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”.

 

A “major” independent commission on lifelong learning has been launched by Vince Cable.

The commission is designed to investigate the “best ways” to make sure adults have “access to learning and retraining throughout their lives”.

It will consider “bold ideas” such as individual learning accounts, which “could offer adults a pot of money to be used to pay for upskilling and retraining opportunities, ensuring people are able to stay up-to-date with technological advances and changes in the job market”.

The commission will also consider other options to increase access to FE, online learning, part-time study and retraining services.

It will be chaired by Rajay Naik, the chief executive of Keypath Education and a former director of the Open University.

Ensuring people can retrain for new industries throughout their life is critically important

“We recognise that fast-paced economic and technological change will have a real impact on the job market in future,” said the Liberal Democrat leader, a former minister for business, innovation and skills.

“People could find themselves having to retrain and change career several times through their working lives, as industries evolve with developments in automation and AI.

“We embrace innovation and the positive changes technology can bring. But we also know that this can cause real concern to people who may see their jobs change dramatically over the course of their careers.”

Membership and timescales will be announced over the coming weeks, and a formal consultation process is due to begin “shortly thereafter”.

“Rajay Naik brings exceptional national and international expertise in higher and further education,” Mr Cable continued.

“I know that he and his team will be working hard to bring forward creative, costed and ambitious proposals to ensure that our workforce is resilient in the face of major change, and that we offer opportunities for people to retrain and upskill throughout their lives.”

Mr Naik has served on the National Careers Council, the Digital Skills Commission, the Learning and Skills Council and the UK-ASEAN Business Council.

“Ensuring that all people have the skills to thrive in the modern world, and can retrain for new industries throughout their life, is critically important to our nation’s competitiveness,” he said about the commission’s launch.

“I very much looking forward to hearing the views of experts, organisations and citizens across the country, and bringing forward recommendations which enable more people to work, earn and learn.”

The commission was created after the government announced plans to launch a National Retraining Scheme in the autumn budget, when the chancellor Philip Hammond earmarked £64 million for pilots.

£30 million will be invested to test the use of artificial intelligence and innovative education technology in online digital skills courses.

Meanwhile, £34 million was pledged to expand “innovative” construction training programmes, to train people as groundworkers, bricklayers, roofers and plasterers.

A National Retraining Partnership met for the first time on March 5 to begin developing the NRS.

Rarely out of the education media, apprenticeships are a hot topic both politically and educationally speaking. Finding the right way to plan, prepare, deliver and assess these new standards in a manner that is attractive to learners and employers alike is one of the biggest challenges facing colleges.

Do it right, and an apprenticeship offer can put your college ahead of its competitors. Get it wrong and you risk wasting investment and losing engagement.

Not sure how technology can help? Jisc’s experts can give tailored advice on a range of guidance, products and services which will support you to deliver apprenticeships dynamically and efficiently.

Using our solid knowledge of effective practice in colleges, you may also benefit from a review, partly using a new, dynamic apprenticeship journey toolkit that Jisc has recently produced. It shows the end-to-end pathway for apprenticeships, taking into account the needs of colleges, learners and employers.

Divided into four sections – preparation, planning, delivery and assessment – this step-by-step toolkit shows the actions to cover at each stage, together with potential opportunities and pitfalls. It also clearly outlines specific examples where technology can be positively exploited.

There’s no charge for this initial practical support and assistance – it’s covered under your Jisc membership. Your account manager will be able to tell you more.

First steps

In terms of preparation, colleges will need an apprenticeship strategy: a clear vision to articulate to staff, learners and employers.

We suggest this forms part of a wider digital strategy that fosters a digitally-ready culture, with robust IT infrastructure and well-trained and motivated staff.

We’ll help you:

• review existing practice and create a new, digital approach that aligns with business goals and improves the learning experience
• make the most of existing infrastructure and plan for new developments
• embed a blended learning approach
• upskill staff and build their confidence in the use of education technology

All of this should come together to meet one optimal aim: to provide a top-class apprenticeship experience. After all, an excellent learning experience is more likely to lead to better outcomes and, ultimately, more success for your college.

Further benefits of technology

As you know, apprentices have slightly different needs to other learners, particularly because they are likely to be away from college for periods of on-the-job training. It’s important they are not left isolated, but feel the benefits of supportive and inclusive processes. Technology can play a huge role in keeping them motivated, informed and connected to their teachers, mentors and peers.

Tech can also help in other ways:

• avoiding the wastefulness of ad hoc purchases
• making best use of data analytics to inform decisions (understanding how learners use tech and what they want from it)
• reducing paperwork and streamlining admin tasks (for example, with the use of e-forms and digital signatures)
• enabling effective three-way communication and collaboration between the college, apprentices and employers
• placing induction information, individual learning plans, feedback and assessments in one place online, to which all parties have access
• providing quality online content
• equipping apprentices with digital skills relevant for life and the workplace
• improving retention, achievement and satisfaction.

There is more information on how Jisc can help you with apprenticeships on our website, or contact help@jisc.ac.uk.