We must tell the chancellor FE needs more, not less funding

Further education is being asked to find more cuts, despite already being under-funded. Let’s fight back by insisting on fair funding for 16–18 education, retorts James Kewin

To paraphrase the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, a day is a long time in politics.

On Tuesday, Damian Hinds used a speech at the Resolution Foundation to set out his vision for social mobility. Although much of the speech focused on early years, the secretary of state had a lot to say about the issues facing what he described as “young people right on the cusp of adulthood”.

T-levels, the progression of disadvantaged students to university and the attainment gap between the independent and state sectors were all mentioned. It was particularly pleasing to hear him emphasise the importance of extra-curricular activities, and few in further education would disagree with his assertion that “you won’t crack social mobility by only focusing on exam results”.

But today, FE Week reported on a story in the Times that the chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond has told ministries without protected budgets – including further education – to identify areas for budget cuts over the summer.

It would be easy to dismiss this as a silly season story

It would be easy to dismiss this as a silly season story, and it is unclear why further education was singled out alongside public health, local government and transport. But taken together, Tuesday’s speech and Wednesday’s story actually provide a good indicator of what lies ahead on the road to next year’s spending review.

Let’s start with a positive – there are few in the Department for Education who would agree that more savings can be found in the further education budget, and this has not always been the case. Anne Milton has acknowledged the funding gap with other sectors, and earlier this year agreed to calls from the Support Our Sixth-formers campaign (which was supported by FE Week, alongside a range of school and college associations) to conduct a review of 16-18 funding. The IFS has shown that without further investment, spending for this age group will be the same in real terms in 2020 as it was in 1990.

The DfE will need to be hard-headed to realise its ambitions for social mobility

However, the Treasury will be looking for a “something for something” deal in the spending review. This is an unwelcome phrase, as it ignores the funding cuts and cost increases that institutions have already had to contend with and the negative impact this has had on the education of students. But with the Treasury’s austerity mind-set still firmly in place, the DfE will need to be equally hard-headed to realise its ambitions for social mobility.

For example, Hinds said on Tuesday that he plans to say more about the importance of character and resilience, and the benefits of “taking part in extra-curricular activities from sport, to music, to volunteering, to work experience itself”. The Social Mobility Commission has been charged with taking forward a research project to identify how these activities influence social mobility.

All worthy stuff, but with a spending review looming, any new research should be used to strengthen the DfE’s submission for more funding. Our most recent funding impact survey showed that 67 per cent of schools and colleges have actually reduced student support services or extra-curricular activities – with significant cuts to mental health support, employability skills and careers advice. In this context, a research report that confirms what we already know – that what happens outside the classroom is vital to social mobility – is unlikely to have much of an impact.

What happens outside the classroom is vital

Chancellor Hammond is the man we should be collectively trying to influence. It is unclear if he shares Hinds’ undoubted commitment to social mobility, but we must ensure he understands that the ongoing underinvestment in 16–18 education is having a negative impact on the education of students, the financial health of institutions and the ability of government to achieve its ambitions for the economy (as well as social mobility).   

The preference of HM Treasury for “something for something” deals has recently led to some small, targeted increases in 16–18 funding linked to particular qualifications or subjects. What we actually need is a significant increase in the 16–18 funding rate – that is the only way to ensure funding is sufficient and made available in a way that colleges and schools can tailor to the individual needs of their students.

How do we convince the Treasury to agree to this in the spending review? By working together.

Next term, the coalition of organisations behind the Support Our Sixth-formers campaign will unveil plans for the final stage of our shared funding campaign backed by targeted new research. This cannot simply be a college or FE campaign. We may feel the impact more acutely, but the reality is that everyone – from small rural school sixth forms to large grammar schools – is under financial pressure, and we must put aside our sector differences to secure a result next year. Students, staff, parents, governors and others across all sectors will have a vital role to play.

This is a high-stakes spending review – defeat would mean that the 16-18 funding rate would be the same in 2023 as is was in 2013. This is hard to contemplate, particularly as the needs of students, demands from government and costs of delivery continue to grow. As Harold Wilson also famously said – he who rejects change is the architect of decay. We must speak with one, powerful voice to ensure that the Chancellor heeds that advice next year.

FE could face MORE budget cuts despite hopes for more cash

The FE sector could be in for another shattering round of funding cuts, after the chancellor reportedly told ministries without protected budgets to find savings.

Philip Hammond (pictured) wants various Whitehall departments including further education to work with the Treasury over the summer to find areas for reduction ahead of next year’s spending review, according to The Times.

It said that some departments believe the budget cuts could be by as much as five per cent. The order to start looking for savings came last week in letters from Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury.

Although the government has committed to protecting schools budgets, FE funding can still be cut.

The Department for Education may very well be able to find savings from other areas, but any reduction in FE’s budget would come as a major blow to the sector which has suffered with severe underfunding for years.

It would also come as a surprise, considering that skills minister Anne Milton told the education select committee just two weeks ago she was “constantly” fighting Treasury for more funding after admitting that FE has historically “fallen against other sectors”.

The DfE is currently reviewing the “sustainability” of FE, the outcome of which was expected to show the sector needs more cash not less.

It comes at a pivotal time, with the government constantly saying the introduction of T-levels is the biggest shake-up of technical education for 70 years.

Read more: We must tell the chancellor FE needs more, not less funding

A reformed apprenticeships system has also only just been put in place, which many employers and training providers are struggling with.

Any cuts to FE would also likely mean that college teaching staff currently battling for a pay rise will not be successful.

The DfE said it was working closely with the Treasury to set their budget.

DfE ploughs ahead with plans for college campus performance reporting

The Department for Education will go ahead with proposals to strengthen performance reporting for colleges that are part of a group or have multiple sites, it confirmed today.

It means that from next year data on the performance of individual institutions or sites within mega-colleges will be made available – potentially paving the way for campus-level inspections.

Separate performance data for colleges within groups will be reported on an ongoing basis, while for individual sites it is being introduced as a pilot.

“We are changing the way that we report on performance for FE colleges so that people are better informed about their local colleges,” said skills minister Anne Milton.

“This will help people make the right choices for their futures, and make sure that colleges are responsive to local needs.”

Today’s announcement, which follows a nine-week consultation on the proposals, comes alongside the introduction of a new campus-level identifier in 2018/19 individualised learner records.

That now allows “identification of provision delivered across the various sites of merged institutions”.

The first separate data will be made available in 2019/20 as ‘shadow data’ for colleges in groups and ‘experimental data’ for individual sites.

This means it will be “analysed and made available” in that year, but not included in the National Achievement Rate Tables until 2020/21.

In the case of the experimental data, this will be reviewed before any final decision is made on full implementation. 

The prospect of campus-level inspections at mega-colleges with multiple sites was first raised during an FE Week interview with Ofsted boss Amanda Spielman last March, who said they were under “active” consideration with the DfE.

According to today’s consultation response, the “implications of our proposals for Ofsted inspection will be considered as part of Ofsted’s current review of the inspection framework”.

The DfE asked for views on two separate proposals: separate performance reporting for colleges that are part of a group, and separate reporting for delivery sites that are part of the same college.

The proposals were intended to provide “greater transparency on the quality of local provision”, according to the consultation document.

The majority of respondents to the consultation – 44 out of 50 – backed the first proposal, while only around half supported the second.

 

 

IfA quality committee fears conflict of interest the ‘biggest risk’, newly published documents reveal

Conflicts of interest are the “biggest risk” to the effectiveness of external quality assurance, the Institute for Apprenticeships has admitted.

Employer groups developing apprenticeship standards name the organisation to deliver this service, but so far just a quarter – 10 out of 40 – of those chosen have been approved by the IfA.

The body’s concerns were revealed in newly-published minutes from January and March meetings of its quality assurance committee, which is responsible for approving organisations to check apprenticeship assessments.

These minutes, along with those from the IfA’s approval and funding, and audit and risk assurance committees, have been published for the first time following a Freedom of Information request by FE Week.

Conflicts of interest are “one of the main reasons for rejecting potential EQA providers” and there is an “ongoing need to manage” these conflicts, according to the minutes from a March 14 meeting.

“It is also one of the biggest risks to the effectiveness of EQA and the reputation of the institute,” the minutes warned.

FE Week previously reported in March that the IfA had “concerns” about conflicts of interest in its new EQA model, according to minutes from a December 2017 quality assurance committee meeting obtained via a previous FOI request.

At the time the committee agreed to develop “a register of interest for EQA providers” which “should list any declared interests that EQA providers have and how these are to be mitigated”.

According to the March minutes, the committee now plans to “mitigate conflicts” through this register of interests, “conditions of recognition” and ongoing management.

The assessment and quality team at the IfA had also been asked to “draw up a decision tree” to outline conflicts and how they are being handled.

“The committee agreed it needs to ensure that the relevant checks and balances are in place for managing conflicts of interest for EQA providers,” the minutes noted.

Employer groups developing new apprenticeship standards can choose one of four options for externally quality-assuring the final exams.

These are an employer-led approach, a professional body, Ofqual or the IfA itself.

Two potential EQA providers had their applications deferred at the March meeting “on the basis that there were clear conflicts of interest with them”, while one provider was approved.

A further three providers had their applications rejected outright at a meeting on January 23 as there were “clear conflicts”, while just one was approved.

One of the three rejected organisations was on the register of end-point assessment organisations, and the other two were also EPA organisations, the minutes said.

At the December meeting one organisation was rejected.

None of the rejected or deferred organisations are named in the minutes.

So far, just 10 of the 40 employer-led or professional body EQA providers named in assessment plans have been approved – although it’s not clear how many of the remaining 30 have been rejected.

The IfA has committed to “proactively” publish the minutes on its website, and that they would be produced in an “open and transparent manner”.

However, not all minutes appear to have been published, and some are heavily redacted. The IfA has yet to say why this is the case.

Almost 350 Carillon apprentices to lose wage support

Nearly 350 former Carillion apprentices will have their wage support cut off next month after being made redundant.

The government’s official receiver overseeing the liquidation revealed yesterday that 356 people will be leaving the business, 341 of which are apprentices.

It means attempts to find new work for nearly a third (30 per cent) of the 1,148 trainee bricklayers, carpenters and builders left jobless in the wake of the collapse of the outsourcing giant have failed.

Unite the Union described the decision to dump them as an “act of crass stupidity” whilst also attacking the government’s timing – as the announcement was made after Parliament went into recess preventing MPs from raising concerns.

But the Construction Industry Training Board, tasked within finding the out-of-work apprentices new employers, has promised that it will continue to offer a “tailored support package” for all those affected.

This will include a weekly contact via social media highlighting suitable apprenticeships, access to career events and personalised support with job seeking skills and CV preparation.

The official receiver has been paying the wages for the out-of-work apprentices ever since January 15 when Carillion went into liquidation. It was revealed in June that keeping the trainees gainfully employed cost the government £3 million.

The CITB told FE Week in April that over 800 of the apprentices had been found either new work or education providers.

The Department for Education said today that 777 of them had been found new employment with wages.

Skills minister Anne Milton revealed two weeks ago that 147 of the affected young people had not engaged in the CITB’s attempts to contact them.

It is for these apprentices and the others still trying to find work that will feel the full brunt of Carillion’s collapse and no longer have their wages paid.

“This is an appalling way to treat these apprentices who should have become the backbone of the industry,” said Unite assistant general secretary Gail Cartmail.

“To dump them and to destroy their training is an act of crass stupidity. 

“These actions highlight the government’s total failure to assist the workers who have been most affected by Carillion’s collapse through no fault of their own.

“The government could have used its procurement power to find placements for these apprentices but it chose not to, demonstrating that it is not serious about dealing with the skills crisis facing the industry.”

The official receiver’s update yesterday said: “Regrettably, 356 people will be leaving the business as their roles are no longer required but support is available to help them find new work.

“Staff have been professional throughout the liquidation and we will continue to engage with staff, their elected representatives and unions as arrangements are confirmed.” 

Over 300 apprenticeship standards celebrated yet some attracting zero employers – FE Week investigates

Earlier this month the Institute for Apprenticeships bragged about approving standards at a faster rate than ever before after they signed off their 300th. But since then FE Week has found that over a dozen are being completely ignored by employers. When asked why this was the case, the IfA was tight-lipped and the Department for Education admitted to having no idea – so senior reporter Billy Camden spoke to the trailblazers groups that developed them to find out

 

Too expensive, complex, and lack of demand were some of the most striking reasons why 13 apprenticeship standards have been available for delivery for over a year but had zero starts.

Among them was the dental laboratory assistant apprenticeship, which has gone a whopping five and half years (see table below) of being snubbed by the employers who developed it.

FE Week’s analysis will surprise many seeing as the DfE changed its rules in recent years to require actual commitment from businesses on trailblazer groups that they will use the standard once approved.

It’s all the more shocking given that at least 10 employers have to be involved in development – so even if a few had second thoughts about the standard, the others would be expected to use it.

The EPA is more expensive to deliver than allowed for in the current funding band

When quizzed about why they had ignored the dental assistant standard for so long, private healthcare giant Bupa said it was because other apprenticeships, such as the lab technician, are “more appropriate for our business”.

Integrated Dental Holdings and Oasis Dental Care previously told FE Week they were creating their own dental training schemes, instead of using the already available apprenticeship.

Standards in the aviation industry appear to be proving most unpopular – with three different programmes on the list of 13 with no starts.

“The end-point assessment is more expensive to deliver than allowed for in the current funding band, however, there is also a demand issue,” said Annette Allmark, director of strategic policy at People 1st – the lead trailblazer for the level two airside operator standard with a funding band of £3,000.

“Some of this is due to the type of training and assessment required by the sector due to security and access to aviation airside.”

Meanwhile, the level four aviation operations manager is “very complex”, according to a spokesperson for Heathrow Airport, who said it could only be taught by industry experts with knowledge of specific airport procedures.

“It is therefore imperative that we don’t implement plans, until we have undertaken the training of our own team to ensure trained tutors can deliver the relevant industry expertise,” she added.

The aviation maintenance mechanic and survival equipment fitter standards were both designed specifically for the military.

“The reasoning why these have had no starts to date is both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are currently undertaking a strategic, staged approach to, implementing and delivering standards,” explained Alan Moss, head of apprenticeships for the Ministry of Defence.

“We are planning to utilise the survival equipment fitter later this year with the aviation maintenance mechanic following next year.”

Ros Burnley, the director of forestry consultancy firm Adrow Ltd, said it was “no surprise” that take-up of the forest operative standard has been slow because the industry has a low workforce and training costs are “increased” as jobs are all rural.

However, the sector has been “on the front foot in actively promoting it and in this we are seeing some early signs of success,” he claimed.

The old framework for the industry has also not yet been switched off, and the “standard is still ‘new’ which creates some nervousness”, Mr Burnley added.

For the power engineer (degree) apprenticeship, a spokesperson for the National Grid said the electric and gas firm does not have an “immediate business requirement to utilise this standard”.

FE Week understands that some employers in that industry are put off the degree programme because the apprentices will not be fully productive while they’re learning the trade which takes five years.

With regards to the road transport engineering manager apprenticeship, Mark Thornley, head of talent at Arriva UK Bus and Train, said his organisation has so far focused on “embedding” level three standards but will soon move on to “utilising” the level four.

And Mark Gardiner from the Medical Research Centre Harwell said the animal technologist standard has come up against some “obvious hurdles” including employers’ ability to “fund new apprenticeship posts or allocating 20 per cent of the time for current staff to join the scheme”.

It is not a surprise that uptake has been slow

The only review of standards that the IfA has conducted to date is based on funding bands and was launched for 31 apprenticeships in May – which included are some of the most popular.

However, the bespoke tailor and cutter level five apprenticeship is also involved.

While the review is taking place, the trailblazers said they could not discuss why there have been no starts on it yet.

However, FE Week understands that employers have found it too complex, to the point where no one wants to engage with it.

After being shown our analysis, Dr Susan Pember, a former top skills civil servant and director at community learning services membership body Holex, called on the IfA to “remove barriers, and do a stock take of why take up [on the 13 standards] is low”.

“They need to listen to employers, providers and apprentices and make the standards fit for delivery,” she added.

Skills minister Anne Milton said: “We are monitoring the new standards and are working to understand the reasons behind the small number where no starts have yet been recorded.”

The DfE added that it will take action on the unpopular standards where appropriate.

Ofsted watch: ‘Unsafe’ college makes rapid safety improvements

A specialist land-based college branded “unsafe” in a shocking grade four report in April has made swift improvements to ensure the safety and welfare of students.

Moulton College, based in Northamptonshire, was hit with an ‘inadequate’ rating after Ofsted found learners were in danger when studying in areas such as construction and equine studies.

It had its first monitoring visit report published on July 26, in which inspectors found senior managers had responded “swiftly to tackle the weaknesses identified during the previous inspection relating to the safety and welfare of students and apprentices”.

They commissioned an “external specialist to carry out a thorough review” and implemented a “range of measures that included extensive staff training in health and safety and in managing students’ behaviour in classrooms and in workshops”.

In one animal care lesson during the full inspection, Ofsted said a “poorly conceived” internet research task placed a high needs student “at risk of looking at inappropriate content”.

Upon their return, inspectors found managers have “reviewed and strengthened” safeguarding arrangements.

“Staff understand how to use the electronic software, introduced in October 2017, to enable them to report safeguarding or welfare concerns to the team of designated safeguarding leads,” they said.

Since their introduction, the safeguarding leads have logged and dealt with over 350 reported incidents.

But safeguarding wasn’t the only ‘inadequate’ element of the college that Ofsted previously found.

Many of the “weaknesses” in teaching, learning and assessment identified during the inspection “remain”.

Managers have also “not successfully” tackled weaknesses related to students’ personal development and behaviour. Attendance and punctuality in lessons is still “poor”.

However, a newly appointed quality team has begun to “overhaul the observation of teaching and learning scheme, which previously focused on compliance with expectations rather than on the quality of learning”.

Early indications are that the revised arrangements are having a “positive impact”.

Senior leadership was highly criticised in Ofsted’s grade four report of Moulton College, so much so that its principal, Stephen Davies, resigned after seven years in the job.

Ann Turner, who has nearly two decades of experience at a land-based college, took the reins in an interim capacity.

At the time of Ofsted’s monitoring visit, she had only been in post for four weeks, which was “too recent to have had an impact”.

The only full inspection report to be published for FE this week was for GSS Solutions Limited, a private provider in Warwickshire.

It was given a disappointing ‘requires improvement’ rating in its first ever visit from Ofsted.

“Senior leaders and managers have not secured sufficient oversight to provide sector-related benchmarking, advice and challenge,” inspectors said.

“Assessors do not effectively plan and provide teaching, learning and assessment that take learners’ starting points into account. The most able learners do not make the progress of which they are capable.”

They added that leaders have “insufficient focus” on improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment.

There was one monitoring visit of a new apprenticeship provider, in which Deere Apprenticeships Ltd was given ‘reasonable progress’ verdicts in all three fields judged.

Senior leaders and managers at the Nottinghamshire-based provider are “very committed to providing a high standard of training for all apprentices,” inspectors said.

Lastly, adult and community provider The Mary Ward Centre (AE Centre), in London, maintained its ‘good’ rating following a short inspection.

 

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Moulton College 06/06/2018 26/07/2018 M M

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
GSS Solution Limited 19/06/2018 23/07/2018 3 N/A
Deere Apprenticeships Ltd 11/07/2017 27/07/2018 M M

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
The Mary Ward Centre (AE Centre) 27/06/2018 27/07/2018

 

New quality assurance rules will create a tiered apprenticeship system

The latest announcements on quality assurance of end-point assessments are a game-changer for assessment organisations – some standards will now be regulated more stringently than others, predicts Terry Fennell

Things just got serious for end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) delivering standards that are externally quality assured by Ofqual, with new enforceable rules coming into effect on 27th July.

Things just got serious for end-point assessment organisations

That’s not to say the 42 awarding organisations, most of whom are members of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, have not been taking their role seriously so far. However, coupled with the financial investment of bringing an EPA to market, AOs now must also comply with new general conditions of recognition.

The new rules have not come as a surprise to awarding organisations, as Ofqual consulted extensively with FAB members, and the widely-shared opinion from colleagues is that the new conditions are, in the main, clear and serviceable.

Neither will it come as a surprise that Ofqual has set a high bar for external quality assurance (EQA) of EPAs, which will be treated in the same context as a regulated qualification – thus rightly placing the interests of apprentices at the heart of the delivery. The new rules will immediately apply to the delivery of 55 standards that are subject to EQA by Ofqual, and several thousand apprentices in scope for EPA in the next 12 months.

The problem lies in the discrepancy between the stringency with which Ofqual will carry out their duties, compared to other quality assurance bodies.

Awarding organisations will now have their assessment instruments evaluated against the standards and Ofqual has declared a clear intention to audit the capacity and capability of EPAOs to deliver compliant EPAs. Failure to meet the external levels of assurance can result in sanctions and enforcement from the regulator, the Institute for Apprenticeships, which will be keen to carry out its responsibility in the months ahead.

Just as Ofqual will undertake its EQA responsibilities to ensure the validity of EPAs under their remit, the awarding organisation has a legal obligation to comply with the conditions of each EPA. A particular condition that catches my eye is EPA3.1, which requires an awarding organisation to notify Ofqual where it believes that an event that could have an adverse effect has occurred or is likely to occur. This means that an awarding organisation must notify Ofqual even where an event has not yet happened, so long as the awarding organisation considers that it is likely to happen.

This scenario requires the awarding organisation to notify Ofqual if it believes the assessment plan has given, or could give, rise to an assessment that is not fit for purpose!

This is a game changer for end-point assessment organisations

This is a game changer for EPAOs, as while the IfA and other EQA bodies were open to receiving notifications of concern on an assessment plan, this was often a contentious area, as trailblazer groups had often worked hard to gain approval and did not like their instruments to be criticised. For many EPAOs, it’s not until their occupational assessment experts actually drill down into the assessment plan detail that issues occur, so the new obligations require EPAOs (at least for Ofqual standards) to formally notify the regulator. How this plays out in reality will be very interesting and I suspect a notification will need to be supported with a technical rationale for the concern.

The simple truth is the other constituent EQA bodies do not have the same powers to enforce and regulate EPAs like Ofqual, so last week’s publication of conditions are, I believe, a significant development in terms of the apprenticeship system creating a ‘tier’ for some standards over others.

With 127,000 apprentices on the new standards, the volume of EPAs will rise significantly in the next 12 months, so it will be interesting to see how the IfA will be able to compare and ensure consistency across a market with so many different EQA bodies.

DfE gives IoT bid special treatment to grade 3 NCG

The government appears to have broken its own rules in its Institutes of Technology competition, by putting NCG through to the final bidding round despite the group’s grade three Ofsted rating.

An update about the IoTs process was published yesterday which stated the Department for Education has now sent “interim guidance” about the next stage to the 16 providers successful in the previous round.

Surprisingly, however, the largest college group in the country was still included in the list of finalists even though it was downgraded to ‘requires improvement’ by the education watchdog last month.

DfE guidance for opening an IoT states that a provider’s Ofsted grade must be at least ‘good’.

A spokesperson for the department explained that NCG will need to improve its Ofsted rating by November to have a chance of getting approved.

“Applicants to the Institutes of Technology competition required at least a ‘good’ rating from Ofsted when stage one opened in December 2017,” she said.

”The deadline for stage two applications is in November 2018, and we require applicants to have at least a ‘good’ rating at that time or they will not progress further in the process.”

It was understood from DfE insiders that NCG would be thrown out of the IoT process following its grade three.

The apparent special treatment is likely to infuriate a number of other grade three providers who didn’t get the chance to apply in the first IoT round.

It will also raise questions about whether the decision to allow NCG to continue in the process is because the college group is now chaired by the former chief executive of the Education and Skills Funding Agency which appears to be giving the go ahead to the rule break.

Two teams of inspectors were deployed to NCG in May, in a visit prompted by achievement rate concerns.

Ofsted then took little over a month to publish its report, giving it a damaging ‘requires improvement’ rating in all but two of the headline fields judges.

Yesterday’s IoT update said the DfE expects to publish the official guidance for the final stage in September, with the outcome then revealed in March 2019.

Each of the 16 providers are bidding for a share of a £170 million pot to open an institute.

IoTs, which were first mooted back in 2015, are intended to bring FE and HE providers together with employers to deliver technical skills training, with a particular focus on levels four and five.

According to application guidance from the DfE, they will offer “higher-level technical skills on a par with more academic routes” and will “achieve the same level of prestige as universities”.