Anne Milton has stepped in to stop a provider from taking on any new apprentices, after it was criticised in Ofsted’s first early-monitoring visit report on a newcomer to apprenticeships.

The apprenticeships minister made it clear that the government had decided swift action was needed against Merseyside’s Key6 Group.

“All apprenticeship training must be fit for purpose,” she said. “We have stopped Key6 Group from taking on any new apprentices following Ofsted’s findings.

“The provider must now show us how they plan to improve, and we will monitor their progress. I also want to see them immediately address the safeguarding issues highlighted in the report.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Education added that it will “always take action to protect apprentices if a training provider is not fit for purpose”.

“Employers are free to move their apprentices if they are dissatisfied with the quality of apprenticeship provision or responsiveness of their existing providers.”

The inspectorate’s brutal criticism of Key6 was particularly striking because it has high-profile apprenticeship levy contracts with Liverpool Football Club and charity giant Mencap.

The charity said it had been “disappointed with the quality of training and other aspects of apprenticeship provision”, and it is now “in the process of assessing” contractual options”.

Liverpool FC confirmed it is aware of Ofsted’s report but declined to comment.

The troubled provider joined the government’s register of apprenticeship training providers last March.

Inspectors heard apprentices complain they were “not learning anything new on their apprenticeship”.

Instead, they “shoehorn existing work in a portfolio to get a free qualification”.

“The large majority of apprentices are not even aware that they are an apprentice, and identify themselves as studying a level five management course,” the report said, while safeguarding arrangements “are not effective”.

“Directors have failed to ensure that the designated safeguarding officer has received the appropriate training to allow her to execute fully the role,” Ofsted added.

Dr Jerry Grundy, the group’s director of education, refuted the safeguarding criticism in particular.

“Holding overall responsibility for Key6’s safeguarding, I have over a decade’s experience as a headmaster of two schools; my practical experience of dealing with complex safeguarding issues is extensive.

“In addition, another of Key6’s directors is currently the independent chair of three local safeguarding children boards, one local safeguarding adults board and a member of the National Association of Local Safeguarding Children Boards.

“This information was all provided to the inspectors at the time of the monitoring visit.”

Craig Pankhurst, the provider’s managing director, has complained to Ofsted about the report.

He said there had been “positive dialogue” with the ESFA, and welcomed “their advice and guidance”.

“We understood the Ofsted monitoring visit to be developmental and balanced. The lack of either forms part of the reason for Key6’s complaint,” Pankhurst said.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman announced last November that Ofsted would conduct early monitoring visits at new apprenticeship providers to look out for “scandalous” attempts to waste public money.

Today’s report was the first example of the tougher new approach, and it will send out a warning to other new providers that they need to deliver on quality.

The chief executive of one of London’s largest colleges has announced plans to leave at the end of the academic year to take up the same position at a much smaller college in the south west.

Garry Phillips will leave Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College in the summer in preparation for his move to City College Plymouth.

His decision is said to be for family reasons.

“I am sure you will join the board and myself in congratulating Garry and his family on their move to Plymouth,” chair of Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, Anthony Alderman, told staff today.

He explained that the process for securing a new chief executive has started, and its HR team will “keep staff briefed on the process and it is important that this will involve students and staff”.

“The board has an ambitious programme for this college which we will see through and I acknowledge the hard work of staff under Garry’s leadership in contributing to our success,” he added.

Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, which has a £42.9 million turnover and ESFA contracts totalling £14 million this year, is one of the largest college’s in the capital.

It was supposed to merge with Kensington and Chelsea College but the controversial plans for this giant group were stopped in January amid outcry from Grenfell campaigners.

City College Plymouth has an annual turnover of £30.7 million and government skills contracts hitting just over £7 million in 2017/18.

Upon leaving, Mr Phillips told staff at the London college that he has “enjoyed” his time and the “many achievements we have made together as a team, not least achieving an Ofsted good”.

“I will continue to focus on our core business over the next few months and to ensure we grow and improve the college’s offer and provision,” he added.

“I would like to thank you all in advance for your support in what we have, and what we will continue, to achieve.”

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers has washed its hands of the Education and Training Foundation, claiming it is “no longer an organisation run by the FE sector for the sector”.

“We don’t feel the programme being proposed and funded by the DfE supports our membership,” said AELP boss Mark Dawe, who insisted the ETF “can’t have its ownership cake and eat it”.

The decision will send shockwaves through the sector. The ETF, which is mostly funded by the DfE, was designed as a “sector-owned” support body, helping train the people who work in technical and vocational education.

As far as the AELP is concerned, however, it no longer operates as an independent body, so much as an extension of the DfE focusing on the incoming T-levels.

“There is nothing really around apprenticeships and work-based learning, when we are probably going through the most significant change in the sector – particularly with the move from assessing to training and end-point assessment,” Mr Dawe told FE Week.

“There is a desperate need for workforce support development so the most fundamental thing that is needed at a critical time has been removed.”

FE Week can reveal that the move was ratified this afternoon at an ETF board meeting, and that the AELP has removed its representation with immediate effect.

The AELP had two trustees on the ETF’s board – Chris Jeffery, a non-executive director of the Skills Group UK, and John Hyde, the executive chair of Hospitality Industry Training.

David Russell, chief executive of the ETF, said his organisation was “disappointed” by the AELP’s decision and would be “seeking discussions” with both the association’s chair and chief executive to “understand more fully their decision and the reasons for it”.

Other part-owners of the foundation include Holex, the adult community education body, and the Association of Colleges.

Established in October 2013 by former skills minister John Hayes, the ETF recently had its mission reviewed by the DfE, resulting in a “narrower remit”.

Mr Dawe claimed his representatives were not allowed to “have any impact” on the ETF’s focus, “so we do not feel like we should continue as an owner”.

The organisation’s total income in 2016/17 was £32.2 million, which included £29.1m in grants from the DfE.

It is understood the government is now pushing the ETF to focus on the introduction of T-levels – which will mostly be taken at colleges rather than private providers – and other mainstream FE provision.

“The work is now being determined by the DfE and not by the ETF at all – they’ve lost their identity and is not representing the whole sector,” Mr Dawe said.

“When ETF was set up under John Hayes it was about giving it all to the sector and allow it to determine what it needs for its workforce. It was by the sector, for the sector, but it doesn’t feel like that is the case anymore.”

Another factor in the AELP’s decision was the fact that the ETF’s “highly successful” Future Apprenticeships programme is being discontinued.

The scheme was launched to help FE teachers and leaders to make the transition from apprenticeship frameworks to delivery of the new standards.

The cancellation comes “at a time when the levy has got off to a less than auspicious start, there are hundreds of new providers in the apprenticeship market and most of the workforce in the sector is having to change and develop”, the AELP said.

The AELP now wants the DfE to give it some responsibility for providing training and continuing professional development (CPD) to its own members.

Mr Dawe added that he is happy for AELP to work with the ETF on programmes relevant to his members.

Mr Russell said support will continue to be available to work-based learning professionals and providers in the sector, “irrespective of whether AELP makes appointments to our board”.

The Institute for Apprenticeships has “concerns” about conflicts of interest in its new model for quality-assurance, FE Week can reveal.

This emerged from minutes for a meeting of the IfA quality assurance committee, obtained via a Freedom of Information request.

The body “confirmed it had concerns about conflicts of interest with EQA providers in general” during the session last December.

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

The minutes did not specify what the concerns were and a spokesperson for the IfA refused to explain this week.

“The process of recognising bodies to deliver EQA has reinforced the importance of investigating potential conflicts of interest,” he admitted.

“Some conflicts can be managed, but others, for example being an end-point assessment organisation, will prevent that body from delivering EQA.”

“It’s up to the EQA provider to demonstrate it’s got no favouritism”

John McNamara, the Federation of Awarding Bodies’ interim boss, said potential conflicts arise where employer groups or professional bodies providing EQA have an associate company or subsidiaries that “are doing other things in the apprenticeship market” such as end-point assessment.

There is a “perception” that in this situation the EQA provider might give preferential treatment to the assessment organisation within its own group, Mr McNamara explained.

“It’s up to the EQA provider to demonstrate it’s got no favouritism,” he said.

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

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

This has led to a proliferation of different organisations being named in apprenticeship assessment plans to provide EQA.

But to date just four have been approved by the IfA – People 1^st, Tech Partnership, RMISC and Skills for Care – in addition to the IfA and Ofqual.

One provider was rejected at the December meeting – but the IfA refused to say which one.

A further 32 organisations, named as EQA providers for 50 standards, are still awaiting approval.

These include one organisation that’s also on the register of apprenticeship assessment organisations – but also a number that are part of the same group as an EPA organisation.

FE Week asked the IfA to explain what would happen in cases where it had not yet approved an EQA provider named on an assessment plan, particularly where there were apprentices that had gone through end-point assessment.

No answer was forthcoming.

However, we understand that at least one provider in this position had been told to carry out its duties as originally planned until told otherwise.

An IfA spokesperson said that “94 per cent of apprentices with EPA due in the next 12 months” are on standards with an approved EQA provider.

“We are working to approve the providers which cover the remaining six per cent,” he said.

---

What is the role of external quality-assurance?

External quality-assurance has a vital role to play in ensuring that apprenticeship assessments are reliable and deliver the outcomes needed.

It’s designed to “ensure that end-point assessment is being delivered effectively and consistently by different end-point assessment organisations, and that assessment plans are fit for purpose”.

It “ensures that EPA organisations all work to a high standard and that an apprentice who has been assessed by one EPA organisation would get the same result regardless of the EPA organisation”.

Employer groups developing apprenticeship standards can as previously explained choose between an employer-led approach, a professional body, the IfA itself or the exams regulator Ofqual.

All four options are overseen by the IfA, to ensure “quality, consistency and credibility”.

The former IfA chief executive Peter Lauener said last August that the institute puts “employers’ needs and choices at the heart of our work”, and it is “important that they have a choice in how external quality-assurance is undertaken”.

In the case of the employer-led approach, the provider “must be a legal entity” and arrangements would include “governance set up by the employers”.

A professional body is defined as a “not-for-profit organisation seeking to further a particular profession, the interests of individuals engaged in that profession, and the public interest”.

The IfA was originally intended as the EQA provider of last resort, but it has proved to be the most popular – with 90 approved standards choosing it. Open Awards Ltd runs the EQA on the IfA’s behalf.

---

Meet the committee

The Institute for Apprenticeships’ quality-assurance committee has responsibility for reviewing “whether or not standards or assessment plans remain fit for purpose”.

It is also tasked with checking whether EPAs are being “operated effectively”.

It has five members, two of whom are on the IfA board, and three of whom are independent.

Accusations of exam malpractice helped sealed the fate of a doomed studio school, according to “shocking” new board minutes.

Documents from the Manchester Creative Studio, shown to FE Week, also reveal that former trustees retained access to the school’s bank account months after they left, and that staff were not given contracts until this academic year.

It was announced in January that MCS would shut at the end of this academic year.

It will become the 18th studio school to close since the start of the scheme, which is designed as an alternative to mainstream education for 14- to 19-year-olds, and viewed by many in FE as unwelcome competition.

At the time, the closure was blamed on low student numbers, “significant financial challenges”, and a damning grade four Ofsted report early last year.

But two investigations by exam board OCR also influenced the Department for Education’s decision after it upheld two accusations of exam malpractice in a single subject. A separate investigation into malpractice in computing was also carried out.

Former shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, who is also the school’s local MP, described the case as “shocking” and raising “real concerns about weak oversight and accountability of our schools system”.

“Pupils, parents, teachers and the local community have been let down by terrible malpractice and unacceptable behaviour,” she added.

Mr Shevill told FE Week that the malpractice related to “concerns about the similarity of coursework”, and that an internal review had been undertaken to “stop such issues occurring again in the future”.

OCR’s investigation into computing resulted in no accusations being upheld, but as a result of the inquiry, exam results for the subject that should have been released to 27 students taking the qualifications last August were not received until October.

MCS has received at least £5 million in funding since 2014, while being run by the Collective Spirit Multi-Academy Trust.

It had received a financial notice to improve in June 2016 after misjudging pupil numbers, and announced it would be rebrokered to a new sponsor in January last year.

The school’s board was disbanded last May to be replaced with a new one.

Minutes reveal that former trustees who had run the school into heavy debt had access to its bank account four months after they left.

The new trustees admitted this is “not usual practice”, but Mr Shevill claimed the situation was “resolved” in September and insisted that no trustee had actually accessed the account.

The chair is also unsure why the former trustees hadn’t got staff to sign contracts since the school opened in 2014, but confirmed this issue had also been rectified.

There were also major issues with the school’s IT system.

This is a shocking case which raises real concerns about weak oversight and accountability

“In terms of server problems these need further investigation by to be able to clarify and resolve any issues,” minutes from June state. “Currently the system in place is not exam compliant, affects delivery of the curriculum and has safeguarding implications.”

They added that estimated costs to achieve safe filtering was £37,000.

A critical health and safety report into the school, which is currently teaching around 40 students, has also been shared with FE Week.

Carried out in November 2017, the school was given red ratings because there was no formal accident reporting procedure, no formal health and safety inspections, nor any policy on violence to staff.

The school’s most recent accounts, published last month, also revealed that £5,500 was owed to teachers’ pensions.

Mr Shevill told FE Week this issue was a “complex one”, adding: “There were a number of inaccuracies in the HR files and the 2016/17 pension return was not submitted on time.”

Work is “ongoing” to correct everything.

“This multi-academy trust [Collective Spirit] has brought our education system into disrepute, highlighting the fragility of the studio schools model and the need for more robust due diligence when new organisations seek to establish new schools,” said Ms Powell.

A cash-strapped college has been hit with a notice to improve for financial control – mere months after receiving one for financial health.

Bradford College, which received two government bailouts in December alone, had already been referred to the FE commissioner after the first notice in November.

The latest notice warns that the Education and Skills Funding Agency will take further action if its conditions aren’t met.

These include developing a recovery plans focusing on “what has previously gone wrong and why, with regard to financial controls within the organisation and what actions have been taken, or are being taken, to address any identified short-comings”.

The college must “provide assurances from their internal auditors that there are adequate control processes to manage the achievement of its objectives” and that there are “effective arrangements for governance risk management and internal controls”.

It must “continue to work with the ESFA and the FE commissioner and his advisers (names to be confirmed) to undertake an independent assessment of the college’s capability and capacity to make the required changes and improvements,”.

“Once the FE commissioner has undertaken this assessment, we reserve the right to vary the terms of the NTI to reflect recommendations made,” the ESFA continued.

“If, in the ESFA’s view, the college fails to take the necessary actions (in whole or part) within the timescales to be agreed, or if evidence of progress is not appropriate or not available, the ESFA will take further action.”

As FE Week recently reported, Bradford College received two exceptional financial support payments in December, each for £1.5 million.

The FE commissioner’s report was published earlier this month, and determined that the college’s dire financial position had been a surprise to its governors, and that the board was only made aware of management concerns around finances in June last year.

He urged the board to commission “an independent piece of work to enable governors and the executive to understand what went wrong in 2016/17 and why it was not reported until after the year end”.

Minutes from the college governing board meeting on July 20 last year reveal that the college had self-assessed its financial health as ‘satisfactory’.

The group chief executive at the time, Andy Welsh – who stepped down in November – also thanked all staff for “a fantastic performance over the last year, which has seen rising income levels”.

But minutes from board meeting on November 16 show that “governors discussed the decline in the college’s financial health and the failures in the control framework which had allowed warning signs to go unheeded”.

They also “acknowledged the corporation’s duty to learn from its mistakes”.