Damian Hinds has “welcomed” the Federation of Awarding Bodies decision to drop its legal challenge against the government’s implementation of T-levels.

In his reaction to the news that was revealed by FE Week this morning, the education secretary promised to “continue to have constructive discussions” with exam boards to make technical education “better for the sake of the next generation”.

The FAB withdrew its threat of a judicial review today after the government watered down its rules in the procurement process for T-levels and offered to “reset the relationship” with the awarding sector.

Mr Hinds (pictured) labelled the legal action, which questioned whether the government has acted lawfully in its plans for introducing the new technical qualifications, as “deeply disappointing” and “unnecessary” when it was first announced last month.

Speaking today following FAB’s U-turn, he said: “I welcome this decision and commitment from the Federation of Awarding Bodies to support T-levels and work with the government on their development.

“Awarding bodies will be key to upholding the quality of our reforms to technical qualifications.

“With a rapidly changing world and a big productivity challenge, we have a pressing need to raise our game on technical education.

“I’ve been clear that it needs to be a shared endeavour across the world of education, government and business, and we will continue to have constructive discussions with the awarding body sector to make technical education better for the sake of the next generation.”

Legal action from FAB posed a huge threat to Mr Hinds’ plans for a rollout of T-levels, and would have almost certainly delayed their 2020 launch.

The federation said today that after weighing up the “continued value” of pursuing a judicial review, the “board does not believe that issuing a claim in the High Court at this time is the most optimal way of settling our concerns”.

“Instead, we have decided to take up the Department for Education’s offer to sit down with officials and, in due course, re-set the relationship between the government and the awarding industry,” the letter from FAB chair, Paul Eeles, added.

It also appeared that the federation’s members didn’t have the appetite for the cost of a legal challenge, after a survey revealed only 40 per cent of them were prepared to contribute to a legal ‘fighting fund’.

Awarding bodies first warned of a legal challenge last month following two market engagement events about the procurement process which left organisations enraged at the commercial terms they’d have to agree.

Its judicial review was going to be based on three grounds: irrational (timescales), unreasonable (lack of proper engagement on the single-provider model) and unfair (has a disproportionate impact on the awarding sector).

But the government then partly conceded to the demands of awarding organisations by easing up on a number of rules in the T-levels procurement process.

These include allowing them to co-brand student and employer facing materials, something the department said was impossible at the market engagement events.

Concluding the decision to drop the legal challenge, Mr Eeles wrote: “The robust action we took has resulted in the prospect of a different and better kind of relationship developing between government and the awarding industry in future.”

The T-levels row follows a rare ministerial direction from the education secretary in May, when Mr Hinds refused his own permanent secretary’s request to delay the initial rollout of T-levels until 2021.

Many fear the tight timescale for delivery will negatively impact learners in the first wave.

The Federation of Awarding Bodies has dropped its legal challenge against the government’s T-level implementation plans – paving the way for the planned rollout in 2020, FE Week can reveal.

The decision, which came about after the Department for Education offered to “re-set the relationship” with awarding bodies, was revealed in a letter sent to the organisation’s members this morning.

It said that after receiving the government’s response to its pre-action letter, the watering down of a number of rules in the upcoming procurement process, and weighing up the “continued value” of pursuing a judicial review, the “FAB board does not believe that issuing a claim in the High Court at this time is the most optimal way of settling our concerns”.

FAB does not believe that issuing a claim in the High Court at this time is the most optimal way of settling concerns

“Instead, we have decided to take up the Department for Education’s offer to sit down with officials and, in due course, re-set the relationship between the government and the awarding industry,” the letter from FAB chair, Paul Eeles, added.

It also appeared that the federation’s members didn’t have the appetite for the cost of a legal challenge, after a survey revealed only 40 per cent of them were prepared to contribute to a legal ‘fighting fund’.

The news will be music to the ears of education secretary Damian Hinds as it means the government can now plough on with the planned rollout of 2020 for the new technical qualifications without fears of inevitable delays.

The FAB first warned of a legal challenge last month following two market engagement events about the procurement process which left awarding organisations enraged at the commercial terms they’d have to agree.

The membership body then wrote to the DfE and Institute for Apprenticeships on July 17, outlining the grounds upon which it intends to launch a judicial review.

These included: irrational (timescales), unreasonable (lack of proper engagement on the single-provider model) and unfair (has a disproportionate impact on the awarding sector).

Since this time the federation has been in close informal touch with DfE officials before receiving a formal response to its threat of legal action – the contents of which are not able to be shared yet.

The FAB’s letter to members said there are still a “number of specific concerns” it will be continuing to work through with the DfE, including “how we minimise any potentially detrimental impact on learners of a qualification that is rushed”.

“Similarly, we need to work through the issue of consortia arrangements as this is one obvious way to mitigate the risks of a single provider model/ single point of failure model in the longer term,” it added.

“We will be in a clearer position to evaluate the progress of this position after recess. Of course, we will be keeping you regularly informed.”

The FAB carried out a members survey last month in which 90 per cent of the 39 respondents supported the approach that its board had taken to date.

Concluding the decision to drop the legal challenge, Mr Eeles wrote: “The robust action we took has resulted in the prospect of a different and better kind of relationship developing between government and the awarding industry in future.

“We are striving for a genuine partnership with government that reflects and respects the vast expertise and diversity of the awarding sector; a productive relationship that ensures government works with us on the basis that we are part of the long-term solution to improved technical education and skills in our country.”

Mr Hinds quickly hit back at the FAB’s threat of legal action last month, labelling it as “deeply disappointing” and “unnecessary” before vowing to press ahead with planned rollout of T-levels.

But the government did partly concede to the demands of awarding organisations by watering down a number of rules in its procurement process.

These include allowing awarding organisations to co-brand student and employer facing materials, something the department said was impossible at the market engagement events.

Development fees are also now allowed to be paid in installments rather than one lump sum, as well as indexation of fees being permitted.

Mr Hinds has welcomed the news. You can read his full reaction here.

The T-levels row follows a rare ministerial direction from the education secretary in May, when Mr Hinds refused his own permanent secretary’s request to delay the initial rollout of T-levels until 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not a surprise that uptake has been slow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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