Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Revealed: Uncovered emails discuss ‘review’ of studio schools programme, but DfE still denies it happened

The Department for Education is still denying it conducted a formal review of studio schools – despite FE Week discovering an attempt to cover-up internal emails which openly discussed the existence and timescale of the review.

It was revealed last year that the former academies minister Lord Nash had met with the Studio Schools Trust to “review the concept of studio schools”, according to official minutes.

However David Nicoll, then chair of the SST which supports and promotes studio schools, claimed that a review was “definitely not on the agenda of any meeting I attended”.

Under the freedom of information act, FE Week requested all written correspondence between ministers and employees at the Department for Education and the SST from September 1, 2016, to March 6, 2018. Many of the emails between Mr Nicoll and officials were released but were heavily redacted.

However, FE Week has seen full copies of the documents and discovered that many of the blacked out sentences mentioned a “review” of studio schools.

The small, vocationally-focused 14- to-19 studio schools have struggled to survive due to poor Ofsted ratings and low pupil numbers, with 26 closing or planning to close since the scheme was introduced in 2010 – despite millions of pounds of government investment.

One previously redacted message showed that, on February 16, 2017, Mr Nicoll asked the DfE if he could postpone a meeting with Lord Nash “since it seems that the review will not have been completed in time”. Four days later Mr Nicoll said he would be “back in touch as soon as we know what is happening with the review timing”.

On March 10, Mr Nicoll emailed: “I thought it was time to ask again if there was any progress and/or timetable you could share regarding the studio school review. I appreciate that this may seem impatient, but I am fending off enquiries on a daily basis at the
moment”.

Three days later he received a response from a government official saying “we are making progress and hope to be in a position to make a decision shortly”.

All mentions of a review were redacted in the government’s official FOI response. The DfE stated the sentences were withheld under FOI rules because ministers and officials “need the freedom to make decisions based on the best advice available, including
correspondence from outside bodies, without fear of this advice being disclosed”.

When asked about the legitimacy of the DfE’s redaction response, Maurice Frankel, director of the UK Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: “They are trying to conceal that 18 months ago there was a review, or some other word they prefer, and they are trying to keep it from the public.”

Asked about the review in the light of the redacted emails, a spokesperson for the DfE said: “There has been no formal review of studio schools and we have never set out the expectation that there is one.”

The spokesperson added that while studio schools “can be popular, we know that there have been challenges which is why we will continue to look into their performance”.

The DfE would not give any further details about what the “monitoring” of the programme consisted of. Mr Nicoll could not be reached for comment.

Great debate on T-levels: an ambitious or reckless timetable?

The motion: This house believes the T-level reform implementation timeframe is ambitious but not reckless

More than 200 figures from across the FE and skills sector gathered at the Houses of Parliament on Monday, September 10 for FE Week and Pearson’s second great debate, this time on the implementation of T-levels.

Just a week after the launch of the controversial invitation to tender to find a single awarding organisation for three T-level pathways, the debate focused on whether the government’s timetable for offering T-levels by 2020 was ambitious or reckless.

It was hosted by Robert Halfon, chair of the education select committee and facilitated by Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week’s publisher LSECT.

Speaking for the motion was Catherine Sezen, the Association of Colleges senior policy manager for 14 to 19 and curriculum, while FE Week editor Nick Linford argued against it.

The panel also featured Susan Lovelock, deputy director of the technical education implementation division at the Department for Education, and Rod Bristow, Pearson’s UK and core countries president.

Ms Sezen faced an uphill struggle in the debate, with only Ms Lovelock voting in favour of the motion at the start. Nonetheless, she managed to win over one audience member by the end, as did Nick Linford.

The rest of the audience remained as they had been, the majority against and some undecided.

For the motion

The Department for Education’s timetable for introducing the first T-levels in 2020 is ambitious – but it has to be, argued Ms Sezen.

“We need to be ambitious for our young people, for our economy and for our future,” she urged as she set out her case as a champion for the government’s approach.

“You could argue that it’s reckless to keep the status quo,” she said.

This was the central theme of Ms Sezen’s arguments, as she focused on the need for everyone involved – providers, employers, assessment organisations and government – to unite behind the DfE’s timetable.

Nowhere was this more the case than with industry placements, which have so far proved to be the most contentious element of the new qualifications.

In the face of many concerns about employers’ ability to offer enough placements to meet demand, Ms Sezen struck a more aspirational note.

“Think how attractive it is for young people to experience the workplace, be part of a team and involved in a project,” she said.

“It is incumbent on all of us to make that work. We all need to make sure we’re offering opportunities for those placements.”

There is “no doubt” that meeting demand will call for “thinking outside the box”, she said.

“Colleges are currently embracing this challenge, and so must we all.”

Colleges are currently embracing this challenge, and so must we all

The government is taking a “measured approach” to the overall implementation of T-levels, Ms Sezen told the audience.

“It is being managed to allow for gradual implementation,” she said.

“There are just 54 providers, all of which are outstanding or good, who will be delivering in 2020.”

And while the timeframe for implementation is undeniably tight, “currently the timelines that were published in May are being kept to”, Ms Sezen pointed out.

“I don’t doubt there will be challenges as we go forward,” she admitted, but “all our energies should be centred on getting it right”.

Speaking on behalf of the government, Ms Lovelock insisted it was “making very strong progress” against its “undoubtedly ambitious” timetable, and was “monitoring delivery and managing risks at every stage”.

She acknowledged that industry placements were the “part of the programme that’s going to test and challenge the most”.

But, she said, “we’ve got a comprehensive programme of work in place to support” their delivery, including “research and evaluation and analysis, lots of new guidance and support material that’s available for employers and providers, and a pilot programme that we ran last year”.

“I think this is an area where we are genuinely investing years ahead of delivery,” she said.

“We’re investing in capacity this year so that we can really test out and start to work through some of the challenges.”

The department was working closely with the first 54 providers to “really get into the detail of implementation” and to “use their experience with the planning,” Ms Lovelock said.

“We’re learning at every step of the way from what they do at a local level to see how we can support providers at a national level,” she added.

The DfE’s requirement for those first providers to have “existing provision in those subjects” they’ll be delivering in 2020 will “really make sure we’ve got the right workforce and the right facilities in place to teach T-levels in a high-quality way”.

Ms Lovelock acknowledged that there may be challenges in recruiting skilled people to teach the new courses – particularly in digital and construction – but insisted that the government was “investing in those areas” to encourage more people to get into FE.

“If we are setting off on a big reform programme it clearly makes sense to do that in those subjects where we know there are skills gaps and we want to plug those gaps,” she said.

In his opening speech as host of the debate, Mr Halfon also appeared to back the government’s approach – although he recognised that there were problems that needed to be ironed out.

“I am keen to get them introduced sooner rather than later because I believe that we’re so far behind many other countries in terms of skills that I don’t think we can delay introducing T-levels,” he said.

Against the motion

The government’s timetable for introducing the first T-levels is “reckless”, according to FE Week editor Nick Linford, because a rushed process raises the risk that “bad decisions are made”.

Furthermore, he said, it was reckless because the government is “not being honest with you about the systems they are designing”.

Following on from education secretary Damian Hinds’ decision in May to overrule his most senior civil servant’s request to delay the introduction of T-levels by a year, there had been a number of “speedy consultations” with “unheard of” short deadlines, Mr Linford said.

“The consequence of that, and the reason why I think reckless is an appropriate word here, is that bad decisions are made. Ill-informed,” he said.

“You in this room, you are the experts. Yes, we have employer groups, but they are not the experts on assessments. They are not the experts on teaching 16-year-olds in classrooms.”

There is still so much to do before September 2020, Mr Linford added.

This included the seven-and-a-half week tendering process for the single awarding organisation that will deliver each T-level, which requires awarding organisations to plough through “over 500 pages of legal documents”.

Reckless is an appropriate word here, because bad decisions are made

“That’s before you start responding by putting in what I hope are going to be extremely high quality bids, because it’s then down to the officials to make sure that they choose wisely,” he said.

Once the awarding organisations have been chosen, they’ll have a year to design the qualifications – leaving providers just three and a half months to get up to speed with the content before delivery begins.

“I accept they’re being briefed, but they don’t have the content yet, they don’t have the awarding organisations – they don’t even know who they are yet, they’re still to be picked,” he said.

All of this raises the chances that the first T-levels will be “not the best qualification”, delivered by an “under-developed, unprepared workforce” in September 2020.

As a result, “rather than being gold standard in the first few years, we actually let down our young people”.

The damage to the T-level brand would be “immediate”, and “there’s no going back from that sort of damage”, he said.

Points made by members of the audience, around bridging, progression and switching between T-levels and other courses, showed just how much uncertainty still surrounds the reforms.

Many of these same questions were first raised in the skills plan that set T-levels in motion back in 2016.

“All of these the government is very familiar with, but we haven’t moved on. We’re asking the same questions, with not even a clue as to what are those answers,” Mr Linford said.

“My fear is because of the speed we now need, all energy will be on September 2020” and there will “no energy” left over for these other challenges.

One final reason why the timetable was reckless, Mr Linford argued, was because the DfE was not being honest about its design – which, he said, was “to only have T-levels where in that locality there is progression to skilled employment where there are currently gaps”.

In some areas of the country there is “no one to sell the work placement concept to”.

“Now, if the department were being honest with you, that is the design,” he added.

“One of the things the department needs to decide very quickly is whether the industry placement needs to have been determined at the start of the course” otherwise there was a risk that providers will “recruit young people with the best intentions and never find an employer – because they’re not there”.

Panel member Mr Bristow expressed his concern about the DfE’s decision to grant exclusive licences to awarding organisations to develop T-levels, warning that the approach risked stifling innovation.

“We’ve got a lot of people in this room, all of whom have a lot of expertise, and make a big contribution to the success of T-levels and technical education, and it’s vital that we use that expertise and we build on the capacity in the system that we’ve got, because we need all the help we can get to make this work,” he said.

Audience comments

We are facing a serious ultimate problem with workforce capacity. If you look at the kind of salaries that people with the skills and industry experience that T-levels are looking for could demand in industry, and then you look at some of the salaries in the FE sector, then it’s quite difficult to see how some of those initiatives are going to work in practice.

Simon Martin, executive consultant, Academy Transformation Trust Further Education

In many sectors a classroom-based programme with very little on-the-job training will not lead to progression onto level 4. It will be back to level 3 again, on an apprenticeship with everyone else, and that seems wrong. I don’t think there’s been enough debate about progression, particularly into work, and I think that could undermine the whole programme.

Mark Dawe, chief executive, Association of Employment and Learning Providers

We have been involved in some of the pilots for industry placements, and the feedback from the young people and the employers has been really poor – so it is a huge concern for us. In an NHS hospital we’re all massively understaffed. How are we going to support these placements at the volumes that we’re being asked to do?

Lucy Hunte, national programme manager for apprenticeships, Health Education England

I just wanted to make some comments on the bridging provision for the young people moving from level 2 to level 3, given that 99,000 out of 137,000 people who had to retake their GCSE English failed. Just how prepared are we in the bridging provision, moving somebody from those level 2 qualifications to level 3?

Alan Woods, chief executive, VTCT

College makes star of learner with dwarfism – but for all the wrong reasons

Colleges hit the headlines this summer – but for all the wrong reasons.

Louis Makepeace, an 18-year-old with dwarfism, claimed to have been rejected for a catering course at Heart of Worcestershire College because his height would make him a health and safety risk.

His story was reported nationally, prompting criticism of the college and the way it handled the situation.

We outline what happened – and offer advice for other colleges that might find themselves in a similar media storm.

In the space of less than a month, 18-year-old Louis Makepeace has been catapulted from wannabe chef to working in the kitchen of a Michelin-starred restaurant, with an apprenticeship with Gordon Ramsay on offer – and the subject of a Channel Five documentary.

Just how did this happen?

The saga started on August 16, when Louis went for a one-on-one interview with the course leader of the level one introduction to professional cookery course at Heart of Worcestershire College.

“The first thing he told me in the interview room was that I’d never get any future employment if I wanted to be a chef. There was no point in me going to the college and learning the trade,” Louis alleged.

He said he asked about having a kitchen adapted to his needs, but was told “it would be far too much work to put in” and “it would disrupt the other students”.

“I said, well, can’t I just use a stool in the meantime? And he said it’d be a health and safety risk to have a stool in the kitchen,” Louis told FE Week.

The college interview left him “heartbroken”.

“I’d never been discriminated against like that before – I didn’t even think that was acceptable.

“This is my education they’re ruining. I want to be a chef, and they’re stopping me from getting a chance a train,” Louis told FE Week last month.

He said he’d been told by the course leader that he had a conditional offer of a place, subject to a health and safety check.

But he claimed he never heard back from the college – and when his mother chased it up a few days later she was told by the course leader that Louis should look for another course.

However, the college has refuted Louis’ version of events [see below].

The apparent rejection prompted the pair to go to the newspapers, with his story featuring on the BBC, Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Star, and on ITV’s This Morning show on August 29, among others.

Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay even muscled in on the action, with a tweet that he would “offer him an apprenticeship any day”.

That wasn’t the only apprenticeship on offer, with Michelin-starred restaurant Pied-a-Terre also inviting him to train with them.

Meanwhile, the college still hadn’t said whether it would be able to offer Louis a place.

He told FE Week on August 30 he’d been treated “appallingly” by the college, and wouldn’t accept a place even if it was offered to him.

“I think it’s outrageous the way they’ve treated me, making me wait so long just to get an answer if I could be in their kitchen or not. It’s just disgraceful,” he said.

Earlier this month the college confirmed that Louis had told it he no longer wished to study there.

“We wish Louis the best of luck with his future career,” a spokesperson said.

Louis has yet to decide exactly what his next move will be, describing the interest in his future as “overwhelming”.

He told FE Week this week that he’d been for a training day with Pied-a-Terre in London, working alongside its head chef in the heat of the kitchen.

He used a stool – the very thing the college had said would be a health and safety risk.

“It was a busy kitchen with other chefs around me, and they adapted very smoothly,” he said, with “no collisions, no hazards”.

“I worked in the busiest part of the kitchen, too, so it proved a point.”

Even though I’ve been knocked back from the college I’ve been able to turn that into a positive

He has one more training day at the restaurant, when he will be preparing canapes for a food festival. After this shift he expects to be told if they want to take him on or not.

Regardless of the outcome, Louis is upbeat about the experience: “I’ve definitely had a very good time working in the restaurant. Even if they don’t ask me back, I’ve done it and I’ve learned from it.”

As for Gordon Ramsay’s apprenticeship offer, Louis said that talks with the celebrity chef’s agent haven’t moved forward, although he hasn’t yet ruled it out.

Another unexpected outcome from the media frenzy is that Louis will star in a Channel Five documentary focusing on “people with restricted growth trying to create a career for themselves”.

It’s being filmed at the moment, and is expected to air some time in 2019.

“I feel it’s really important for me to show that even though I’ve been knocked back from the college I’ve been able to turn that into a positive and carry on trying to gain as much experience as I can and to create a career,” he said.

If the offers from Pied a Terre and Gordon Ramsay don’t work out, Louis has his sights set on doing an apprenticeship elsewhere “working in the kitchen alongside real chefs”.

He wouldn’t go back to college because “I think it’ll set me back”.

“I’ve got so many opportunities and I don’t really want to be wasting time in a college environment.”

The college’s side of the story

When Louis first hit the headlines, the story was told entirely from his perspective.

According to the first articles published on August 27, the college said “we do not wish to make a comment” as “the student’s place is still under discussion”.

It was only the following day, August 28, when the college belatedly tweeted a statement refuting the allegations.

That statement said it was carrying out a “review process” to “ensure all the appropriate adjustments to the kitchens that Louis needs to allow him to safely and successfully commence his course” and to meet his needs throughout his course were “in place in time for the start of his studies”.

“We would like to state that at no point has Louis been told he could not attend his course but both Louis and Mrs Makepeace have been informed that the adjustments Louis requires will need to be agreed before an unconditional offer can be given.”

It also told FE Week that the course leader had not made the comments that Louis and his mother alleged he had made.

The college had attempted to make contact with Louis’ mother but had been unable to speak to her and she had not responded to messages asking her to make contact, a spokesperson said.

But by the time the college responded to the allegations it was too late.

Following the widespread coverage of Louis’ story, the college was condemned on social media for its treatment of the teenager.

And tweets by Gordon Ramsay and Warwick Davis, an actor and TV presenter who also has a form of dwarfism, helped stoke that outrage.

“This is so sad,” Warwick Davis tweeted.

“In a world that is supposed to promote diversity, equality and inclusion, Louis Makepeace has the right to access this cooking course with the proper adaptations and the college has a duty to provide.”

FE Week asked the college if it wanted to comment on the media coverage of Louis’ story and how it handled the situation, but it declined to do so.

‘Nine times out of 10 you should comment’

Ruth Sparkes is managing director of EMPRA, an award-winning specialist education sector PR and communications agency.

She offers her advice to colleges what to do if – like Heart of Worcestershire College – they find themselves at the centre of a media storm.

“Being called by a journalist out of the blue to corroborate a negative story is always difficult,” she said.

But the best thing to do in most situations is “get as much information as possible” and then “put together a response”.

If the information the college is being asked to comment on has come from someone willing to be named “then the story will run and nine times out of 10 you should comment”.

“Remember, journalists have a job to do, and if you don’t engage with them, they may well run with commentary from anyone who appears to be in the know or even moderately informed, however inaccurate they turn out to be.”

What to ask the journalist

Get as much information as you can from the journalist, Ms Sparkes advised. Ask them what the story is, where it has come from, what proof they have of what you’re being asked to comment on, and if anyone else has been asked to comment.

Ask the journalist to send you a list of their questions. You don’t have to answer all of them, but it can be helpful to see them as it can give you a clue on the line they’re hoping to take.

And be clear on their absolute deadline.

What to do

Find out what actually happened, who was involved, who was consulted and what the current state of play is, Ms Sparkes said.

What to share

Your statement should be short and clear, without using waffle or ‘eduspeak’, Ms Sparkes advised.

It must highlight that you understand and accept the situation, and apologise if appropriate – although you may need to take legal advice here depending on the issue.

It should show there is a positive journey ahead – that you’ve learned lessons, implemented training or engaged an expert external organisation to ensure this sort of thing won’t happen again.

What to expect

If the story has the potential to be picked up nationally, Ms Sparkes said colleges should plan for the worst.

One clear indicator that a story is going to go national is if the journalist works for a news agency rather than a local paper.

If it’s a local journalist but they work with a news agency, or the local paper is part of a large newspaper group, there’s a high chance the story will be syndicated.

Monitoring social media in these circumstances is important, Ms Sparkes said. She advised colleges to keep an eye on readers’ comments or the social media sites for the papers that have covered the story, and to respond where appropriate.

If the story is covered on the TV or radio, you should only put forward a spokesperson that has had media training.

Make sure they know the college’s public statement and key message – and give them practice answering the most horrible questions you can think of.

What else?

Colleges will need to think about their learners, parents, staff, feeder schools and wider community: what do you need to tell them, and how?

The college website and social media channels can be useful for this, Ms Sparkes said, but they should be monitored and any comments or questions responded to if appropriate.

Think about whether anyone else needs to know what’s happening before publication, for example the chair of governors, student union president or relevant MPs.

What is the college legally required to do?

Colleges, like other education providers, are covered by the Equality Act 2010, which means they can’t discriminate against disabled learners.

They’re also required to put in place ‘reasonable adjustments’ so that disabled learners are able to access the same standard of education as other learners.

“Everyone must have the opportunity to reach their potential through education and education providers must make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled students are not discriminated against or treated unfairly,” a spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said.

This duty applies to the college’s policies, procedures and activities. It also applies to physical features including entrances, exits, toilets, lights, flooring and furniture, and to any auxiliary aids such as supportive equipment or staff.

Examples of reasonable adjustments include giving a learner more time to complete an exam if their disability causes them to write more slowly, or providing a sign language interpreter for deaf students.

Everyone must have the opportunity to reach their potential through education

There are a number of factors that colleges and other education providers can take into account when deciding if a particular adjustment is reasonable, including its cost and practicability.

In Louis’ case, the course leader allegedly said that he would present a health and safety risk to the other students.

According to the EHRC, health and safety is a “relevant factor to take into account when assessing the needs of a disabled student” but it “must not be used inappropriately to avoid making reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs”.

Guidance published by the EHRC in 2015 on reasonable adjustments for pupils says “there might be instances in which, although an adjustment could be made, it would not be reasonable to do so because it would endanger the health and safety either of the disabled pupil or of other people”.

However, “health and safety issues must not be used inappropriately to avoid making a reasonable adjustment”.

The Ofsted inspection handbook states colleges will be judged on how well they “prepare learners who have special educational needs and/or disabilities to become more independent in their everyday life”.

Schools falling short of new DfE rules on career guidance

Schools are failing to comply with new careers guidance rules, further fuelling concern from FE providers that the Baker clause is being ignored.

FE Week analysis found the 10 biggest multi-academy trusts in England have not conformed to a new requirement that says all schools should publish detailed careers information online.

And in a survey of FE providers commissioned by the Department for Education, only five per cent of respondents said they found all schools have been compliant in their area in allowing providers to enter schools to speak to learners.

The DfE said it plans to begin auditing schools and will directly intervene where necessary to ensure all schools are complying with the
Baker clause. Skills minister Anne Milton has encouraged providers to report on schools that are not following the new regulations by
contacting her directly.

From September 1, academies, free schools and colleges should publish details about the careers programme delivered to pupils from Year 8 until Year 13, contact details for their careers leader, how the school measures the success of the careers programme and when the published information will next be reviewed.

However, none of the 10 biggest trusts in England have 100 per cent compliance from all of their secondary schools. FE Week’s investigation has unearthed empty careers webpages, expectations that the “vast majority” of pupils will simply attend university
and some websites that do not mention careers at all.

A spokesperson for the DfE said if a school does not provide this information, the department “will write to the school and ask for
evidence of compliance”.

She added: “If this is not followed, we will take appropriate action.” But she would not give details on how compliance is being monitored or what action will be taken against schools.

Oasis Academy Don Valley, run by Oasis Community Learning, has a blank careers page, while Oasis Academy Enfield and Oasis Academy Hadley have only published careers information in a section for post-16 learners, which states: “We expect that the vast majority of our Year 13 students will go on to university when they leave.”

An Oasis spokesperson said its academies will publish new information “in the coming weeks”.

Less than half of the 31 secondary schools run by Ormiston Academies Trust have followed the requirements for publishing careers guidance, and as have only two of the 11 run by the David Ross Education Trust.

A spokesperson for Ormiston said the trust would ensure its complete compliance by the end of September, and added that its careers guidance “has not been driven by a need to meet website regulation, which is not an indication of quality, but by a firm belief that best-practice careers guidance transforms life chances”.

Kemnal and Greenwood academies trusts said their schools were working towards being fully compliant, and Delta Academies Trust said new websites for all of its academies will go live this month. A spokesperson for Academies Enterprise Trust said the trust expected all its academies to be compliant and was supporting them to make sure they were.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said it had to be asked “whether the schools failing on careers guidance are really serving the interests of their students.

“They should surely be explaining that apprenticeships are now available up to and including degree level with top employers, good salaries and no debt.”

FE providers have also revealed that schools are not fully complying with the Baker Clause requirement, which says schools must open their doors to providers to speak to pupils about technical and vocational training.

AELP carried out a survey of 74 providers on behalf of the DfE in June. Although the government has not made the results public, FE Week has obtained them through a freedom of information request.

They showed that just five per cent of respondents said they had experienced full compliance in their area, while nearly 20 per cent found no compliance at all.

Mr Dawe said the survey results “demonstrate why this is such a vital issue”, and said local networks of apprenticeship providers should be “fully engaged in the fulfilling of the Baker Clause requirements”.

EPA assessor capacity: Will England be able to cope in the long-term?

By 2020, when the apprenticeship reforms will have taken full effect, there are likely to be around 500,000 end-point assessments carried out every year.

Sally Collier, chief regulator at exams watchdog Ofqual, told a room full of training providers at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ conference in June, that she was “concerned” over assessors’ capacity and capability to meet this surge in demand.

In July, FE Week reported on Ofqual’s plans for capacity audits at the end-point assessment organisations they oversee as an external quality assurance provider.

But what is affecting EPA organisations’ ability to recruit qualified assessors? Are they confident they’ll be able to meet demand?

FE Week spoke to more than a dozen organisations delivering those all-important final exams.

“The sector will find many challenges”

End-point assessments are still in their infancy.

According to Department for Education statistics, there were just 1,210 achievements on standards, including end-point assessments, in the first nine months of 2017/18 compared to 180,180 on the old-style frameworks.

Nonetheless, many EPA organisations are already facing challenges in recruiting enough assessors – prompting the boss of the largest one to say he is “very worried” about the sector’s ability to meet demand as it grows.

NOCN is signed up to deliver the final exams for 44 standards – more than any other organisation.

Its managing director, Graham Hasting-Evans, said it was able to meet current demand across all those standards, but that “this is against a background of very low numbers of apprenticeship starts”, with only a slow increase predicted.

Downward pressure on funding was also likely to bite, he warned.

“We are therefore very worried that, in the next year, the sector will find major challenges in sourcing sufficient EPA assessors,” he said.

Mr Hasting-Evans is not alone. While almost all of those FE Week spoke to were confident about their ability to meet demand now, many admitted to sleepless nights about continuing to do so in future.

Understandably, not everyone was willing to go on the record about their fears. But those that did highlighted a range of issues that should give officials cause for concern.

“We’re working pretty much in the dark”

A number of assessment organisations said they could meet demand for the assessments they knew about – but it was the assessments they didn’t know about that were worrying them.

Providers and employers are “reluctant” to indicate when an apprentice will be ready for assessment, according to Terry Fennell, chief executive of FDQ, which is registered to deliver the final exams for five food industry standards.

While the rules say that the employer or provider must inform the EPA organisation once they’ve been chosen, “this is not happening in reality”.

As a result, organisations “have to speculate take-up figures, so building adequate capacity for EPA is a precarious exercise”, Mr Fennell said.

Combined with a lag in when starts are reported, this means they are “working pretty much in the dark”.

It’s a situation playing out across a number of assessment organisations.

Tim Hattersley, apprenticeship director at DSW Consulting, which is on the register for 23 standards across the business sector, said many providers and employers didn’t know they had to register with the EPA organisation.

“That could throw a spanner in the works if there is a lot more out there than any of us believe,” he said.

For some of the “very, very large volume standards” there will be a “certain pace of registration that will come as a bit of a shock”, he said.

“At that point we’d need to know what would we do if we got 1,000 more learners arriving and they’re going to reach gateway in three months’ time and they’ve all got to be assessed,” he said.

The ‘occupational competency’ struggle

Many standards have strict rules on who is qualified to deliver the assessments – including a demand that the assessor be “occupationally competent” – leading to organisations tying themselves up in knots to try to meet them.

Assessment organisations told FE Week of the extra lengths they had to go to in their recruitment – particularly in healthcare.

Charlotte Bosworth, managing director of Innovate Awarding, which is signed up to deliver assessments for 26 standards, said she was struggling to recruit assessors for two healthcare standards due to the requirement for them to be a currently registered nurse.

It’s really challenging to find someone in that position who is willing and able to put in the time to do the assessments

“It’s really challenging to find someone in that position who is willing and able to put in the time to do the assessments,” she said.

Innovate had only managed to attract a small number of assessors for these standards, despite going out to recruit “a number of times”.

It’s not just recruiting assessors – it’s keeping them

Many of the assessment organisations told FE Week they’d managed to recruit large banks of assessors. But because assessment numbers are so low at the moment, these are mostly on a freelance basis – and as demand grows, there’s no guarantee they will all still be available.

Ms Bosworth told FE Week they were having to work to keep their assessors “warm”, as they “aren’t working at full capacity yet”.

Nonetheless, she said it was “challenging” to retain them, and some had dropped out to take up a full-time job, while others had left as EPA “just isn’t for them”.

“It is new and very different to assessments many have carried out previously,” she said.

In addition, as a number of assessment organisations pointed out, there is only a limited pool of qualified assessors out there – and the same ones may be signing up with multiple organisations.

“Clearly that could mean, in due course, that once those people are starting to be tied up then they’re not available to another one that they’re registered with,” said Mr Hattersley.

Is Ofqual’s concern valid?

It’s almost impossible to predict the picture for assessor capacity and capability once numbers have hit their peak – given the uncertainty over apprenticeship starts.

The assessment organisations FE Week spoke to were all doing the best they could to plan ahead, but this was for the next year when numbers are still set to be relatively low.

It’s going to be an interesting ride in the next couple of years

According to Mr Fennell, while “every chief executive of an EPA organisation out there” is working hard to overcome these challenges, “most of us are in unchartered waters trying to predict the market forces and delivery of new services”.

“It’s going to be an interesting ride in the next couple of years.”

What is the government doing about this?

Ofqual’s chief regulator Sally Collier first voiced concerns over end-point assessment capability and capacity at the AELP annual conference in June.

Just a month later the exams watchdog confirmed it would be carrying out a series of audits “to help understand how the EPA organisations we regulate are mitigating risks” around this issue – audits that are now underway.

But Phil Beach, Ofqual’s executive director for vocational and technical qualifications would not be drawn on any specific concerns that had prompted the visits.

Instead, he told FE Week they were part of its “business-as-usual activity” designed to “make sure that, in a period of significant transformation, we look at those areas where we think the change will bite”.

“We do recognise that this is a new world, therefore having an audit programme early on in the process is really important, to inform the Institute for Apprenticeships and other external quality assurance providers, so that we can take a systemic response,” he said.

Once the audits are complete, which is expected to be in 2019, Ofqual will share its findings – “issues and good practice” – with other EQA providers and the IfA.

It will also “disseminate points of good practice across AOs, and where we find limitations, we will seek to address them though our regulatory powers,” he warned.

Heather Akehurst, chief executive of Open Awards, which is contracted to carry out EQA on behalf of the IfA, said it had not yet “identified any EPA organisation who lacks the ability and capacity to carry out their role”.

“We are however aware of the concern and will be vigilant in our ongoing monitoring,” she said.

Both the Department for Education and the IfA said they were “aware of the challenges” that EPA organisations were facing and were “working with them and their representative bodies to address the issues that they raise with us”.

“We are also working with individual EPA organisations to provide support and advice on dealing with the changes in demand for end-point assessment,” both said.

The IfA said it was also “doing work to ensure that employers engage with EPA organisations in a timely manner” and that assessment organisations “are able to gear up to meet the demand from employers”.

Where are EPA organisations recruiting their assessors from?

When it comes to recruiting assessors, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach.

A number of the assessment organisations FE Week spoke to said they were drawing from existing pools of assessors.

These could be external verifiers, internal quality assurers, on-programme assessors or those with an external quality assurance background, who perhaps currently work for training providers or awarding organisations.

However, as Graham Hasting-Evans, managing director of NOCN, pointed out, the difficulty with this approach is the Institute for Apprenticeships’ insistence on “occupational competency and continuing professional development” in assessors – requirements that are “difficult for existing assessors to match”.

Because of this requirement, some organisations have taken a different approach and are recruiting from industry and then training them up to be assessors.

Ben Cressey, director of apprenticeships and work-based learning at Highfield Qualifications, said they saw the new requirements as “an opportunity to explore even further what recruiting from industry looks like”. It then provides its own training to equip the assessors with the relevant assessment skills.

He said that approach, one of a number it has taken to recruitment, was “working really well” for Highfield, which is registered to deliver the final assessments for 25 standards across a number of industries including transport and logistics, and health and social care.

Chris Young, managing director of Future Qualifications, told FE Week he was drawing on the resources of 10 different NHS trusts the organisation worked with to recruit assessors for the level four associate ambulance practitioner standard.

To avoid any possibility of conflict of interest, an assessor from one trust would assess apprentices at another, he said.

Other organisations that aren’t traditional awarding bodies are able to take advantage of their existing links with industry.

Tony Howard, director of training at BESA Group, which is on the register for nine standards, the majority of which are in the construction industry, said that “as a trade association we are not finding resourcing qualified assessors an issue” as “we do have in-depth resources effectively available to us”.

Can assessment organisations afford to deliver EPA?

The Institute for Apprenticeships is currently reviewing the funding bands for 31 popular apprenticeships.

Though the results are yet to be confirmed, we know a number of standards are facing cuts – and this downward pressure on funding is likely to make issues with EPA even worse.

Education and Skills Funding Agency guidance stipulates that EPA costs “should not usually exceed 20 per cent of the funding band maximum”, so if this rate is reduced, so too is the amount available for the final exams.

Many EPA organisations are already struggling to make ends meet on the assessments they’re carrying out.

According to Graham Hasting-Evans, managing director of NOCN, end-point assessments costs are “mainly driven by the daily rate that must be paid to the assessor”.

For some of the higher level, specialist standards, he said this fee could be as high as £1,000 a day, which far outweighs the funding available.

Even when they were paying assessors standard rates, some organisations said they were barely making any money – if at all.

The cost to the assessment organisation for delivering the final exams depends on many factors, including location.

An assessment taking place in a rural location, far from the nearest available assessor, will inevitably cost more to deliver – due to increased travel costs.

However, some felt this situation would improve once numbers picked up, as they’d be able to assess more apprentices in one go, or have more assessors available to them, which would bring the cost down.

Alternatively, they’d be able to take on assessors on a full-time or permanent basis, if there was a guarantee of frequent work.

Others were less optimistic, with one organisation, which wanted to remain anonymous, believing that “only time will tell if it’s worthwhile” to deliver some assessments.

Mr Hastings-Evans urged the government to do more to support EPA organisations with assessment costs.

“If we are to attract the large numbers of high quality assessors that are going to be needed, we will need to be able to adequately reward them and also be able to recover the substantial recruitment and training costs the EPA organisations have to bear upfront,” he said.

Chartered Institution for Further Education on the ropes?

The head of the Chartered Institution for Further Education has insisted its survival is not hanging in the balance, even though the government failed to provide any funding for it in this year’s budget.

Dan Wright’s defence of the CIFE also comes despite having just 14 members – far fewer than the 80 he previously said it needed to become self-sustaining.

FE Week started asking questions about the institution’s future after the Department for Education last month published its executive agency spend for March which included a £220,000 payment to the CIFE.

The DfE said this was the second and final payment going to the institution under their 2017-18 grant funding agreement following a payment of £210,000 in October.

A spokesperson then confirmed that the government had no further commitments to fund the institution.

Last year’s £430,000 DfE prop-up was given on top of £1 million in payments to the CIFE since it was conceived in 2012, as FE Week revealed in January.

Although Mr Wright (pictured), the institution’s chief executive, told FE Week that conversations with the DfE about additional subsidy for 2018-19 were ongoing, he admitted no decisions had yet been made.

Considering the CIFE is 64 members off the number it needs to become self-funding, it appears unlikely that the institution will be able to continue without more government grants.

But Mr Wright was keen to play down the possibility that his institution is on the ropes, saying discussions with the department were continuing with meetings scheduled in the near future and a number of new members joining.

He told FE Week: “We are looking forward to the government giving every support as we expand our membership.

“We do have a growing income stream from membership and it has always been the intention to be self-funding.”

The CIFE, the brainchild of the former skills minister John Hayes, was created to get high-achieving FE providers Royal Charter status.

But six years after its conception, it is still being funded by public money, with payments to date totalling nearly £1.5 million.

In January Mr Wright told FE Week the institution needs 80 members to be “completely free” of government subsidy.

He had a plan agreed with the DfE setting out how the institution will be self-sufficient by mid-2019.

Mr Wright would not comment on whether the institution would achieve the goal.

The DfE would also not comment on the CIFE’s progress to becoming self-funding.

College leaders to be consulted on new senior staff pay policy

The Association of Colleges is developing new guidance for setting senior pay in colleges and will launch a consultation imminently.

Top level pay in the education sector has been a hot topic in recent years following the rise of chief executive salaries in multi-academy trusts and vice-chancellor wages in universities, which often exceed £150,000 – an issue that the government has taken action on.

But to date college earnings have been untouched by any official intervention, and in the growing number of college group structures several staff members could be earning over £150,000.

The code will help colleges show that they are acting responsibly, fairly and openly

Now, the AoC wants to make the process of deciding senior pay more fair and transparent and is making the first amendment to its ‘code of good governance’ since its creation in March 2015.

“The AoC Governors’ Council will shortly launch a consultation on a new code to help governing bodies set senior pay,” David Hughes, the chief executive of the association, told FE Week.

“The code draws on the good practice in colleges and from other sectors and will help colleges show that they are acting responsibly, fairly and openly.”

He claimed that a private AoC survey shows that total senior pay “fell slightly” between 2016 and 2017 and “we believe that the college financial statements distort the pay position”.

“That distortion comes when mergers result in some overlap in principals and a larger than normal number of interim appointments in the lead up to mergers,” Mr Hughes added.

He continued: “We don’t believe that there is a particular problem with senior pay in colleges, with the ratio between median pay and top pay being around one to five.

“That looks reasonable compared with any private sector and most public sector comparators.”

As well as covering how to set fair and appropriate pay, the code is expected to provide guidance on “severance arrangements, median pay multiple methodologies” and proposes new annual reporting arrangements.

Andrew Harden, head of FE at the University and Colleges Union, said the “huge and seemingly arbitrary pay hikes” enjoyed by some college heads in recent years have “exposed the lack of transparency when it comes to senior pay”.

A remuneration code is “overdue and needs proper teeth if it is to restore confidence in the sector”, he added.

FE Week analysis on college principal pay, which excludes the significant rises following mergers, shows that salaries have risen by six per cent on average in the two years to July 2017.

READ MORE: UCU blasts 10% pay rises for ‘greedy’ college principals

Meanwhile, principal pay for those in sixth form colleges only went up by one per cent. According to the University and Colleges Union, the pay for lecturers has failed to keep up with inflation.

Research by the union in April of 2016/17 college accounts showed a third of all principals enjoyed a bumper pay rise of more than 10 per cent in that year while 17 earned salaries of over £200,000.

It comes at a frustrating time for college staff, after the DfE decided to fund a 3.5 per cent pay rise for school teachers while ignoring FE lecturers. UCU has since launched a ballot for strike action to take place later this year.

“The sector’s case for greater funding would be a lot easier if it didn’t have to keep explaining pay rises for a handful at the top that are way out of step with what college staff are paid,” Mr Harden said.

In December 2017 the UCU said colleges should justify staff who are paid over £150,000 a year.

It came after the ESFA began to crack down on high pay for academy chief executives and university vice-chancellors by ordering both types of institution, which often pay salaries of more than £150,000 a year, to justify the remunerations.

The AoC’s 10-week consultation will run from September 14 to November 23.

Major slash in store for apprenticeship funding rate bands

The Institute for Apprenticeships will soon confirm controversial changes to dozens of apprenticeship funding rate bands, according to the skills minister.

Writing in her monthly column in FE Week, Anne Milton said the rate changes will be published online “shortly” and further reviews will take place in the autumn.

To date, the IfA has refused to publicly reveal the recommendations from its funding band review, and said last month the details are subject to change until a final decision is made by the Department for Education.

Rate changes, according to the IfA, need to be signed off by the Secretary of State for Education, Damian Hinds.

However, the IfA has been communicating with the relevant employer groups about the changes in order to give them a chance to appeal, and several have come forward to reveal the planned outcomes of the review.

The Chartered Management Institute is currently fighting to overturn plans to slash the maximum funding rate to three popular management apprenticeship standards, including one that is set to lose £5,000. An online appeal, led by the CMI, has received backing from more than 150 employers.

Petra Wilson, director of strategy at the CMI, said the “overwhelming outcry” against the plan demonstrates that the government’s plans to reduce the funding “makes so little sense”.

Other popular apprenticeships are also in the firing line. The level two customer service practitioner standard – which had the third most starts of any apprenticeship standard in the first nine months of 2017/18 – is set for a 13 per cent cut to its funding rate, while the level two hair professional standard and the level two retailer apprenticeship standard are both in line for 20 per cent cuts.

However, some Trailblazers have received more welcome news. The funding band for the level three aviation ground specialist standard is set to be doubled, while the level three senior healthcare support worker standard is in line for a massive 67 per cent increase.

The picture so far on the 31 standards in the review

Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employer and Learning Providers, has warned the level of uncertainty created by the review is having serious negative repercussions for the sector, and said the “complete lack of transparency and evidence is unjustified”.

Writing in the association’s newsletter, he stated: “Employers and providers are now saying it is incredibly risky to plan, invest in resources, invest in staff, design programmes, etc, if at a whim the IfA can adjust funding with no warning. This will lead to less investment and ultimately lower quality.

“At a time when everyone is working so hard to deliver high quality programmes with employers it is astounding that the organisation that is tasked with maintaining quality is actually undermining the system and wanting to pay less for ultimately poorer quality.

“No one can deliver this amazing apprenticeship policy if the organisation at the heart of the system has lost the trust and respect of everyone operating within the system, and their actions are working against the fundamental principle of high-quality apprenticeships.”

As previously reported in FE Week, the IfA has committed to implementing rate increases with immediate effect and providing notice of at least two months before a confirmed rate reduction would apply.

Our new approach to funding apprenticeships will provide better value for money

A new approach to funding apprenticeships will provide better value for money so that people can benefit from the training opportunities on offer and progress in their careers, says Anne Milton

I have spoken a lot about the important changes we are making to improve the quality of apprenticeships in this country. One of the biggest changes has been to introduce apprenticeship standards – new, high-quality apprenticeships replacing the older “frameworks”. I’m really pleased that the number of people starting these apprenticeships has increased by almost 1,000 per cent in the last year. Of those starting apprenticeships only 2.5 per cent were on standards this time last year, and now it’s over 40 per cent.

Apprenticeship standards are designed by employers themselves. By putting employers in the driving seat, we make sure that apprentices receive the training they need and make sure people have the skills businesses are crying out for, so they can get on and grow their career.

Since its creation in April 2017, the Institute for Apprenticeships has been responsible for managing the development of these new apprenticeship standards. Their work includes advising me about the right funding level for each new standard that is approved.

As more and more standards have been created, the Institute has been learning what a quality apprenticeship looks like. They have also been looking at how we can make sure apprenticeship training provides value for money.

In February the Institute introduced a new approach to recommending apprenticeship funding bands as part of its Faster and Better programme. This approach means a wider range of evidence will be used to help decide what funding band to recommend. It also means standards are decided more quickly, so that there are fewer delays.

I have also made changes to the funding band structure, increasing the number of funding bands to 30, and narrowing those bands.

But all this positive change means that there is now a difference between how older and newer standards were allocated funding bands.

Our intention has always been to review standards regularly, to make sure that they remain fit for purpose and that there is a fair approach, no matter when a standard was developed. That is why I asked the Institute to review the funding bands of 31 standards, in line with their new approach and using the new 30-funding band structure.

Over the summer the Institute has been working with trailblazer groups of employers to review these 31 standards. They have applied their new funding approach to recommend to me what they think the right funding band is for these apprenticeships.

This means for some of the apprenticeships, the funding band will remain the same, as the original funding band still represents the best value for money. Others will see their funding band increased, if evidence suggests the original band was set too low. And for others, the funding band will be reduced.

Once the IfA have confirmed the outcome of the review to trailblazers, changed funding bands will be available on the IfA’s website and on the apprenticeships funding bands page.

I have asked the Institute to continue its work to bring all standards into the new 30-band structure. The Institute will lead reviews on further standards over the rest of this financial year.

I think that it is right that we price all apprenticeships fairly, whether they were developed first or last. As the apprenticeship market develops, I will keep working with the IfA to make sure we get this funding right. We want people to benefit from the amazing opportunities apprenticeships offer, get the fantastic training providers give and get on in their careers.