A second batch of apprenticeship standards will have their funding bands put up for review from tomorrow.

The Institute for Apprenticeships informed trailblazer groups of the plan on Friday, but it is not known at this stage how many standards will be included.

It follows the launch of the institute’s first funding band review in May where 31 apprenticeships, which included many of the most popular, were revised at the request of the Department for Education.

The process has so far proved controversial, with many employer groups opposing large cuts that would render the apprenticeships “financially non-viable”, while the institute claims to have only recommended changes where “there is evidence that justifies a change”.

In October the final bands for 12 of the standards in this 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.

Changes for the remaining standards in the review are expected to be published before the end of the year.

A spokesperson for the Institute for Apprenticeships said: “Our focus is to provide high-quality apprenticeships that are appropriately funded. We are already working with employers to ensure funding for each apprenticeship is appropriate, consistent and represent value-for-money.

“Details of any further reviews will be published shortly.”

Both reviews come at a time when the IfA is warning of imminent apprenticeship over-spend.

Rate reviews got underway after the institute moved to having 30 funding bands – the maximum rate paid for from the levy – to choose from, up from the previous 15.

The new structure gives the institute more choice regarding the rate it applies to each standard.

Under the 15 structure, if the institute wanted to reduce a £9,000 band it had to drop it to £6,000, for example. But for starts from August it will have the option of setting this to either £8,000 or £7,000.

Similarly, standards on £27,000 can now drop to £26,000 or £25,000 instead of falling all the way to the previous £24,000.

The DfE announced in February that it would review the funding-band structure, because employers did not “feel able” to negotiate with providers on price.

The IfA is currently recruiting a new deputy director of funding, who is likely to lead on rate reviews, to replace Jayne McCann who left around October this year. The salary for the role was advertised at £80,000 a year.

Multiple awarding organisations are investigating an apprenticeship provider to church community groups after Ofsted raised potential misuse of funding concerns in a damning ‘inadequate’ report this week.

Inspectors found that Touchstone Educational Solutions Ltd, which has Education and Skills Funding Agency contracts totalling more than £2 million, worked with employers who did not recognise the names of their apprentices.

They also found that the provider does not withdraw learners in a “timely manner” which leads to funding claims continuing after they have left their courses.

The Ofsted report said that Touchstone recruits the vast majority of its 450 learners and apprentices from church community groups at its sites in Woolwich, Greenwich and Leeds.

As well as apprenticeships in care management, Touchstone offers adult learning programmes paid for via advance learner loans in health and social care, access to higher education (nursing), business administration and childcare, and functional skills courses in maths and English.

We already set checking processes in place

It lists seven awarding organisations on its website, all of which told FE Week they were not aware of the funding concerns prior to the Ofsted report. However, a number of them have said they are now looking into the provider.

“Highfield is currently looking into the concerning information arising from the Ofsted report published on November 26, 2018,” said a spokesperson for Highfield Qualifications.

“We are unable to comment any further whilst our investigations continue.”

Awards for Training and Higher Education said that as an Ofqual regulated awarding organisation, it was “informed by Ofqual as to Ofsted’s findings on November 15, 2018 but at this time the report was not available”.

A spokesperson confirmed that the awarding organisation “accessed the report immediately” after it was available on the Ofsted website and has “already set checking processes in place”.

“ATHE undertakes Ofqual audited quality assurance procedures for all its recognised centres – including initial health checks and ongoing monitoring and development and external verification visits,” she added.

“ATHE procedures will continue to be applied accordingly.”

Touchstone’s other awarding organisations: NCFE, OCR, City & Guilds, Innovate Awarding, and Gateway Qualifications said they were not investigating the provider.

Ofsted said the delivery of all of Touchstone’s provision was insufficient, and leaders, governors and managers “do not have an accurate view of the quality of the programmes and do not have effective plans in place to make improvements”.

The biggest concern was around the provider’s management of data.

“File management is very weak and records about learners are very poor, with missing or inaccurate information,” inspectors found.

“Leaders are too slow to withdraw those learners and apprentices who have asked to be taken off their programme. Consequently, claims for funding continue to be made for apprentices who are no longer in learning.”

They added: “Too many employers do not know how much progress their apprentices make. Some employers did not recognise the names of the apprentices who, according to the apprenticeship files, are supposed to be with them.”

The inspectorate also found that plagiarism is an issue at the provider.

“Assessed and formally accredited work cannot be reliably attributed to individual learners, a few of whom have received qualification certificates.”

On top of this, arrangements for safeguarding adult learners and apprentices are “ineffective”.

“Learners and apprentices do not have a sufficient understanding of the dangers associated with extremism and radicalisation,” inspectors said.

As it has been rated ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted, Touchstone will now be removed from the register of apprenticeship training providers and banned from delivering its own apprenticeships. The ESFA is also likely to terminate all of its other skills contracts with the provider.

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 Touchstone Education Solutions to set out the action we will be taking in due course.”

Touchstone did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

The chair of the education select committee has laid into the Careers and Enterprise Company for believing it has a “magic money tree” growing in its garden.

Robert Halfon (pictured) offered the heavy criticism during an event about the future of careers guidance in Parliament this morning.

It followed the organisation’s second hearing with MPs two weeks ago, in which it was the revealed the company spent more than £200,000 on two conferences using its own public money instead of private sponsorship.

This body can be ludicrously wasteful

The company had also told MPs earlier in the year that it has spent £900,000 on research, with another projected £200,000 a year to come.

Mr Halfon, who’s also a former skills minister, said today that this was an “obscene waste of money” and a “scandalous lack of oversight”.

“My colleagues and I in the education select committee are deeply concerned by what we have learned in two recent hearings,” he said.

“I don’t doubt for a second that the company is passionate about its work, and that there are good people working there. But I’m worried they are not providing us with value for money.

“This body can be ludicrously wasteful. Last year it spent £200,000 of taxpayers in a time austerity on two conferences – money which should have gone to the front-line. One cost around £150,000 and the other was about £50,000 and held at KidZania! Salaries are too high – its CEO earns almost as much as the Prime Minister.

“And it has spent £900,000 on research, with another projected £200,000 a year to come.

“There is a lack of convincing data on its impact. And a lack of data on hard outcomes: like education and training decisions, or employment outcomes.”

The CEC has so far received £40 million in public money to support careers guidance in schools and colleges.

Mr Halfon continued: “It [the CEC] does not always take its own advice. Take mentoring. Its latest accounts suggest it has spent £4 million on mentoring. In one of its own research reports, it says: ‘Few effects can be seen from mentoring relationships that last for less than six months… There is a widespread consensus that a year-long relationship constitutes a quality mentoring interaction.’ And yet several of the programmes it funds fall far short of this.

“There is a scandalous lack of oversight. The National Careers Service is heavily scrutinised. I’m talking the works: Ofsted inspection, mystery shoppers, quality standards, and payment by results linked to customer satisfaction and job/learning outcomes. But the CEC? Nothing evenly remotely comparable.

“Despite this, it has been lavished with new roles, without really demonstrating that it has mastered its initial brief. It is now broker; grant controller; research organisation; designer of careers toolkit; running a fund for disadvantaged pupils; supporting careers hubs. And I’m still not clear why grant-making decisions cannot be made by the DfE.”

Mr Halfon added that the careers offer in England must be “urgently” improved, and suggested doing this by building a “National Skills Service”.

“What do I mean by this? A one-stop-shop under the direction of a single rigorous backbone organisation,” he explained.

“It must devote extra focus to those who have fallen on hard times. It must serve all ages. Provide top-class independent, impartial support from qualified professional advisers, and a clear line of accountability. And, most of all, a better use of money with demonstrably and measurably improved outcomes.”

Responding to the criticism, Claudia Harris, the chief executive of the CEC, said: “Careers education has been underperforming for decades in England, so no one doubts the scale of the task. Our organisation has been in operation for just over three years. In that time Ofsted has found that careers support to young people has improved, noting ‘the current picture is much more encouraging than has been the case in the past… careers guidance within schools is improving’.

“We recently published the most comprehensive assessment of careers education to date, which showed that careers education in England is improving across all of the Gatsby Benchmarks. In particular, careers education is stronger in the most disadvantaged communities.

“Two thousands schools are now part of our network, we’ve provided training to nearly 1,400 Careers Leaders, established 20 Careers Hubs across the country and invested millions in front line providers.

“The improvements we have seen have been achieved through hard work and collaboration between schools, colleges and employers and by putting evidence at the heart of careers support. We are proud to have played a part in this improvement, and we welcome any external oversight of our work.”

It has been a mixed week for FE as two colleges succeeded in climbing higher in the ranks, while two new providers received the lowest possible Ofsted grade.

The greatest accolades were handed to Preston College and St John’s School and College, both of which managed to climb from a ‘requires improvement’ rating up to ‘good’.

Ofsted commended leaders at Preston College for having “rectified successfully the vast majority of weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”, and particularly for working well with partners and employers and implementing effective improvements to the quality of teaching.

The report said the proportion of students achieving their qualifications “has risen considerably since the previous inspection” and applauded the high levels of academic and pastoral support available, but warned that the quality of apprenticeships has not improved quickly enough.

St John’s School and College, and independent specialist college for learners with complex learning disabilities in Brighton, was said to offer a “rich and creative curriculum that provides opportunities for self-expression and enterprise”.

“Learners develop the skills, knowledge and understanding they need to move on to their next steps and to become more independent,” the report said, commending the “ambitious” leaders for taking “decisive action that has led to improvements throughout the college”.

It was also ‘good’ news for Kent-based independent learning provider Profile Development and Training, which received a grade two after its first full inspection.

Inspectors said staff had “built successfully on a strong past record of achievement under subcontracting arrangements and made a good start to their direct provision,” and praised tutors for their “excellent understanding and extensive experience”.

Brighton’s Varndean College, a sixth form college, and London-based provider Train’d Up Railway Resourcing both received their second consecutive ‘good’ ratings from Ofsted.

Varndean was praised for its curriculum, the “exceptional quality” of its learners’ work and its “highly inclusive culture”, while Train’d Up was commended for “excellent partnerships” that allow it to provide “high-quality apprenticeships” for learners who were described as “highly motivated” and “keen to learn”.

However, others had a far less successful week, with two new providers receiving the lowest possible grade.

London-based training provider Touchstone Education Services was rated ‘inadequate’ in every category, and slammed by inspectors for working with employers who did not recognise the names of their apprentices.

And Chic Beauty Academy in Middlesbrough also received a grade four rating, attracting criticism for “misleading” careers advice and not consulting with employers to ensure courses provide learners with the skills and qualifications they need to gain employment locally.

And Southampton Solent University was deemed by inspectors to be grade two for its apprenticeship provision – its first full inspection for this type of provision. It was rated ‘outstanding’ for its maritime FE provision in 2011.

The report said apprentices “rapidly develop good clinical and health-related vocational skills and behaviours” and lecturers have “considerable vocational knowledge and strong occupational expertise”, but found personal development reviews were not “fully effective”. 

Two early monitoring reports of new apprenticeship providers were also published this week. Both University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and London-based Reed Specialist Recruitment were deemed to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in every category.

Ofsted’s view that colleges are giving students “false hope” by putting them on courses where there are slim job prospects has been criticised by a leading principal for being based on “anecdotal” rather than robust evidence.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman (pictured above) questioned whether some colleges are chasing income over students’ best interests at the Association of Colleges conference last week.

She was referring to the inspectorate’s thematic report on level two qualifications which found some subjects, namely arts and media,“stand out” as areas where there is a “mismatch between the numbers of students taking courses and their future employment in the industry”.

Writing for FE Week, the principal of Grimsby Institute, who spoke out during a question-and-answer session with Ms Spielman at the AoC conference, explains why she was“incensed” by the view that arts and media students are being sold an“impossible dream”.

“The [level two] report identifies that art and media courses were generally perceived to give the least chance of gaining employment within those industries,” writes Debra Gray (page 18).

“The interesting term here is‘perceived’. The research is based on the perceptions of a small number of providers.“There appears to be little triangulation with verifiable labour market intelligence from reliable sources to see if perception matches reality.

“What appears to be credible research is simply an account of provider perceptions presented as fact.The methodological dangers of relying on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence are legion.”

The section in Ofsted’s level two report that Ms Spielman based her view on shows a graph with just 11responses which said arts and media courses have the “least chance of progressing to employment in a relevant industry”.

Ms Gray writes: “The problem doesn’t just lie with assumptions that anecdotal evidence is generalizable, it also begs the question whether the right question is being asked in the first place. The chief inspector states in the report ‘I am therefore concerned about the number of courses on offer that college leaders know do not lead to good local employment’.

“The report assumes we have a common understanding of the term‘good local employment’. Fifty per cent of Grimsby’s catchment area is the North Sea, but we have road and rail links to Hull, Lincoln and Sheffield,all of which are thriving creative cities. Is this ‘local’ enough? It is also vital to point out that a significantly higher proportion of jobs in the creative industries are freelance and commission-based than is typical. Is this considered ‘good’ employment?”

Responding to the criticism, Ofsted said: “Our report recognised that the numbers of students going from arts and media courses into jobs in that industry was low. On the other hand,we found colleges advertising these courses as having extremely good career prospects, and as a result these are some of the most popular courses available.

“That is doing a disservice to students who take those courses.”

The Education and Skills Funding Agency is clamping down on employers who fail to pay the 10 per cent co-investment fee for apprentices, by withholding completion payments from providers.

A change to a calculation in the agency’s funding software will enforce the new rule from early next month, which will see nearly 20 per cent of the total apprenticeship cash held back until employer payments are up-to-date.

It means that up to £4,860 of ESFA funding, 90 per cent of £5,400, would be withheld if the apprenticeship price is at the highest upper funding band of £27,000, for example.

In a little known monthly update for “MI managers, software writers and suppliers” published this afternoon, the ESFA says: “We plan to update the apprenticeship funding calculation at R04 [Individualised Learner Record data return deadline 6 December] to withhold any completion payments that do not meet the criteria in the funding rules.

“The rules state that co-investment due to be paid by the employer must be collected and recorded in the ILR for the completion payment to be paid.”

Additionally, the agency plans to clawback cash from providers who’ve not claimed the fee from employers.

“This change will also apply to any completion payments already made in the 2018 to 2019 funding year and where necessary payments will be recovered,” the ESFA said.

“We will also identify and recover any completion payments paid to providers in 2017 to 2018 funding year that were not compliant with funding rules. All adjusted payments will be made as part of the December payment run.

“Providers must ensure all co-investment is collected and recorded on the ILR in a timely manner as stated in the funding rules.”

The way the agency funds providers for delivering the training is by paying monthly payments for 80 per cent of the negotiated price up to the funding band, but where the employer has no levy funding or it is insufficient, then co-investment must be paid, currently set at 10 per cent.

The ESFA in future will only pay the provider for the final 90 per cent of the total remaining 20 per cent, once the framework has finished or the end point assessment has taken place and the employer has paid their 10 per cent.

Chancellor Philip Hammond announced last month that the co-investment fee will be halved to 5 per cent, but a start date for this change has still not been revealed.

The return deadline for providers to get their co-investment payments in is tight – December 6.

However, the completion payment is only being withheld until the financial fields in the ILR show the employer has fully paid their share. Once that happens, the completion payment would be released in the next monthly funding cycle.