Anne Milton has posted a job advert looking for an apprentice to work in her parliamentary office which excludes candidates with a GCSE grade 4, even though it is considered a pass.

The advert for a level three business and administration apprentice was published two days ago by the skills minister and states that applicants must have achieved “GCSE A-C (9-5) or equivalent in maths English and IT”.

Her request for a grade 5 or above comes despite a grade 4 also being equivalent to a C and therefore a pass under the government’s new GCSE grading system – which has frequently been slammed for its confusion by parents, employers and experts.

It appears that the skills minister’s office is just as baffled by the system, as it was only after FE Week got in touch with the Department for Education and training provider who will offer the apprenticeship to point out the issue that they realised it was wrong.

The training manager said the advert will now be amended and the DfE added: “Minister Milton’s parliamentary office are looking into how this error occurred.”

Tom Sherrington, an education consultant and former headteacher, said the situation will leave Ms Milton “red-faced” and “absolutely proves that even the government doesn’t understand its grading system”.

“They’ve confused the government’s idea of a ‘good’ pass which is a threshold for school accountability with the meaning of the qualification,” he told FE Week.

“A pass is a C and a 4 is absolutely equivalent.

“If they put C is a 5 then they simply don’t understand their system.

“It leaves the minister red-faced, particularly because she is responsible for a department which is responsible for communicating this system to the general public.”

The new grading system was introduced by the Department for Education for all GCSEs for the first time this year.

A grade 9 and 8 is equivalent to an A*, 7 is an A, 6 is a B, and 5 and 4 are considered a C (see image below).

The government has tried to push the idea that a 5 is a “strong” pass while a 4 is a “standard” pass.

However, they’ve come up against resistance to this. Ofqual, for example, wrote to schools about the changes in March last year but left details of the new “standard” and “strong” passes off its aide-memoire.

After being shown Ms Milton’s job advert, NUS vice president for FE Emily Chapman said: “We welcome the Department for Education amending their job specification, however the fact it needed to be raised as an issue in the first place is a further indication that the new system of grading adds confusion.

“It seems like a step in the right direction that the government wants to take on its own apprentices, but they must ensure that their application processes are adhering to their own grading boundaries and not rush through new systems that haven’t been fully thought through.”

The successful candidate in Ms Milton’s job hunt will study at Westminster Kingsway College.

Duties include assisting her parliamentary assistant and caseworker with constituency correspondence and research, data entry and data management, and diary management.

It will also include organising constituent visits and tours of parliament, general administrative tasks and handling telephone calls, and drafting letters and emails to constituents on a range of policy issues.

They will be paid £213 per week. The advert closes September 16.

Interested candidates can view the application here.

The government’s new GCSE grading system explained:

Ofqual is “closely monitoring” an investigation being carried out by Training Qualifications UK into allegations of ‘copy and paste’ assessments, FE Week can reveal.

Earlier this week the exams regulator said it was “looking into” concerns identified by Ofsted during a recent inspection of Northern Construction Training and Regeneration.

The inspectorate’s report said it had found evidence of assessment practice in its retail provision that was “not consistently appropriate” – including identical word-processed text in six out of 19 sample portfolios it checked.

Ofqual has now confirmed that TQUK had alerted it to “an investigation it is carrying out into suspected malpractice” at NCTR.

“We are closely monitoring TQUK’s investigation,” a spokesperson said.

Andrew Walker, managing director at TQUK, told FE Week that NCTR was approved to offer its retail qualifications and that it was the awarding body affected.

“The centre is currently subject to an ongoing investigation.  I am unable to comment further at this time,” he said.

NCTR’s Ofsted report, which rated it grade four overall, highlighted concerns over “poor assessment practice” in its retail provision.

“Within one sample of 19 portfolios made available by managers, inspectors found that six contained identical word-processed text in assessed work, which had been subject to internal quality assurance checks and had been formally accredited,” the report said.

“Consequently, assessed and formally accredited work cannot be reliably attributed to individual learners, some of whom have received qualification certificates.”
NCTR, which hadn’t previously been inspected, had non-levy apprenticeship contracts worth £1,007,046 in 2017/18, the vast majority of which was for 16- to 18-year-old apprentices.

In addition, it had an advanced learner loan facility worth £2.5 million.

At the time of inspection the provider had 423 adult learners on programme, and 75 apprentices.

Last week’s inspection report rated it ‘inadequate’ overall but grade two for its apprenticeship provision.

According to ESFA rules, this means it is likely to have its contracts pulled but it should keep its place on the register of apprenticeship providers.

However, neither the provider nor ESFA has yet confirmed that this will happen.

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said it was “currently assessing Ofsted’s findings” and would be contacting NCTR “to set out the action we will be taking in due course”.

“We will always take action to protect apprentices if a training provider is not fit for purpose.”

The skills minister offered a handwritten promise to the Association of Colleges that her “lobbying for FE continues” when delivering the news that there is no cash to fund a college staff pay rise.

Anne Milton, who says she “constantly” fights the Treasury for more money, appeared sympathetic to the AoC’s case when responding to its boss’ plea to match the recent school teacher award of a 3.5 per cent salary increase.

In her reply to David Hughes’ request, she explained that the Department for Education does not set the pay for teachers in colleges, but does set the levels of funding for FE.

“We want to make sure that there is an effective funding system for FE which can support sustainable, high quality education,” she said.

“We are considering this as part of the upcoming spending review, scheduled to take place in 2019.”

Ms Milton then added a handwritten note at the bottom of the letter which reads: “My lobbying for FE continues!”

The DfE has since got in touch with FE Week to reaffirm their commitment to the sector, whilst repeating that they are reviewing FE funding.

“Further education is a very important part of the education sector offering invaluable opportunities to people of all ages,” a spokesperson said.

“We have transformed technical education to put it on a par with the best systems in the world, with our new T-levels to be backed by an extra £500 million a year.

“In addition we have protected the base rate of funding for 16-19 year olds and maintained the level of the adult education budget since 2015-16.”

She added: “This is why the minister made clear that whilst it is for individual colleges to set pay for their staff we are currently looking at funding for the sector, including the need to recruit and retain effective teachers.”

In March the skills minister revealed that the DfE had started an FE funding and “sustainability” review, which looks into how the current system meets the costs of high-quality provision.

But earlier this month it was reported that the sector could in fact be in for another round of cuts, after the chancellor told ministries without protected budgets to find savings.

Ms Milton told the education select committee in July that she “constantly” fights the Treasury for more funding, but before she can request an amount her sustainability review needs to be completed.

With the spending review fast approaching and scheduled to take place in early 2019 the minister will need to get a move on to persuade the Chancellor to give more, not less, cash.

You can read Ms Milton’s full letter to Mr Hughes here.

Apprenticeship providers could be forced to stop recruiting students for several years, if judged to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in early monitoring visits from Ofsted, FE Week can reveal.

Earlier this month the Education and Skills Funding Agency confirmed that any poor-performing provider with the rating in at least one of the themes under review will be barred from taking on any new apprentices – either directly or through a subcontracting arrangement.

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

But when asked by FE Week how soon after a monitoring visit a new provider can expect a full inspection, Ofsted revealed it will be sticking to the rules in its existing handbook which state it will be within three years of starting their first apprentice.

“As set out in our handbook, Ofsted normally inspects new providers with a full inspection within three years of their first receiving funding,” a spokesperson said.

“Clearly, the outcome from any monitoring visit will be taken into consideration when planning the subsequent full inspection, including when it takes place.”

The news will ring alarm bells for new apprenticeship providers subject to the early monitoring visits, as their whole business will effectively be put on hold until Ofsted grants them a full inspection and ups their grade if they receive ‘insufficient progress’ in any of the themes.

AELP chief policy officer Simon Ashworth said: “We definitely need greater clarity on what happens next whether it’s a future monitoring visit or a full inspection where the provider has to get at least a grade three.

“An absence of transparency over timing does appear to leave providers in limbo although the importance of good quality provision for learners must be our topmost priority.”

Providers judged to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in the monitoring visits will be able to continue to work with existing apprentices, but must tell the employers, and any lead providers, about the monitoring visit outcome as well as pausing recruitment.

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

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

When asked whether all new providers with starts can now expect a monitoring visit, the spokesperson for the watchdog said it had not decided on this yet.

“In November 2017, HMCI announced that Ofsted would carry out monitoring visits to a sample of new providers,” she said.

“We are working closely with the DfE to assess what we can learn from these visits.”

Ofsted’s new powers follow an education select committee hearing at which skills minister Anne Milton admitted it wasn’t clear who was accountable for quality at these new providers.

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

A college in west Anglia has been banned from entering into new subcontracting arrangements after a government investigation found it did not know where training for 16 to 19-year-olds was being delivered.

An inquiry into the College of West Anglia’s relationship with GEMEG Limited was launched at the end of 2017 following allegations of severe mismanagement, including the subcontractor imposing fines on students.

An MP, understood to be John Mann for Bassettlaw, provided 223 documents to support the allegations.

The provision on offer included work experience at Worksop Town Football Club and Worksop Town Football Academy and affected at least 19 students.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency found that GEMEG failed to inform the college where provision was initially delivered.

Registers stated that provision was delivered in Nottingham rather than Worksop – an hour’s drive away – which meant that CoWA “did not know where training was being delivered for the first six months of the programme”.

“Because CoWA did not visit the students for the first six months of the programme, they could not have established that the 19 students were actually on the programme,” the ESFA said.

GEMEG also did not provide “sufficient evidence that they had assessed appropriately, student learning needs when students enrolled on the programme”.

But even when the college discovered the location used for training in Worksop was not “entirely suitable for teaching”, the college took “no effective action”.

During the investigation one student said GEMEG fined them for non-attendance when on holiday. The subcontractor denies this and the college said it was not aware of any fees or fines charged to students by GEMEG.

Worksop Town Football Club was supposed to be paid by GEMEG for the use of the club’s services, such as room hire.

But the club claim that they “did not receive the funds and are considering their options regarding this matter, including whether to refer the issue to the police”.

The ESFA was unable to confirm if funds were paid during investigation.

The maximum contract value between CoWA and GEMEG was originally £140,000 but reduced in November 2015 to £100,000 due to lower than expected recruitment.

CoWA, which took a 25 per cent management fee from the deal, confirmed that the total funds claimed by GEMEG for the 19 identified students was £50,817.75.

The college ended the subcontracting arrangement in July 2016, and is now banned from taking on new subcontractors until issues identified by the ESFA are resolved.

The college must now carry out a “full review of subcontracting controls and assurance systems and processes, and provide assurance to the ESFA that these are operating effectively for all subcontracted provision”.

It currently has £1.3 million worth of subcontracting deals across six providers for adult funding.

CoWA’s principal David Pomfret said: “This report relates to concerns dating back nearly three years about the practices of one of our subcontractors. As a result of our own concerns, we ended our association with this provider in July 2016, long before any ESFA concerns came to light.

“The report raises concerns about CWA’s oversight and management of the subcontracting. At the time of the ESFA’s investigation visit to CWA in November 2017, we had already implemented changes to our processes to address most of the perceived weaknesses and recommendations mentioned in the report.”

She added: “Since then, we have further strengthened oversight of sub-contracting delivery, which includes our own staff directly overseeing enrolment of 16-18 year olds and discontinuing non-local study programme subcontracted delivery.

“We have also carried out a full review of subcontracting controls and assurance systems and processes and are confident these are operating effectively for all subcontracted provision.”

The government is expecting to spend up to £7.5 million over a 15 month period to cover the cost of the legal work carried out by practitioners and consultants for its new college insolvency regime.

The vast amount is being set aside despite the Department for Education admitting college insolvency would be an “unlikely event”, and experts predict hardly any of it will actually be used.

There are concerns that if the fund does go unspent then the cash will be directed away from the sector, coming at a time when the DfE has formally rejected a plea for extra cash for a college teacher pay rise.

The insolvency regime is a solution to a problem that is largely of the government’s own making – and it now appears to be a very expensive solution

The department first set out proposals for an insolvency regime in 2016 after recognising the dire financial positions some colleges are finding themselves in.

A tender, with a closing date of September 21, has been launched to procure the services of licensed insolvency practitioners, accountants and legal advisors.

They will be expected to conduct “independent business reviews” on colleges in financial difficulty, and take “formal appointments in relation to the insolvency of individual colleges”.

Services are also being procured for “provision of specialist commercial legal advice to the department in relation to cases of severe financial difficulty and/or insolvency of colleges”.

Having these services on board will “enable a quick response to potentially rapidly-changing situations in individual colleges which are in severe financial distress”, the tender document said.

The DfE is expected to pull the plug on exceptional financial support for colleges once the insolvency regime is introduced.

FE Week has reported on a number of colleges in dire straits that have received multimillion-pound handouts from the DfE’s restructuring fund – cash that needs to be used by March 2019.

These include Lambeth College, which was expecting a whopping £25 million to pay off its exceptional financial support and bank loans, as well as the struggling Telford College of Arts and Technology, which received £21 million for its merger with New College Telford.

FE Commissioner Richard Atkins previously told FE Week that colleges will continue to “occasionally get into difficulty”, and therefore they will need “some sort of funding to oil the wheels in these situations”, such as the insolvency regime, to ensure stability and protect learners.

But the amount of money set aside for the insolvency services, which works out to £500,000 a month from January 2019, has raised eyebrows.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “I would be very surprised indeed if the actual spend on this was anywhere near that figure in the first few years, let alone the first 15 months. 

“My experience over the last 20 years is that there has nearly always been a viable way to support a college to manage out of the financial distress.

“Given the explicit primacy given to protecting student interests, it may well be that the insolvency regime is not used at all in the first few years, or perhaps even ever.”

But James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, is wary of any underspend.

“We have previously exposed how the government has underspent the 16-19 budget in each of the last three years,” he said.

“This money was redirected way from the sector – the same fate should not befall any of this £7.5 million that goes unspent.”

He added: “The government seems unwilling to join the dots between the three major funding cuts imposed on colleges since 2011, year on year cost increases, and the fact that there is now significant financial pressure on institutions.

“So the insolvency regime is a solution to a problem that is largely of the government’s own making – and it now appears to be a very expensive solution.”

FE Week reported yesterday that Ms Milton has confirmed the government will not offer extra cash to fund a pay rise for college staff, despite promising to do so for part of a 3.5 per cent salary increase for school teachers.

Malcolm Trobe, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it is “completely unacceptable that there is no funding going into the college sector to meet the pay rise for their staff” and was dismayed that “we’re now setting aside £7.5 million to deal with an event which by the government’s own admission they think is highly unlikely”.

The secondary legislation required for the college insolvency regime is due to go through Parliament this autumn, in order to implement it in early 2019.