If the 10% apprenticeship co-investment is removed, it should be done selectively

The 10 per cent apprenticeship contribution rule for non-levied employers remains a lively issue. It is frequently cited by training providers as a barrier to engagement, and the calls for its removal by leading sector bodies such as the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and others remain strident.

An air of suppressed anticipation awaited Anne Milton’s address to AELP’s national conference last week, since it had been informally trailed that she might make just such an announcement. However, the apprenticeships and skills minister said that while the calls for removal had been “noted”, the policy would not change “any time soon”. Subsequent speakers with insider experience of the Department for Education wryly suggested that “noted” is established civil service speak for sidelining an issue until it can be comfortably forgotten about.

A new approach is clearly needed. There are, in any event, some issues with the call for a complete removal of the 10 per cent contribution that have doubtless influenced the DfE’s thinking.

The notion that some employers simply “can’t pay” is far from universally credible, even in the case of small firms. A 10 per cent contribution to a £2,000 apprenticeship spread over 18 (or even just 12) months represents a monthly payment of only £11 (or £17). Of course many apprenticeships cost more. But even for a top-end £27,000 degree apprenticeship, where one might reasonably expect an employer to be a little bigger than purely “micro” or start-up level, the contribution is spread over three years and thus the monthly payment is only £75. This is obviously a more substantial outlay, but it is unlikely to be a bank-breaker if it really does represent an important resource acquisition for the employer.

Furthermore, the quality of investment made by employers in something they are paying for – even at just 10 per cent – is likely to be higher than for something that is given for free. That particular aspect of human psychology is well documented.

A simple truth is that 10 per cent co-investment may be less of a barrier for employers than it is for training providers’ engagement teams, who would obviously find it easier to sell apprenticeships if there were no charge at all. But that nature of provider-employer interaction does not always promote good quality. Furthermore, removing the 10 per cent would also significantly reduce, or remove entirely, the downward negotiating pressure from the employer on the fee. What’s the point if it’s free anyway? That change would clearly be for the benefit of providers.

Social mobility is often quoted as a reason to support calls for the removal of the 10 per cent contribution. However, if paying 10 per cent really is a big financial problem for employers, and if removing it will boost their participation, then that will largely be for existing employees only. If an employer can’t afford the (often) modest amounts associated with 10 per cent, then they are hardly going to meet the cost of a new employee, even at apprenticeship pay rates, never mind the cost of off-the-job training and everything else. So removing the 10 per cent will not really support social mobility in the way that proponents argue.

Levy-paying employers subjected to a compulsory payroll tax might also rightly question why they then have to pay the full (or maybe negotiated) list price when they see non-levied counterparts going from just 10 per cent to absolutely nothing. It is not cost-invisible for levy-payers just because they have had the money deducted up front.

There is obviously a powerful argument for championing social mobility through apprenticeships, but given the minister’s recent remarks, modifying the calls for a blanket removal of the 10 per cent co-investment may be more fruitful. For example, campaigning more selectively for the removal of co-investment for:

  • all level 2 apprenticeships;
  • all new apprenticeships – e.g. new positions/jobs;
  • apprenticeships in defined disadvantaged postcode areas, whether relating to the employer, the apprentice, or both;
  • employers below a certain redefined size for 19+ aged apprentices – “small” is not the same as “micro” (or the current sub-50 employee “no contribution” rule could be extended to 16-18 and 19-24 EHC apprentices).

Additionally, given Ms Milton’s comments about the need to “demonstrate causality”, and if the 10 per cent contribution really is a disincentive, then robust research should be quickly commissioned and presented.

Movers and Shakers: Edition 251

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving

Karen Redhead, principal and chief executive, Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College

Start date: Autumn 2018

Previous job: principal and chief executive, Derwentside College

Interesting fact: Karen is a keen horse rider, but now restricts herself to helping to judge at dressage competitions

Julie Nerney, chair, Association of Colleges

Start date: January 2019               

Previous job: chair, Greater Brighton Metropolitan College

Interesting fact: Julie attended 198 England football games, home and away, over a quarter of a century from the Italia ’90 World Cup to Euro 2016. If England hadn’t lost to Iceland, she might’ve made 200!

James Scott, principal, Stockport College and vice-principal, Trafford College Group

Start Date: August 2018

Previous job: Vice-principal, Trafford College

Interesting fact: James is a lifelong Manchester City fan, and is now reaping the rewards of his devotion

Helen Wood, assistant principal, Trafford College Group

Start date: August 2018

Previous job: Director of learning, Trafford College

Interesting fact: Helen is training to be a yoga teacher, and can do a headstand for more than one minute.

Graham Hasting-Evans, president, British Association of Construction Heads

Start date: July 2018

Current job: Managing director, NOCN Group (he remains in post)

Interesting fact: Graham was head of employment and skills for the construction of the London Olympics and Paralympics in 2012

If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk

When does Ofsted inspect a newly merged college?

Merging with another college is certainly not a way to dodge a visit from Ofsted, explains Paul Joyce, in response to FE Week’s criticism of the regulator’s move to suspend routine inspections for at least three years following a merger.

College mergers have become much more commonplace in recent years. With this in mind, and following last week’s opinion piece by FE Week’s esteemed editor (“Ofsted should renege on its merger deal”), I thought it might be helpful to clarify our policy on inspecting these newly merged colleges.

Our inspection handbook clearly sets out:

“A newly merged college will normally be inspected as a new provider within three years of the merger… Any newly merged college or other provider deemed as a new provider may receive a monitoring visit to assess risk. Risk concerns arising from this or other sources may lead to an earlier full inspection.”

So what does this mean in practice? Well, “within three years” does not mean that inspection will happen at the three-year point, or even within the third year. A full inspection can take place at any point during that period. In fact, we have just inspected NCG less than 12 months after its merger with Lewisham and Southwark College. And in May this year we inspected East Coast College less than a year after it was formed following a merger between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft Colleges. Inspections taking place relatively quickly after a merger are not unusual – but they are risk-based and proportionate.

As well as carrying out full inspections, Ofsted uses its power to conduct monitoring visits to assess providers and flag any concerns. These visits are used to make sure a provider is on the right track, and where we find a provider is not making sufficient progress, we can bring a full inspection forward. We continue to carry out monitoring visits to newly merged colleges, and before the change to our monitoring policy earlier this year we completed support and challenge visits to a number of newly merged colleges where the merger included a college formerly graded as “requires improvement” or “inadequate”. So rest assured we are monitoring colleges that merge very closely.

Our handbook sets out inspection time frames to help give colleges and other providers an idea of when they might get an inspection. It also serves to reassure students and parents about when their institution might be inspected. But these time frames are indicative and they are deliberately not specific; we monitor providers closely and use all available information to risk-assess when they are in need of inspection.

Ofsted regularly uses its powers to inspect “at any time”. I can promise you now that where we have concerns about a college – newly merged or not – we will do what we always have done, which is to go in and inspect. Merging with another college is certainly not a route to avoiding inspection.

BTEC award winners 2018 unveiled

The 24 winners of the 2018 BTEC awards have been recognised at a glitzy ceremony in London.

Central Hall Westminster held the awards where individual learners’ achievements were recognised in a range of subject areas, from construction to music and engineering to sport.

Hosted by TV presenter and well-known FE supporter Steph McGovern, the ceremony showcased the “fantastic contributions” made by students studying for BTECs.

An expert panel of 52 judges considered each nominee for the eighth annual awards, before deciding upon a winner.

Rachna exemplifies the spirit of inspiration and dedication

It was attended by the winners, their families and teachers as well as stakeholders from the education and business worlds. They were joined with entrepreneurs, MPs and celebrities to share the 24 winners’ stories and present them with their awards.

The overall BTEC student of the year award, which comes with a £1,000 prize, went to Rachna Udasi, a level three subsidiary diploma in business student at St David’s College, London.

She launched a business as part of her studies, in which she takes the coffee beans from a community in Africa, ships them across to the UK, packages up and sells to local coffee shops. Profits and proceeds are then sent back to Africa.

“Rachna is a true example of putting her education into practice,” the judges said.

“She has achieved top grades and desires to become a successful entrepreneur and inspire others.

“Rachna exemplifies the spirit of inspiration and dedication.”

Meanwhile, BTEC sports student of the year went to Megan Murphuy, from Bishop Thomas Grant School in London, whose award was presented by double Olympic gold medallist and a former BTEC graduate himself, Max Whitlock.

He gave the audience a treat by showcasing his talent with an impromptu performance on the pommel horse.

Also performing on the day were the five winners of Pearson’s Showstopper Challenge – groups from colleges offering BTECs in the performing arts: Arts1, Pik’n’Mix, Hamilton Mix, Aurimas and Shemaiah.

Other top BTEC award winners included Feven Zeray, adult learner of the year from Trafford College, Tommy Robinson, tutor of the year from the John Madejski Academy in Reading, and Kuang Myat Htet, international student of the year from UMG College in Burma.

The award for college of the year went to One Sixth Form College, based in Suffolk, while school of the year was picked up by the Westminster Academy in London.

This is a wonderful celebration, not just of the outstanding winners themselves but of the value of the BTEC qualification

Rod Bristow, President of Pearson in the UK, commended all of the winners.

“I want to offer my congratulations to all of the winners and everyone who was nominated for a BTEC award this year,” he said.

“This is a wonderful celebration, not just of the outstanding winners themselves but of the value of the BTEC qualification to employers and universities around the world.”

Pearson has run BTECs for over 30 years. The hands-on vocational qualifications facilitate training of “work-ready candidates” with knowledge and practical skills desired by employers. Throughout the course, students work on a series of assignments in real-life scenarios.

Mr Bristow said learners today face a “rapidly changing landscape – as trends in labour patterns, technology and industry alter the way we work and live”.

“Now, more than ever, I believe the broad, career-focused education that BTEC offers reflects the reality that the global economy doesn’t just value what people know; it values what they can do,” he added.

FE Week is media partner for the BTEC awards and will be producing a special supplement on the ceremony next week.

Steve Frampton, President-elect, Association of Colleges

Steve Frampton will be the next president of the Association of Colleges, taking on the reigns from Dr Alison Birkinshaw in August. We chatted to him about his career to date, and how he came to be so committed to including the student voice in decision-making.

As chair of his school’s student council in the mid-70s, Steve Frampton persuaded his fellow pupils to wear socks of every shade of the rainbow. Weymouth Grammar School ended up dropping their ban on coloured socks. “They couldn’t expel every one of us!” he laughs.

Frampton laughs a lot. The Portsmouth College principal, who is due to retire this summer, is overflowing with positive vibes that he’s planning to channel into the AoC presidency next year.

After 12 years overseeing the growth of the seaside college – ostensibly a sixth-form college, but which also offers apprenticeships to respond to local need – on his 59th birthday, Frampton decided to retire, and gave his notice last September. In May, he was appointed uncontested to the AoC presidency – something that in its ten-year history has never happened before.

While he can’t say why for certain, the Big Friendly Giant (as he’s been referred to in Too Fast to Think, a book on creativity and leadership) does admit that he “went on the offensive a little bit,” sending his manifesto to 100 college principals in April, along with a list of five “powerful hitters” who were supporting his campaign. “Now, what I don’t know is whether or not that deterred some people from standing,” he muses, “because on the final day where everyone declares their interest, there was nobody else this year.”

I went on the offensive a little bit

Such a statement could come over as disingenuous, scheming even, but he manages to project an impression of humility mixed with pragmatism – which might offer a clue as to how he has garnered sufficient respect in the sector to pull off such a coup.

Frampton is a people-person through-and-through. He’s involved in all kinds of community projects, such as chairing Portsmouth Football Club’s community organisation, which delivers literacy and numeracy projects – basically “everything that’s not about football”. The sport was his early passion and before an injury took him out of the game, he played semi-professionally for Weymouth FC.

Frampton-the-teen was also an entrepreneur, who would leverage his position as chair of the school council to block-buy tickets for Wembley Stadium. He made sure always to make enough money on the first 52 seats to pay for his own. “It was tiny, tiny amounts of money and I made a bit out of it, but I learned how to run things.” Having established his reputation, he started making block bookings to concerts in Bristol, Bournemouth – even London. “No technology, word of mouth. I would sell out the tickets within 24 hours, just like that.”

His crowning moment was getting a coach-load of students from Leicester University (where he went on to study) to ball-boy for an England-Northern Ireland match where George Best was playing. “The England ball boys hadn’t turned up,” he relates. “Their coach had broken down in Kent and we were the first coach there and we looked really smart, and officials from the FA came over – I thought they were joking – and basically said, ‘Would you like to be ball boys tonight?’”

Only those students who fit into the 14- to 16-year-old kit were accepted, and Frampton’s best friend, who was smaller than him, managed to pull it off. “I’ve never forgiven him, really,” he jokes.

After graduating from Leicester with a first-class degree in combined sciences, Frampton got a PGCE from Keele University, before returning south to begin his career. He taught at Price’s Sixth Form College in Fareham, Portsmouth, which then merged with the general FE college, for nine years. He then spent the next decade at “probably one of the most exclusive sixth-form colleges in the country” – Peter Simmons College in Winchester – before landing a role as vice principal of St Vincent College in Gosport – a stark contrast in terms of social deprivation.

When he moved to Portsmouth College as principal in 2005, he took some of the senior team with him, although he denies it counts as “poaching”, explaining innocently: “They choose to follow, don’t they? They wanted to come and work here and help us build something.”

He talks a lot about building a good organisational culture, for which his approach is to “transfer a lot of the professionalism back to your staff. We know that they’re working hard, and they’re getting the outcomes, and actually, we’re having fun”.

But how does a college principal strike the right balance between fun and discipline? “You involve the staff and the students in the decision-making process, so we all own it all. It’s not dependent on one person and their vision and their ideas, it’s a massive, collective responsibility so everybody feels a really big part of this place. So it’s very old-fashioned, but there’s a massive family culture here.”

I think the students are much more sophisticated than we give them credit for

Which brings us back to the multi-coloured socks incident. His point in protesting the school rule wasn’t so much to defend the pupils’ right to express themselves, as to challenge the imposition of arbitrary rules: “I was just interested in the argument, ‘so what’s red socks got to do with teaching and learning and assessment?’”

He’s quick to point out that it was a great school, and his example is more about the time and context. But it’s also the story he uses to illustrate how he first became passionate about student voice. “I think [the students] are much more sophisticated than we give them credit for,” is a phrase he uses often.

“Student voice” is one of those topics that turns people off, I say, like “participatory democracy” – it’s all very noble, but it just doesn’t grab people’s attention. Frampton doesn’t care. “I believe in the student voice, and I’ve learnt more from listening to young people – including eight or nine-year-olds – and it has affected my thinking massively, along with talking to staff.”

In fact, that’s a big part of his vision for the AoC presidency, which he hopes to work on with colleges, the NUS and Ofsted. “I don’t think Paul [Joyce – Ofsted’s Director of FE] is too nervous about really putting student voice right at the heart of the process along with data,” he says, optimistically, “because I think he’s always said it’s more than data.”

Student voice is intimately linked with mental health, Frampton believes – which is another of the “softer outcomes” he’d like to help bring to prominence.

“How are we actually going to measure the college’s contribution to improving the resilience and mental health of their student population over the time that they’re here?” he asks. “That’s quite a difficult one to get your head around really, but I think what’s great is there’s a willingness to do it.”

To guide him in this endeavour, Frampton has a master-plan up his sleeve, which combines his two great passions: education and football.

We’ve lost a little bit of that fun and humour and beauty

Johan Cruyff, a legendary Dutch professional football player and coach, “wanted to make football the most beautiful game in the world,” enthuses Frampton. “Beautiful for players, for coaches, for communities, for spectators, for officials, for everybody.” To this end, Cruyff wrote a 14-point action plan, which is revered in football-club boardrooms across Europe.

Frampton thinks the concept could be adapted to education. “Because it really should be really beautiful. It’s so valuable. To a certain extent, we’ve lost a bit of that by measuring it to death and putting in certain processes. It should be beautiful for young people in primary, secondary, FE, and HE for that matter. It should also be beautiful for employers, because they should be able to reap the benefits of it. It should be really beautiful for parents and communities and teachers and managers, and for all of us.

“And I think we’ve lost a little bit of that fun and humour and beauty, and what I would love is, is if the new Ofsted framework was a little bit more holistic and could help contribute to that agenda.”

It’s a personal thing

What’s your favourite film?

Catch 22. Also One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest – film and book. Oh, and Paddington 2, because I thought that was absolutely brilliant!

If you could escape anywhere for a month, where would you go?

Shanghai. It’s just so cool. It’s the world’s most rapidly growing city: colonial history on one bank, then this new development Pudong with a five-million population over 20 years. All of the history of China is there: the Buddhist temples, the Taoist temples, Confucian temples, art, culture. It’s so exciting, so dynamic. Yes, the most exciting city on the planet, without any doubt.

What slogan would you put on a billboard?

Education, education, education. And actually what I mean by that is primary education, secondary education and the FE sector. Because it’s all three.

Who’s your greatest hero?

I’ve got two great heroes. I’m not a musician, but I love contemporary music, and so I do try and see a lot of live music. I was in London to see some on Sunday at Meltdown, and I think on my leaving do next week a lot of students who are musicians now are coming back to play, because they’ve been extraordinary here. David Bowie is my great hero, and then Johan Cruyff is my favourite all-time footballer. To lose them both in one year…

If you hadn’t gone into education, what would you have done?

I would be Gareth Southgate in Russia now, because that was the other thing I thought about when I stopped playing – I would have loved a career in sport. I love the psychology of sport.

 

CV

June 2005 Present Principal, Portsmouth College

1998-2005 Vice principal – Strategic, St Vincent College, Gosport

1989-1993 Head of geography, geology & tourism, Peter Symonds College, Winchester

1993-1998 Head of humanities faculty, Peter Symonds College, Winchester

1983-1989 Head of earth sciences, Fareham Tertiary College

1982-1983 Teacher and student liaison officer, Prices Sixth Form College, Fareham

1980-1982 Geography, geology and PE teacher, Prices Sixth Form College, Fareham

AEB devolution gets step closer as first pre-tender exercise launched

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has become the first devolved area to launch a pre-procurement exercise for the adult education budget.

Ahead of its takeover of the AEB for its region in 2019/20, the authority is asking local training provides to take part in market research to help it draft and formulate a tender specification.

“The GMCA would like to explore current and emerging good practice in their AEB services to facilitate continuous improvement,” said a prior information notice (PIN) launched on Monday.

“This would include looking at delivery models which would maximise opportunities for the GMCA to deliver value for money.”

The Department for Education has issued an indicative budget for 2019/20 of £92.2 million for Greater Manchester.

GMCA wants to ensure that as much funding as possible reaches learners

The authority’s PIN said it will look to put out around £25 million of this to tender.

Like the last national AEB tender, FE Colleges, local authorities and third sector providers will be let off the hook as the rest of the budget will be grant funded to them.

“In Greater Manchester this includes around 20 providers which deliver around 75-80 per cent of AEB funded provision within GM,” said a report on devolution published by the authority in April.

“The ESFA currently funds these providers via a block grant on the basis that they are not-for-profit organisations in receipt of a grant to support their work (as opposed to a contract for specified activities).

“We would look to replicate that approach in 2019/20, subject to confirmation that grant allocations are compliant with relevant law/regulations.”

Like the Greater London Authority, which will also take control of AEB funding for its region next year, the GMCA is “considering” how funding models which incorporate outcome payments “can be used to drive better impact for learners based on progress from the starting point of their individual journey”.

“We are also considering pilot activity around funding additional elements of provision where they are linked to job outcomes,” the notice said.

It wants views on the advantages and disadvantages of a number of different payment models.

These include “the current model, in which an element of funding is attached to the achievement of a qualification with 20 per cent held back for achievement of it”, as well as “full payment by results, with the majority of funding predicated on achieving the stated outcome”.

Another funding model under consideration is “partial payment by results, combining funding elements linked to service delivery, on-programme milestones, for achievement of the agreed outcome/progression and an additional payment linked to a positive destination”.

Any underspend will be retained by GM rather than returned to DfE

It will also consider payments for work experience.

“The GMCA is also keen to understand the introduction/impact of license to practice and payments for work experience as long as there is a clear link to a job outcome.”

By having control of the AEB, GMCA expects to be enabled to focus on working with a “smaller range of high quality providers and reduce duplication”.

Once contracts are actually handed out following procurement, the authority’s intention is to make them last initially for one year, with an option to extend for a further two years.

But the GMCA warned that it will keep a close eye on subcontracting.

“GMCA wants to ensure that as much funding as possible reaches learners but recognises that there are costs involved in properly managing and assuring supply chains,” its PIN said.

“We will be considering relevant guidance and best practice in relation to all management fees and those generated by subcontracting arrangements.”

Interestingly, any underspend of the AEB will be retained by the authority.

“Department for Education has now confirmed that there will be no separate administration budget provided after devolution,” its PIN said.

“They have indicated that GM funding, including the AEB itself, should be used to fund operational costs associated with AEB, and that any underspend (usually around 2-3 per cent per year) will be retained by GM rather than returned to DfE.”

Organisations wanting to take part in this initial research need to complete the GMCA’s Market Testing Document by 4pm on July 16.

National Audit Office reviewing apprenticeship reforms progress

A follow-up review of apprenticeships has been launched by the National Audit Office, which will focus on whether the reform programme is delivering value for money.

The NAO is requesting submissions, with a key theme being whether the Department for Education is ensuring that the system is not being abused by stakeholders.

This comes after its 2016 report warned the reform programme risked repeating fraud that plagued failed Individual Learning Accounts without more robust risk planning.

“We last reported to parliament on the apprenticeships programme in September 2016,” a spokesperson said.

“Since then there have been a number of developments which make revisiting this topic timely, including a 0.5 per cent levy that has been introduced on the payroll of large employers to fund apprenticeships”.

The apprenticeships levy was launched for employers with a paybill of over £3 million in April last year. They have two years to spend their levy pot on apprenticeships training, which the government hoped would boost apprenticeship starts.

This has not so far happened and the NAO is expected to look into why starts are infact now “significantly lower”.

Most recent figures for March for example showed that apprenticeship starts were down 52 per cent compared with the same period in 2017.

The study will also look closely at the Institute for Apprenticeships, which is supposed to act as the policing body for the reforms programme.

Key among IfA responsibilities is signing off employer-designed apprenticeship ‘standards’ that are increasingly replacing old ‘frameworks’, and the NAO plans to check out progress with this.

Its damning 2016 report warned that the DfE has still had no contingency plan in case the levy and funding reforms did not work out as planned.

The failure of the Individual Learning Accounts scheme – which was scrapped in 2001 after abuse by unscrupulous providers led to a reported £67 million fraud – was blamed on poor planning and risk management by the government.

But the NAO raised concern that lessons had not been learned — as it warned the DfE had not done enough to identify how providers, employers and assessment bodies might react to the apprenticeship reforms, raising the risk of “market abuse”.

Mark Dawe

Launch of the new study comes after Association of Employment and Learning Providers boss Mark Dawe told members this week that he’d had “an excellent meeting with the NAO with a number of our providers and end point assessment organisation members, talking about the apprenticeship policy a year on”. 

“It made me proud to represent the sector the way everyone spoke, the balance of view and the clarity in the way everyone articulated the big issues”. 

But he warned “it was a great reminder for me of the looming car crash in terms of end point assessment”. 

“This is nothing to do with the providers and the EPA organisations who are trying their hardest to make this work – examples of poor assessment design in the approved standard, poor funding, absent quality controls, limited workforce capacity, lack of awareness – the list went on,” he added.

FE Week has been reporting on concern over the lack of approved organisations in place to deliver apprenticeship end point assessments since 2016.

Our special investigation in April uncovered an example of how would-be dental practice managers began their apprenticeship with Barnet and Southgate College in November 2015.

They finished their training and should have completed last May, but were unable to do so almost a year later as nobody was available to test them because the assessment plan was unworkable.

The NAO has invited those interested in providing evidence for its latest study, scheduled to report early next year, to email enquiries@nao.gsi.gov.uk.

Institute for Apprenticeships’ T-level takeover delayed, again

A second delay to when the Institute for Apprenticeships will take responsibility for T-levels has been confirmed.

According to the institute’s business plan for 2018/19, published today, it only expects to have agreed a “full implementation timetable” for taking on the new technical qualifications by next March.

It was originally meant to take control of them from the Department for Education in March 2018. Then minutes of a board meeting from last November revealed the first delay – that the IfA would not adopt T-levels until the end of 2018.

“By March 2019 we will have agreed a full implementation timetable with the DfE for the transfer of responsibility for the T-level qualification aspect of technical reform,” said its new business plan.

The institute’s five-year strategic plan was also published today, in which its chair, Antony Jenkins, added: “We will agree with the Department for Education a workable transition of responsibility for technical education and develop a cohesive and accessible map for individuals and employers.”

It is well-known that the institute’s chief executive, Sir Gerry Berragan, has major concerns over the proposed delivery timescale for T-levels, and could be the reason for this second delay.

“The last thing we should do is start the first three on the wrong footing and give them a bad reputation,” he said at an Ofqual conference in March.

“We need to deliver these successfully from the outset. I think the timeline for delivery of the initial three pathways is worryingly tight in that regard.”

The first three T-levels are due to be launched in 2020, of which the DfE will initially oversee.

The news of this second delay to the IfA taking on responsibility will put question marks over whether the department will now manage wave two for 2021 starts.


Damian Hinds defends T-levels timetable to Education Committee

Education secretary Damian Hinds and his permanent secretary Jonathan Slater were at odds last week over the controversial decision not to delay T-levels by a year, following the former’s ministerial direction in May.

Mr Slater told the Public Accounts Committee he had concerns about the lack of “contingency” built into the T-levels timetable.

But his boss insisted to the education committee that the new qualifications are being introduced at a “good pace”.

The IfA declined to comment on the takeover delay but the DfE said it will only transfer T-level responsibility when the time is right.

“We are transforming technical education in this country through the introduction of new T-levels, and will be investing an extra half a billion pounds a year once they are up and running,” said a spokesperson.

“The Institute of Apprenticeships is already playing a key role in the design and delivery of the T-levels – and it is important that we make sure that the transfer of full responsibility is done at the time that is right.”

The IfA’s new business plan included a number of other targets ahead of its takeover of T-levels.

By March 2019, the institute will have published a full set of occupational maps covering all T-level routes, it said.

These maps will be used to “inform the design of T-levels and apprenticeship standards and ensure they are developed consistently and driven by industry need”.

It will also have “recruited, trained and embedded people within the Institute with project delivery and commercial expertise”, by that date, as well as approved the content of three pathways under wave one for digital (production, design and development), childcare and education, and construction (design, surveying and planning).

The institute will also have developed the “procurement and delivery plan for the wave two pathways incorporating lessons from wave one”, by March 2019.

Inadequate Ofsted report exposes racial bullying at doomed UTC

Bullying – some of it racial – is rife at a university technical college that announced closure earlier this week, according to its damning ‘inadequate’ Ofsted reporting published this morning.

UTC@Harbourside is also accused of “too often” breaking “too many promises”, in a report that gives the 14 to 19 technical institution the lowest possible rating across the board.

The school, based in Newhaven, East Sussex, is the third in the space of a week to have received a grade four rating, and the 10th overall.

“Bullying, especially in key stage 4, is frequent,” the report said.

“Some of it is racial. Adults do not act decisively enough to stop it and prevent repetition.”

Some pupils in year 10 have a “miserable time” at the UTC “due to bullying, some of a persistent nature and which results in a few pupils being isolated”.

Pupils in this age group are “very clear that the size of the cohort means that relatively minor disagreements too often get blown out of proportion,” inspectors noted.

According to 2018 school census figures, it has 130 pupils on register in 2017/18, down from 141 in 2016/17.

Safeguarding arrangements are deemed to be “not effective”.

Pupils and learners at the school, which opened in 2015, are “hugely disappointed” with its “failure to live up to their expectations,” the report said.

“Too many promises made by the UTC have been broken too often.”

Learners on 16 to 19 study programmes “report that they feel ‘lied to’ by the UTC to get them to join and have been let down since,” inspectors found.

Outcomes for these learners are “not good enough”, and many report feeling not “challenged to excel” and “unsupported in many aspects of their academic studies”.

Teachers “frequently teach outside their specialism due to budgetary constraints”, and only “some” have the “correct technical knowledge to deliver their subject accurately”.

Senior leadership is described as “chaotic”, with the “substantive principal” not present during the inspection.

The “weak senior leadership” means there is “no meaningful middle leadership” as leaders at this level are “carrying out functions normally associated with senior leadership”.

“The deputy principal is determinedly trying to rescue the UTC”, inspectors noted.

UTC@Harbourside’s governors said in a statement they were “disappointed” by the report but that they “fully accept the findings of the inspectors and are committed to implementing the recommendations contained in their report for the students that remain with us until the UTC closes in August 2019”.

An acting principal, Lisa Jepson, “has already started to address the issues raised in the report”.

“We will continue to work closely with Ofsted to secure improvements and guide our current year 10 and 12 students to successfully completing their courses in July 2019.”

On Monday the UTC became the ninth of the 14 to 19 technical institutions to announce plans to close.

It will shut its doors in August 2019 after failing to recruit enough pupils to become “financially stable”.

The college will remain open and “fully committed” to ensuring current year 10 and 12 pupils successfully complete their courses by next July, according to the governors.

It also the 10th to have received Ofsted’s lowest rating, and third in the space of a week – after Derby Manufacturing UTC on Thursday (June 28), and Health Futures UTC yesterday (July 3).

The UTC model has faced substantial problems since its inception in 2010. Many have struggled financially after failing to attract the right number of pupils, as well as with quality.

In January, it was revealed that UTC@Harbourside was one of three UTCs to have agreed to pay back over £500,000 to the government after over-estimating pupil numbers.