The embattled chair of a London college that was at the centre of a bitter row with staff and local residents over its merger plans has dramatically resigned.
Mary Curnock Cook (pictured above), chair of Kensington Chelsea College, was said to have walked out of a governors’ meeting last night after announcing she was stepping down with immediate effect.
The college is looking for a new partner after its previously planned merger was called off following direct intervention by the FE commissioner Richard Atkins, which was triggered by fallout from the fire tragedy at nearby Grenfell Tower.
Ms Curnock Cook’s resignation with immediate effect was confirmed this morning.
Following discussions about her “continued chairmanship with the FE commissioner, the principal and the deputy chair” she said she had “come to the conclusion that the end of the academic year is the right time to stand down and allow new leadership to take the college through the next phase of its development”.
“I thank all members of the corporation and staff at KCC for their service while I have been chair and wish students and staff every success in the future,” she said.
She later tweeted that she “had always said she would stand down if her chairmanship was more of a hindrance than a help”.
I always said I would stand down if my chairmanship was more of a hindrance than a help in steering @KC_College to a secure future. https://t.co/gLPz4hGGTq
— Mary Curnock Cook (@MaryCurnockCook) July 10, 2018
Ian Valvona will step up as interim chair until a permanent replacement is appointed.
Ms Curnock Cook, the former boss of the University and Colleges Adminissions Service, took over as chair at KCC in May last year.
There was huge public outcry as it emerged that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea planned to build housing over most of the site, with a much-reduced space for learning.
That prompted the Save Wornington campaign, with local residents – some of whom were caught up in the Grenfell Tower fire which claimed 72 lives in June last year – fighting to save their local campus.
Ms Curnock Cook became a focus for much of the embittered comments from staff and residents at a series of public meetings on the plans.
She eventually reached an agreement with RBKC to pause the redevelopment, but she repeatedly refused to cancel the merger.
Campaigners opposed this due to fears the resulting super-college would not retain the contentious Wornington campus in the long term.
The following month, the college board conceded “there was more we could have done to secure local community support for last year’s merger plans”.
It confirmed the college would co-operate with a new commissioner-led structure and prospects appraisal seeking a different merger partner.
At the time she vowed to stay on as chair, insisting that she had the full backing on the board.
“I have always seen my role to steer KCC to a secure and successful future,” she said. “This continues to be my priority.”
A college spokesperson paid tribute to Ms Curnock Cook, and said she had “worked tirelessly to help lead the college through an unprecedented period of change and challenge. It is testament to her efforts that the college has retained a successful focus on improving teaching, learning and student achievements”.
Her “commitment to public service at such a complex point in the College’s history has been exemplary” and the college thanked her “for the key role she has played over the past year and wishes her well for the future”
KCC has yet to announce who its new merger partner is.
In a statement last week, a spokesperson said it was “continuing to work closely with the FE commissioner’s team on its structure and prospects appraisal to secure a new strategic partner”.
The Careers and Enterprise Company has responded to savage criticism from MPs over secrecy by finally agreeing to publish its board minutes.
Its chair Christine Hodgson and chief executive Claudia Harris were grilled in May over the CEC’s lack of transparency, during a bruising appearance before the Commons education select committee, where CEC was called an “over-bloated quango”.
The company, launched in 2015, is leading efforts on behalf of the government to connect more young people with the world of work. But MPs raised grave concerns over a lack of evidence relating to the impact it has made so far, while committee chair Robert Halfon questioned why the CEC had never exposed itself to proper scrutiny by publishing board minutes.
A message has now appeared on the CEC website saying: “From July 2018, we will be publishing minutes of our board meetings.”
A spokesperson for the company also confirmed to FE Week the intention to publish minutes of future meetings.
We have always aimed to be a transparent organisation and have welcomed feedback on how best to achieve this
“We will be publishing on our website from our next board meeting at the end of July,” said a spokesperson. “We have always aimed to be a transparent organisation and have welcomed feedback on how best to achieve this.”
However, publication of previous board minutes is “still being considered”.
This stems from concerns that there may be a “generic issue around retrospective publication of minutes if board members were not made aware of that at the time of the meeting”.
The announcement was welcomed by Mr Halfon.
“We had serious concerns about a lack of transparency when we questioned the CEC, so we are pleased they have taken our concerns on board and finally decided to publish board minutes,” he said.
“Any organisation that receives public funding must always be as open and transparent as possible. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and the public has a right to know how decisions are made.”
A freedom of information request lodged by our sister paper FE Week has confirmed that the CEC has so far received £40.8 million of government funding since 2015, and is expected to be given at least £18.8 million in each of the next two financial years.
Funding for the next two years has not yet been agreed, but it is understood it will be more than the £18.8 million handed to the organisation in 2017-18.
Future funding is expected to “reflect the expanded role that the company now has implementing the careers strategy”, a DfE spokesperson said.
Robert Halfon
After asking in the select committee hearing in May why the CEC’s board minutes were not yet published, Mr Halfon added: “Given that you get money from the government, shouldn’t you publish them?”
Ms Hodgson and Ms Harris agreed to “take that away” as a point worth investigating.
FE Week has persistently pressed the company for details of the colleges that it works with, and how it is engaging them.
In December 2016 we revealed a postcode lottery for FE coverage, with 15 local enterprise partnerships not covered in the CEC’s “enterprise adviser network” – and no London FE and sixth-form colleges at all. Ms Harris insisted during the May hearing that the company is now working with 40 per cent of FE colleges, which works out at around 140.
The Institute for Apprenticeships has yet to carry out any formal review of duplicate, narrow or low-skill standards – two years after being urged to do so by influential peer Lord Sainsbury.
Demands are growing for the institute to “take stock” and focus on quality rather than numbers, with 300 standards now approved for delivery and a target of 400 set for next April.
But two years after Lord Sainsbury called for a review of “all existing apprenticeship standards” at “the earliest opportunity”, the IfA remained tight-lipped when asked by FE Week what action it had taken.
It would confirm only that a limited review will begin this summer.
In his report of the independent panel on technical education, published in July 2016, the peer made clear he was concerned about standards that overlapped, were too job-specific, or lacked enough technical content to justify 20 per cent off-the-job training.
The government’s strategic guidance to the IfA, published at the time of the institute’s official launch in April 2017, also states that its core functions include “at regular intervals, reviewing published standards and assessment plans”.
However, no such review has yet taken place, despite the IfA’s boss Sir Gerry Berragan (pictured above) saying in February he was aware that there had been “some price and quality compromises made early on to get some momentum into reforms”.
An IfA spokesperson said it will “look to conduct a review of existing standards”, and has recently advertised for a ‘Standard Review Lead’ post-holder.
“The first review will take place this summer on the digital standards,” she said.
Both Sir Gerry and Ana Osbourne, the IfA’s deputy director for approvals who will be leading this summer’s review, declined FE Week’s request for an interview.
Nor would the spokesperson confirm if the review would address Lord Sainsbury’s recommendations. Instead, she said details would be announced “shortly”.
“The IfA appears to think that we should all be impressed by the number of standards they are approving and how much faster they are approving them than before,” said Tom Richmond, senior research fellow at think-tank Reform, and former senior adviser to two skills ministers.
“That is of little comfort to apprentices who are being put on narrow, often low-skill, training courses that do not offer them genuine career progression.”
Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, urged the government to take stock of the number of standards approved. He warned it would soon be well above “leading apprenticeship systems” like Germany.
“An apprentice being trained to carry out a ‘job role’ is not the same as one being trained to work in a whole industry,” he said.
FE Week’s own analysis of standards in development or approved for delivery found 26 for different manager roles from levels three to seven – even though a generic team leader/supervisor also exists.
Nine of these are at level four, including hospitality manager and facilities manager, both approved this year, and retail manager, approved in 2016.
Yet a number of overlapping level three engineering and manufacturing standards were withdrawn in March 2017 before the IfA launched. They were replaced with a catch-all engineering technician standard, covering a number of different specialisms.
This approach appears to be at odds with the IfA’s target of 400 published standards by April 2019 – part of its drive to be “faster and better”.
According to the institute’s 2018-19 business plan, it should have “due regard to appropriate coverage of the occupational maps and the priorities and diversity of the modern economy” in reaching this target.
The same business plan reveals that Ms Osbourne is tasked with “designing and implementing a long-term plan for standards review”.
Sir Gerry has also compared the number of standards ready for delivery with those of “very mature apprenticeship systems”.
“Switzerland has 249 standards and Germany has around 330,” he said.
His predecessor, Peter Lauener, conceded last year that the institute would have to tackle the overlap between different standards.
He expected there would be “somewhere in the regions of 700 to 800” standards, reflecting “links to the number of occupations”.
Apprenticeships may not be a magic bullet, but neither are they the poisoned chalice the Royal College of Nursing would have us believe, argues Lucy Hunte
I recognise there are challenges with the implementation and roll-out of the nursing degree apprenticeship, but they are not for the reasons the Royal College of Nursing stated in their article in last week’s FE Week (“Nursing apprenticeships won’t work how the government wants”). Here are some of the claims made, and why I believe they are wrong.
Myth – The nursing apprenticeship is a poor-quality programme that risks reducing the quality of care.
Fact – The nursing degree apprenticeship is subject to exactly the same regulations as the traditional programme and can only be delivered by Nursing and Midwifery Council-approved higher education institutions. The only difference is that it is now funded by the levy.
Myth – Degree-based training is safer.
Fact – The Nursing Apprenticeship is a degree programme.
Myth – The apprenticeship levy does not cover the full cost of training.
Fact – The levy does cover the full cost of the degree, but not the backfill payments for the release time for when the apprentice nurse is away from the trust on placement or in learning.
Myth – Apprentice nurses will not have the same practice hours or placements.
Fact – They are subject to exactly the same NMC requirements as the traditional route, which includes supernumerary time.
Myth – The nurse apprenticeship is reducing access for mature students or those from diverse backgrounds.
Fact – The majority of the first wave of apprentice nurses are mature students from very diverse backgrounds. The apprenticeship could in fact widen participation as the apprentices will be employed and earning a salary. Many are existing healthcare assistants who, following the removal of the bursary, could not afford to give up work to study.
Myth – Apprenticeships are not the solution, with only 20 starts this year.
Fact – Approximately 400 nationally are due to start this year, with more to come in 2019. The removal of the bursary remains a concern and the apprenticeship is not the sole solution, but it is an alternative route to registration.
Backfill (the cost to cover staff when they are attending training) is an issue when many trusts are already under financial constraints, but this is only the case if you look at the nursing apprenticeship in isolation. If you look at it as part of a trust-wide workforce and apprenticeship strategy, then it becomes more viable. For example, trusts in North Central London have agreed an apprentice pay policy whereby all band 1 – 4 roles should be considered as apprenticeship opportunities, with new recruits receiving 70 per cent of the pay band for that role. This still puts the salary at well above the national apprentice wage, but the savings made can therefore go into a pot to help cover backfill.
We know the 20 per cent off-the-job element is sometimes difficult, but in reality the time required for off-the-job training is closer to 60 per cent for apprentice nurses and this is the real challenge – not the quality of the programme or the apprentices.
There have also been considerable delays due to procurement and HEI readiness, but we are seeing movement now and the appetite from employers is increasing. The National Apprenticeship Service has said that the nursing apprenticeship has been one of the most enquired-about programmes since its launch.
If you still have doubts, I would recommend talking to apprentice nurses!
If you still have doubts, then I would recommend talking to the apprentice nurses! I have had the pleasure of hearing a number of them speak at events over the past few months and quite often there is not a dry eye in the house. They are delighted at being given this opportunity to fulfil their dreams without having to take out student loans. Nurses are nurses, whatever training route they take, and the sooner the apprenticeship is given the parity of esteem it deserves, the better for all involved.
Some may argue that as the apprentices are employed and part of the workforce – unlike a university student who simply comes in for a placement – they could even be better, as an apprentice gets far more hands-on clinical and patient experience. The apprentice (unlike a traditional student) also does not have to undertake part-time non-related work just to pay
their bills.
The motion: This house believes the fall in apprenticeship starts since last May and the unspent levy proves urgent policy changes are needed
The first in a series of FE Week and Pearson Great Debates was held in parliament this week, with nearly 300 sector leaders arguing over whether further reforms are needed to the apprenticeships system.
It was chaired by Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week publisher LSECT. Leading the call for action was Sue Pittock, chief executive of Remit Training, while FE Week editor Nick Linford was against.
They were joined by skills minister Anne Milton, who listened in, and chair of the education select committee Robert Halfon, who delivered an impassioned speech.
The debate focused on the impact of the apprenticeship reforms one year in. Hotly discussed were the reasons starts were down 52 per cent in March compared with the same period in 2017, and why employers have used just 10 per cent of their levy funds in the first 12 months since the levy was introduced.
The vast majority of the audience voted for change at the start of the debate, but Mr Linford managed to win over two individuals by the end. Here’s our summary of what happened:
For the motion
“Enhancements not wholesale changes” in three main policies are urgently needed to address the fall in apprenticeship starts and the unspent levy, argued Sue Pittock.
The chief executive of Remit Training, a private provider that delivers apprenticeships in a range of industries from automotive to hospitality, called for “flexibility” on the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement.
She also backed dropping the 10 per cent co-contribution, and wanted “some consistency” in end-point assessment.
Sue Pittock
She said these shifts are needed because small businesses are “dropping fast and disengaging” with apprenticeships, noting that two years ago her business had 90 per cent penetration among small and medium enterprises, but it has dropped to 40 per cent, with the rest being levy clients.
The 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement is one of the main causes of the drop, according to Ms Pittock, who called it a “huge commitment” not only for smaller employers, but for larger ones too.
“We need flexibility around how much is delivered in paid time and how much of a commitment the apprentice puts in,” she told the audience.
“An employer puts their skin in the game by giving people the opportunity to do an apprenticeship and that chance of training.”
She added that apprentices should also have some skin in the game by being allowed to have self-study time count towards the 20 per cent.
In terms of the 10 per cent fee that small businesses must pay when taking on apprentices, Ms Pittock wants it scrapped for level two apprenticeships for 16- to 24-year-olds.
“We are seeing level twos at 16- to- 18 really suffer, so our social mobility is really taking a hit,” she said.
“We are seeing a 500 per cent increase in management programmes. Do we want a society that ends up delivering management programmes as opposed to giving our young people coming out of the schools system a foot on the ladder to do a level two programme?”
And lastly, on end-point assessment, Ms Pittock called for consistency.
“I have one employer group that has a six-day EPA for a level two programme,” she said.
“You could be 17, get in a car and pass your driving test in one afternoon; potentially if you were the wrong person and not competent, you could kill somebody. But we are going to take six days to assess somebody on a level two programme.
“There needs to be consistency, and the IfA needs to provide that framework so we don’t end up with massive EPAs that disadvantages learners.”
Also calling for change was Karen Bailey, head of competence development at Volvo Group UK.
There is a level of bureaucracy that colleges and private providers are used to working with, but large employers aren’t
She said she doesn’t know many employers that can cope with the complexity of FE-level funding rules and regulations on apprenticeships.
“It is exceptionally difficult, it is exceptionally time-consuming, and I would argue that a lot of employers do not see it as good value and would rather not bother with apprenticeships,” she claimed.
“We currently have over 400 apprentices and five different ways they can be funded. The complexity is absolutely ridiculous.”
Ms Bailey also thinks that having a levy pot is encouraging employers to behave “exceptionally badly”.
“I’ve heard a lot about employers who have removed their training budgets and have instead put in an apprentice levy pot manager whose only job is to spend that levy,” she said.
“To me that is not the idea. People are seeing it as their pot; it’s not their pot. It’s not your money, it is a tax and we need to treat it as a tax and look at it for the good of our economy.”
Final speaker for the motion on the panel was Cindy Rampersaud, senior vice-president for BTEC and apprenticeship at Pearson.
She agreed with Ms Pittock that although no “wholesale change” is needed, some refinement is, particularly where the levy is concerned.
“I spent 20 years working in industry, and I look at the levy and think if I was back in one of my older roles in the media, how easy would this be as an employer to implement?” she said.
“There is a level of bureaucracy that colleges and private providers are used to working with, but large employers aren’t.”
Against the motion
Nick Linford called for a much-needed period of stability.
Wearing his “author of an apprenticeships book hat”, he urged Ms Milton to stand firm on the reforms already introduced, mainly because there is not yet enough evidence on the causes of the drop in starts.
“Many of you in the room continue to complain about change and you want the S word; you want stability,” he said.
“It is interesting to hear Sue [see page 8] suggest that nobody wants wholesale change. I’m not sure that is true.
“We just heard from Karen saying she wants a complete rethink from an employer’s perspective of this tax in terms of the levy pot.
Nick Linford
“We have a long list from organisations such as the AELP that want to scrap co-investment for 16- to 24-year-olds at level two and three, or to increase framework rates at level two where there is no alternative standard.
“They want a ring-fenced budget for non-levy, they want to increase functional skills funding to be double where it is now, plus sector-by-sector 20 per cent off-the-job changes.”
However, there are many other organisations saying they want opposite changes, Mr Linford continued.
“The AoC for example says scrap the three million target.
“Then we have employer body groups such as the CBI pushing for much of the apprenticeship levy funding to be spent on things that aren’t apprenticeships, which sounds like wholesale change to me.
“Then the Federation of Small Businesses want a more generous employer incentive, and then the metro mayors are saying ‘unspent levy – give that to us; we’ll spend that on other things’.
“Talking about more wholesale change, the Lords economic affairs committee have come out and said, scrap the Institute for Apprenticeships.”
On top of this, the Department for Education is demanding that the Institute for Apprenticeships review and change 30 of the most popular standards because funding for those standards is said to be too high.
“My argument boils down to this: there is a huge amount of pressure on the minister at the moment from all corners, but I think more time is needed,” he said.
“Possibly the most important message is that if you change things you lose the confidence of the employers. You lose the confidence of the training providers.”
He added that there is only 11 months’ worth of evidence since reforms were introduced last May, and in that time there has been 309,000 starts, an average of nearly 30,000 a month.
“I would argue relative to 10 years ago, this is an incredibly buoyant programme,” Mr Linford said.
For me stability and investment is what is needed
“For me stability and investment is what is needed.”
Sean Williams, chief executive of Corndel, backed Mr Linford’s argument.
“We need to look back at why the changes were made in the first place,” he said.
“It was first and foremost to make apprenticeships employer-led.
“The market has changed. I hear a lot in this room about providers who haven’t noticed that the market has changed.
“I think we need stability in order for the market to move to those high quality employer-led apprenticeships which really deliver. I plead for stability because it is only stability that will give us time to move forward.”
Fiona Aldridge, assistant director for research and development at the Learning and Work Institute, also agreed with the need for stability.
“I am conscious that if we continue to change the system, we will have young people, parents and teacher who don’t know what it is and therefore won’t engage,” she said.
“A Sutton Trust report said two thirds of young people are actually thinking about apprenticeships now, but only a third of teachers are promoting that opportunity. Lots of them say that is because they don’t have the right information and don’t know what the benefits are.
“My concern is that while we absolutely have to get the system right, constantly making big churning changes means people will not think this is worth speculating on for their children.”
Halfon in the middle
Admitting he “sounds like a politician”, Robert Halfon struck a note of compromise in his speech.
The former skills minister agreed there isn’t enough evidence for major apprenticeship changes, but significant problems cannot be ignored.
“I think it is right to talk about the number of starts and right that perhaps after 11 months we don’t have the whole picture about what is going on,” the chair of the education select committee said.
“It is also right that we shouldn’t change the levy into just a general skills pot because I think there would be huge gaming of the system.”
However, Mr Halfon conceded that the “package does need some change”, particularly where the levy is concerned.
Robert Halfon
From next month large employers will be able to transfer up to 10 per cent of their unspent apprenticeship levy funds to multiple businesses. Mr Halfon wants this proportion drastically increased.
“I am sympathetic to the idea that you increase that to 50 per cent because I think it would benefit a lot of non-levy payers,” he said.
Under current rules, levy payers must spend their levy pot within 24 months. Mr Halfon wants the government to also look at extending this “to possibly 36 or 48 months”.
But overall he believes the levy was never going to transform apprenticeships in England alone, as there are many other “deep rooted” issues that need fixing alongside it.
“I think the apprentice levy should have been accompanied by much wider reforms in general,” he told the audience.
“The problem is the levy is seen as the answer to everything when actually there are deep rooted problems in terms of having more disadvantaged apprentices, and there are deep rooted problems around careers advice in our country – it is not skills focused.”
He also touched on issues with the government’s three million starts target.
“In terms of the three million target, I always thought it was a good thing because I thought it concentrated the mind of the Treasury,” he said.
“My one fear having thought about it a lot is that what it means is that it is a substitute for quantity over quality. I want to see a lot more quality and progression.”
In conclusion, Mr Halfon said, the “apprentice ladder of opportunity only works if the levy is included in a whole load of things and not just seen as the answer to everything.
“I hope we make some changes to the levy but not to the foundations. If you imagine it was a house, I’d like to make changes to some of the rooms.”
I’d be lost for words, if it wasn’t for the fact this editorial demands I write them.
FE Week has been reporting on the huge topslices ever since we launched in 2011.
And we are regularly contacted by subcontractees, complaining of the impact on quality when funds are withheld, but fearful of going on the record to bite the hand that feeds them.
It did seem the government recognised the poor value for money, introducing a series of measures over the years to limit subcontracting, and to make the management fees more transparent.
In April, the Education and Skills Funding Agency announced they were reviewing “subcontracting fees and charges; so that we can be assured that our funding is being used for recognised costs”.
At the time they also said they “believe it is important that government funds are not diverted away from training and assessment in the form of fees and other charges, and so the intent of the rules is to make sure that the main and subcontracted providers both add value to the employer’s apprenticeship programme”.
Skip forward a few months and the DfE tell FE Week they’ve looked at the latest figures and found that the total sector topslice was 20 per cent last year.
So, according to the DfE, everything is tickety-boo, nothing to see here, fine and dandy.
No problem with Learndirect keeping close to £19 million in fees (34 per cent), including a single deal with a £4.7 million (40 per cent) fee.
No problem with 28 per cent of prime providers charging more than 20 per cent, and 12 charging more than 30 per cent.
The DfE argument seems to be that if the average is 20 per cent, then the outliers don’t matter.
What an appalling conclusion – that if the majority are acting responsibly, then there is no need to stop those that fail to.
It is clear that the education select committee, led by former skills minister Robert Halfon, will heavily criticise subcontracting fees in its forthcoming report.
The National Audit Office will also be taking a look as part of an apprenticeship reform review, as will the Mayoral Combined Authorities during the transition to devolution of the Adult Education Budget.
And FE Week will challenge both Anne Milton and Damian Hinds on their “no concern” conclusion at the earliest opportunity.
My hunch, as well as hope, is that the DfE defending the indefensible won’t hold forever.
But so far I’ve been proven wrong, so I won’t be holding my breath.
It was a poor week for providers who received full inspections, as one failed to improve its grade three and two university technical colleges were hit with damning grade four reports.
People and Business Development Ltd, an independent provider based in Suffolk, was rated ‘requires improvement’ across the board – which was worse than its inspection in October 2016 when it achieved ‘good’ in one headline field.
“Leaders have not effectively dealt with the weaknesses identified at the previous inspection because they have not taken effective action or directed staff well enough,” inspectors said.
“Leaders do not effectively assess the quality of teaching, learning and assessment. Consequently, they have not ensured that assessors improve their practice, to enable learners to make rapid progress.”
Ofsted found that the proportion of apprentices who achieve their qualifications was “too low”, and “too few” achieve their apprenticeships within planned timescales.
To improve, inspectors said PBD must ensure that employers are “routinely involved in the planning of learning programmes and in the reviews of progress with apprentices”.
Meanwhile, hugely critical ‘inadequate’ reports were handed to UTC@Harbourside and Health Futures UTC.
Bullying – some of it racial – was rife at Harbourside, which announced closure last week.
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”.
It was also accused of “too often” breaking “too many promises”.
Leaders and governors at Health Futures UTC, based in West Bromwich, were deemed “ineffective”, having missed “significant” teaching weaknesses, according to inspectors.
“Teaching has been weak and consequently, students have made very poor progress,” the report said, adding that the top team had failed to recognise these failings until exam results were released in August 2017.
There was one monitoring visit of a “new” apprenticeship provider published this week, which produced a positive report.
Impact Futures Training Limited is based in Berkshire and delivers training to over 150 apprentices in industries including health and social care, management and customer service.
“Senior leaders and managers are very committed to providing a high and improving standard of training for all apprentices,” inspectors said.
They’ve also “set and communicated a clear strategy to address training skills gaps in the business, and health and social care sectors”.
Inspectors added that tutors ensure that apprentices “develop new skills, knowledge and behaviours that allow them to carry out their work roles more effectively”.
As a result, “apprentices are able to show how their learning has improved the quality of service that they offer their clients”.
Lastly, three short inspections were published this week, in which Wiltshire College, Cheyne’s (Management) Limited in London, and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council maintained their ‘good’ ratings.
Choosing awarding organisations in open competition will not only give the new technical qualifications the greatest chance of success, but clarify the landscape for students, promises Anne Milton
I was recently interviewed by Nick at FE Week, who wanted to know why we are planning to use a single licensing approach for T-levels. I thought I’d put my thoughts down here to explain more fully why we have decided to do this.
T-levels are a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the way technical education works in this country, putting it on a par with the very best available in other countries. In the past, technical education courses were of variable quality and not always valued by employers. And that’s exactly what we want to change. Single licensing has an important role to play in doing that.
The Sainsbury Report, which was published in 2016, recommended that for each occupation or cluster of occupations, there should be one high-quality qualification for 16-19 year olds that meets employer-set standards. The report also recommended that a single body or consortium should deliver each qualification under an exclusive licence. This would be awarded for a fixed time period following an open competition.
So why did the report recommend this approach and why have we followed the advice? Well, the key reason is that we want to protect the standard of T-levels. T-levels must be high quality and those taking them must know that they represent the gold standard — that’s what introducing T-levels is all about. Making sure all T-levels are of the same exemplary standard also means that they will be valued and easily recognisable by employers.
Of course, procurements are never easy
Awarding organisations (AOs) play a vital role in our education system, and for me there are two key benefits that stand out when it comes to single licensing. By selecting one AO to work on each T-level, it means they will have been successful against other competitors in demonstrating their vision to us, making it a shared vision to give our T-levels the greatest chance of success. Another reason is that we want to make the options as clear as possible for students wanting to do T-levels. With thousands of qualifications at level 3 and below, the current landscape can be confusing for students. We have a chance to change this and a single-licence approach will make choices much easier.
Of course, procurements are never easy – there are always losers and disappointments, and the process can be challenging. But they are often necessary if we want to make sure we are getting the best. So we are being completely open and transparent with the market about how we intend to run this procurement. We held events in June to meet with awarding organisations to talk about our procurement plans, with further activities to come, and we are reflecting on the feedback we have heard from the Federation of Awarding Bodies, the Joint Council for Qualifications and others. We are working hard to think about how we can make the procurement more attractive, create lively competition and make sure we get value for money for the public purse. This approach means we should retain the best elements of the competitive market and still get the stability we need to make sure standards are properly understood and kept up.
We’ll also be putting in place rigorous monitoring arrangements to minimise the risk of failure – and we will make sure there are effective exit arrangements at the end of each licence to enable smooth transfer from one awarding organisation to another.
The Sainsbury Report’s recommendations are now in law – in the form of the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 – and we are proud to have followed them.
The single licensing model for T-levels means learners, employers and parents know exactly what they will be getting, and have a clear choice between excellent technical and academic routes. T-levels are a fantastic opportunity for everyone – providers, employers and young people – to get the technical education that they deserve, and the country needs.
The government has for the first time concluded they have “no concerns” about subcontracting fees, despite more than 10 providers charging an average of over 30 per cent last year, FE Week can reveal.
This is completely at odds with the view of the last skills minister Robert Halfon, who now chairs the education select committee, and who called the latest figures “absolutely scandalous”.
Last week the Education and Skills Funding Agency published, also for the first time, the result of a subcontracting data collection completed by all prime contractors in receipt of funding last year.
But it looks like a recently announced review of charges will not lead to any tightening of policy, as the Department for Education thinks there’s nothing to worry about.
“We have no concerns on the level of subcontracting fees being paid by providers.
“Our recent data shows that approximately 80 per cent of funding goes straight to the front line, supporting learners, apprentices and employers to get the training and skills that they need,” a DfE spokesperson said.
FE Week’s analysis of the 2016-17 figures showed that the total level of charges by 407 prime contractors on subcontractors was £110.6 million (see tables below).
Just under a third of primes were charging above the 20 per cent best-practice threshold agreed by key sector bodies in March, with Learndirect and John Ruskin College among those taking the biggest cut.
The level of these subcontracting fees is absolutely scandalous
“The level of these subcontracting fees is absolutely scandalous,” said Mr Halfon. “Money should be going to deliver high-quality front-line training, not paying off middlemen.
“When government funding ends up the lining the pockets of companies taking a hefty cut and delivering little value, then both apprentices and the taxpayer are being let down.”
His successor as skills minister, Anne Milton, also agreed with education committee MPs in May that huge top-slices in subcontracting concerned her and that it amounted to “wasted money” in some cases.
However, she claimed it was “too soon” for the government to take action in specific cases.
The Association of Employment and Learning Providers took to Twitter to criticise “unacceptable fees” soon after the subcontracting charges were finally published on June 29.
FE Week analysis also showed that 12 providers charged an average top-slice – which is the common term used for subcontracting fees – in excess of 30 per cent.
At 39 per cent, John Ruskin College – which disputed the accuracy of the figure – appeared to have the highest average top-slice percentage.
The biggest single deal was a £4.7 million (40 per cent) Learndirect top-slice taken from the £11.9 million of the adult education budget that went to training delivered by Go Train Limited. The provider declined to comment.
Top-slicing describes the amount that prime providers charge subcontractors in so-called management fees when they run training on prime providers’ behalf.
Concern has mounted in recent years that certain lead providers were charging excessive rates as an easy way of supplementing their incomes.
The ESFA had revealed in April that subcontracting fees and charges would be reviewed to ensure government funding is being used for “recognised costs”.
“In the coming months, we will be reviewing aspects of the subcontracting funding rules,” it said.
This will include looking at “subcontracting fees and charges, so that we can be assured that our funding is being used for recognised costs”.
Any subsequent changes to subcontracting rules are expected to come into force from August.
Individual lead providers used to have to publish their annual figures on their websites by the end of November every year.
This changed starting in 2016-17, when new rules dictated that providers had to inform the ESFA of their figures, which would henceforth be published centrally.
But the agency came in for heavy criticism as November passed without any indication of when the full figures would be revealed for the past academic year.
The sector finally got its answer in April, after Gordon Marsden, the shadow skills minister, lodged a written parliamentary question asking when the government planned to publish the fees data.
See FE Week editor NIck Linford’s editorial on subcontracting fees here.
‘Comprehensive’ new guidance coming soon
“Comprehensive” new subcontracting guidance agreed between key government education agencies and FE bodies will be published within weeks, FE Week can reveal.
But the Association of Colleges has indicated it will not come with tougher limits on top-slicing fees.
A 20 per cent recommended limit was agreed in March by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, Holex and the Collab provider group.
This was conspicuously missing a sign-off from the AoC, which insisted at the time it was developing other guidance “properly” with the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the University Vocational Awards Council.
FE Week asked them how this was progressing, considering that latest figures have showed how many primes are still charging a level considered by many to be excessive.
A spokesperson said it is still developing a “comprehensive guidance document” with the ESFA and UVAC, as well as other organisations including Ofsted, the Institute for Apprenticeships and AELP that “considers subcontracting from all angles relevant to a provider”.
This should be out within “the next few weeks”.
Teresa Frith
Teresa Frith, senior AOC policy manager, indicated they want primes to retain control of setting their own charges.
“We are not condoning overcharging in subcontracting, quite the opposite, but want providers to be free to determine how much it costs them to support subcontractors effectively within the new apprenticeship market and within the new rules.”
“We advocate for complete transparency in the process of determining the fees imposed by a lead provider,” she added.
“The relationship should be a partnership where both sides can see value. It is the quality of the offer in general that should be the focus of concern, not the price attached to that quality.”
AELP boss Mark Dawe reiterated his defence of the 20 per cent recommended limit.
“In signing up to our joint guidance, the members of AELP and Holex and Collab’s college members are by implication struggling to identify where fees in excess of 20 per cent might be justified whatever services are being offered,” he said.
“We would argue that by denying so much money to frontline provision, it is very much the quality of provision received by the learner which is being endangered.
“The ESFA data suggests that there are too many institutions where the funding is actually being used to prop up the general accounts.”
