – down from £5,000.

The Trailblazer group is appealing against these recommendations on the grounds that the process behind them wasn’t “fair and transparent”.

Employers in the group are said to be particularly concerned that the review did not consider the economic and social impact of the proposals.

In addition to the formal appeal by the Trailblazer group, the CMI will also be appealing to the DfE before it makes a final decision.

Both the CMI and Serco have a vested interest in the outcome of the review: the CMI is an end-point assessment organisation for all three standards, while Serco is an apprenticeship provider – although it doesn’t currently offer the three standards, according to the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

The IfA would not be drawn on the CMI’s actions and the appeal when asked for a comment, beyond reiterating the process behind the review – which included the right to appeal.

“We encourage all our stakeholders to engage with us about any concerns regarding the review process,” a spokesperson said.

The funding band review, launched in May, covered 31 standards.

FE Week has so far learned of the outcomes of eight of these – six of which resulted in recommendations to reduce the funding rate.

Just one so far has led to a recommendation for the funding to increase, and one to stay the same.

 

Substantial T-level industry placements are expected to reduce the number of apprenticeships that employers offer, new Department for Education research has found.

A major report, which included interviews with 120 employers, has this morning laid bare the major issues faced to make the key component of the new technical qualifications work.

Employers reported that while they were mostly supportive of 45 to 60 day placements, they’d need to be paid to offer them, while some explicitly said they will not offer them in industries such as construction and engineering because they “could not see the benefit of this type qualification”.

But probably most troubling was the finding that there could be “trade-offs” with T-level placements and apprenticeships.

“This research shows that particularly in routes where apprenticeships and other vocational training programmes are already established, we are likely to see trade-offs between employers’ willingness to offer T-level industry placements and their ability to continue with existing vocational placements, traineeships and apprenticeships,” the report said.

It comes at worrying time for apprenticeship take-up, as latest government figures show starts for May are down 40 per cent compared with the same period in 2016.

Today’s T-levels research report noted that “overall, employers welcomed the idea of industry placements” and the proposed length is viewed as being “sufficient to enable the young person to undertake work of value to both employers and learners”.

However, it found that employers not currently engaged in offering work-based placements “struggled to foresee how they might go about finding the resource for these tasks”.

“They are concerned about their capacity and are reluctant to divert resources away from productive work to training and supervising a young learner,” it said.

The report added that successfully generating industry placements is likely to “require a package of support that demonstrate the company benefits of an industry placement and/or sufficiently minimise the costs to the extent that altruistic motivations are able to kick in”.

It recommends that government quickly informs employers about “what type and level of support (including potential financial support) will be available”.

Employers are also “not currently clear” on how T-levels “fit with the range of other qualification options available”.

“To be able to understand whether and how the qualification (and providing a placement) might benefit their organisation, they need to understand how it fits with and compares to options such as A-levels, apprenticeships, NVQs and university degrees,” researchers said.

“Where the industry is one in which vocational qualifications are already well-established, the value of a T-level, compared to an apprenticeship or a qualification with a more significant work placement component, is questioned.

“This is based on a perception that a primarily classroom-based qualification is a poor substitute for work-based learning.”

The first three T-level pathways set to start teaching in 2020 will be in digital (production, design and development), childcare and education, and construction (design, surveying and planning).

However, the DfE research found that for the education and childcare pathway, the “nature of work means it is impractical for young people to take part” in placements.

This includes “being in contact with young and/or vulnerable people (DBS checks may be required)” and “dealing with sensitive or confidential information”.

A Department for Education spokesperson confirmed that the completion of an industry placement will be a “requirement” for full certification of T-levels.

“Industry placements will be a key part of the new T-level programmes,” she said.

“Many businesses have said that the inclusion of a meaningful and substantial industry placement would make sure learners are better prepared and motivated for work.

“That is why we are investing nearly £60 million in 2018/19 with further funding to come in 2019/20 to support education providers to work with employers to deliver placements.

“We will continue to work closely with employers to explore ways to make sure they are able to offer placements from 2020.”

Forty students who were supposed to be inducted onto their A-levels today have been left “distraught” after Northampton College cancelled their courses a week before the start of term.

In a fiery meeting about the decision this morning, of which the principal was allegedly “too busy” to attend, angry parents slammed the college’s timing.

One parent, Jamie Simms, told FE Week that the encounter got to the stage “where we could have all had pitch forks and torches” after being told the college made the decision last Friday while they were still accepting students onto the courses.

Parents and students were not informed until yesterday.

Mr Simms said his daughter Katherine, aged 16, and all affected students are “distraught” and have been left to frantically scramble around the local area for alternative courses.

The college allegedly failed to guarantee they will secure places for all of them during the meeting.

Northampton College says it made the decision to stop enrollment onto new A-level courses to ensure a smooth transition to the government’s new technical qualifications – T-levels – of which it will be one of the first providers to offer them in 2020.

The excuse is strange, considering that T-levels are supposed to be the alternative to A-levels and the college is not on the government’s list of providers taking part in the T-level pilots in 2020.

It will instead offer the students a place on equivalent BTEC courses.

The affected learners were accepted to study A-levels at Northampton College just last Thursday after receiving their GCSE results.

“It isn’t the fact they’ve cancelled the courses it is the timing of it,” Mr Simms told FE Week.

“When the deputy principal admitted the decision was made last Friday the meeting erupted with lots of screams of ‘liars’. I actually thought someone was going to get arrested at one point.

“It was getting to the stage where we could have all had pitch forks and torches.”

His daughter Katherine was due to start A-levels in history, sociology and psychology. Northampton College doesn’t have an equivalent BTEC course to offer her.  

“She has no choice and can’t stay here,” Mr Simms said.

“The college has cut her loose now really because they basically said it is down to us to find a place for her.

“None of the other schools are open as it is still the holidays and as it stands she has no place to go to in September.”

He described that the planning of the situation as “inept” and said that as it is the college’s mess they should be the ones to clear it up.

“Katherine is very distraught about it as are all the students,” he added. “They just don’t know their futures now.

“She’s had to go through months of stress of exams, then months of stress waiting for the results. She then thinks she is sorted after getting into college and now it has all gone to crap again.”

Principal of Northampton College, Pat Brennan-Barrett, said: “Northampton College will be one of the first providers to offer the Government’s new technical qualifications, T-levels, and will be piloting a programme of ‘Industrial Placements’ to prepare for the change.

“As part of that transition, we have taken the decision to not continue with our current A-level offering and will instead be focusing on ensuring students can continue their journey into Higher Education with BTEC Diplomas – which are viewed by universities as an equivalent qualification.”

She added: “This change will affect all students who have applied to study A-levels at Northampton College from this September.

“We are working closely with all students and their parents to offer an equivalent BTEC qualification here at Northampton College and we are partnering with alternative providers to offer places on A-level courses in local sixth forms.”

Current students progressing from AS level will continue to study their A-levels at Northampton College and will not be affected by this decision.