Ofsted’s third early monitoring visit to a new levy-funded apprenticeship provider has uncovered a “clear focus” on delivering high-quality training.

However, it is the second of the three reports to focus on a company that is not a total newcomer to apprenticeships.

Inspectors visited Jigsaw Training, which featured on the government’s subcontracting register for 2016/17 as J & S Blackhurst.

It had a subcontract worth almost £2 million with grade two-rated Mitie Group last year, but it has now fallen under the gaze of Ofsted inspectors because it became a prime-contract independent training provider in May 2017.

Directors and senior leaders “have set a clear strategy to focus on delivering high-quality training to apprentices employed in the facilities-management sector”. They were however “aware that a few apprentices are not released on a regular basis from their job and of the adverse impact that this has on their progress”.

This first of this new wave of monitoring reports, which came out in March, heavily criticised Key6 Group, for having provision that was “not fit for purpose”.

The second, into London College of Apprenticeship Training, was more positive – though this might have been expected as it has a longer track record: it was set up in 2014 and was operating as a subcontractor until the apprenticeship levy came in last May.

Many thought that these new early monitoring visits were introduced in response to mounting concern about the proliferation of largely untested providers, following significant apprenticeship reforms.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman announced last November that Ofsted would conduct early monitoring visits at new providers which appeared on the government’s register of training providers, so as to sniff out “scandalous” attempts to waste public money.

A spokesperson for the inspectorate subsequently explained that while these could include “totally new providers”, they would also cover “those who have previously been subcontractors, and those who have provided other forms of education and training in the past but ceased to be directly funded”.

Today’s report said that inspectors had intervened “as part of a series of monitoring visits to a sample of new apprenticeship training providers that are funded through the apprenticeship levy”.

Since becoming a levy-funded provider, Jigsaw Training had “strengthened the management team” and “set high expectations” of staff.

The company was formed in 1997, and inspectors recognised that “for the past 14 years it has specialised in providing apprenticeship training for workers in the facilities management sector”.

There were 281 apprentices enrolled and funded through the apprenticeship levy at the time of last month’s visit.

Mitie is an outsourcing company based in Scotland. It got a grade two in May 2016, and according to the report, it “has held a work-based learning contract since November 2008 and subcontracts all aspects of its provision to Jigsaw Training.”

Today’s report recognised “an ambitious vision to be an outstanding provider of apprenticeships to develop new talent and build a highly skilled workforce for the facilities-management sector”.

The majority were enrolled on frameworks in facilities services, with 35 studying new standards in property-maintenance operative, team-leader supervisor and facilities management.

Bosses have in recent months “identified accurately the majority of weaknesses that exist” and “implemented a number of changes to practices to bring about improvements”.

For example, senior leaders recently created an apprentice logbook so that off-the-job training can be recorded accurately.

Apprentices also receive regular visits and reviews from their tutors.

There was concern that “not all employers and apprentices” have a sufficient understanding of the 20-per-cent entitlement to off-the-job training.

“We welcomed the Ofsted monitoring visit, we found it rigorous and included a high level of scrutiny,” said a representative from Jigsaw. “While we recognise that there are areas for improvement most of this was already within our improvement plan and progress was underway.

“Overall we are pleased we our progress and remain absolutely committed to becoming an outstanding provider.”

The government has launched a consultation on proposals to “strengthen” public reporting on performance for colleges which are in groups and have multiple sites.

Running for nine weeks, the consultation comes ahead of a new college campus identifier which could pave the way for campus-level inspections at mega-colleges.

It seeks views on two proposals.

The first is on the introduction of separate performance reporting for colleges that are part of a group.

“That would mean that performance information was available for all colleges, irrespective of whether they were part of a group or not,” a spokesperson for the Department for Education said.

Secondly, it wants options for separate reporting for delivery sites that are part of the same college.

“That would provide greater transparency on the quality of local provision, alongside performance information relating to the college as a whole,” the spokesperson said.

The consultation web page explains that changes in the “structure of the sector” have “implications for how well the existing performance reporting system now works, including the information that is available to learners, support for local accountability, and quality improvement”.

It says this consultation is focused on supporting the existing educational performance measures, such as achievement rates, progress measures, learner destinations and outcomes. It does not propose any changes to the measures themselves.

The DfE said other, non-educational performance measures, such as financial indicators, are not in scope of this consultation. No changes are proposed to the current system for allocation of funding.

The new college campus identifier will be introduced into individualised learner records from 2018/19. Its intention is to “allow identification of provision delivered across the various sites of merged institutions”.

This new identifier could lead to campus-level inspections at mega-colleges from as early as next year, and would allow for reports on colleges that were previously independent, but which now sit within merged groups.

The nation’s largest college group has welcomed the change. Joe Docherty, the chief executive of Newcastle-based NCG, said moving to inspections of individual campuses was a “logical next step” that the group would “strongly welcome”.

Today’s consultation proposals apply to both general and specialist FE colleges, as well as sixth-form colleges. It closes on June 10.

The Institute for Apprenticeships has appointed another military man as its second-in-command, following a “fair and open competition”.

Robert Nitsch CBE, the army’s director of personnel for the past three years, will take on the role of chief operating officer in the next few months, the institute announced today.

The IfA’s chief executive Sir Gerry Berragan, a former adjutant general in the army, said he had worked with Mr Nitsch in previous roles and “know that he will an excellent fit for the post”

“He brings a wealth of senior leadership and practical experience of optimising performance to the Institute,” he said.

“I’m absolutely delighted to have been selected to join the IfA at such a pivotal time in the evolution of technical education,” Mr Nitsch said.

“I look forward to joining the excellent team at the Institute and contributing to the delivery of this great endeavour.”

Mr Nitsch joined the army in 1983, and worked his way up to become director of personnel for the army in June 2015.

Other senior army roles included general officer commanding support command from August 2013, director of manning and chief employment officer from June 2012, and chief of staff to the adjutant general from April 2011.

He was named CBE in the New Year’s Honours in 2014.

Sir Gerry was appointed chief executive of the IfA in November last year, having previously served as a board member since January 2017.

He revealed in an interview with FE Week in January that he’d been selected without competing directly against any other candidates, and as such had been appointed for just a two-year period.

His army career included a period as director general personnel from February 2011 to August 2012, before his appointment as adjutant general.

Both role were based in Andover, as were Mr Nitsch’s roles at the time.

The role of chief operating officer is new, and follows the departure of former deputy chief executive Mike Keoghan at the end of January.

It comes with an annual salary of around £120,000, according to the candidate information pack.

Mr Nitsch, who will report directly to Sir Gerry, will be responsible for the daily operation of the IfA, and will oversee six deputy directors.

The boss of the Institute for Apprenticeships has hit out at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers for being “inflammatory” for repeatedly raising concerns over apprenticeships without end point assessment organisations (EPA) in place.

The accusation by Sir Gerry Berragan (pictured above), made this morning at an event in London to mark the first anniversary of the apprenticeship levy, prompted an immediate response from AELP boss Mark Dawe.

Speaking exclusively to FE Week he said: “The government and the agencies keep swerving the question on the true picture of EPA and external quality assurance arrangements being actually able to deliver and the great majority of EPA organisations are working blind.” 

“Never in a million years would the current position be accepted for A-levels and GCSEs.”

At FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeships Conference last month, Sir Gerry said that 99.1 per cent of apprentices due to undertake EPA in the next 12 months were on standards with at least one organisation in place to deliver the final exams – statistics he is understood to have repeated at this morning’s event.

He promised the IfA and the Education and Skills Funding Agency were “on the case” to resolve the issue for the remaining 0.9 per cent of apprentices to ensure they are able to complete their apprenticeships.

But Mr Dawe pointed out at the time that simply having an EPA organisation in place wasn’t enough.

“We know of many EPA organisations registered but not yet ready to deliver, and the external quality-assurance above them also not ready,” he said during the Q&A session that followed Sir Gerry’s conference speech.

FE Week analysis found almost a third – or 77 out of 253 – of the standards currently approved for delivery by the IfA have no registered EPA organisation.

Of these, 21 have been approved for more than a year, and six have been waiting for more than three years.

Many of these standards have already had starts – such as the level three fire emergency and security systems standard, which has had more than 300 starts since it was approved in August 2016, but which still doesn’t have a single EPA organisation in place. 

This morning’s exchange took place at the launch of the first annual Apprenticeships Anthology, which included reflections on the first year of the levy from skills minister Anne Milton among others, hosted by Queen Mary University London.

Sir Gerry was responding to a question from Paul Warner, AELP director of research and development.

Mr Warner asked Sir Gerry why apprentices had been allowed to start on standards with no EPA organisations in place, and what steps the IfA was taking to address the issue.

In response, Sir Gerry was reported to have said that neither the apprentices nor their employers considered it a problem, and that AELP was “being inflammatory in consistently raising the issue”.

Speaking to FE Week after the event Mr Warner said that – far from being inflammatory – the issue was “a point of considerable importance, not least to the apprentices concerned”.

“I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask the guy in charge of the IfA how did we get here and what are you doing to address it, and I was rather surprised to hear him take the tone he did. I don’t think it’s entirely helpful,” he said.

Sir Gerry was also reported to have said that many AELP members had been making “healthy profits” from apprenticeship frameworks, but that they had to “accept that the days of frameworks are long since over”.

Mr Dawe said it was “disappointing” to “hear the IfA trying to throw the blame back on others when many providers are desperate to move on to standards, which aren’t in place yet, from frameworks that are now unviable”.

“Too many standards are simply not ready and the approvals process must speed up.” 

The government has approved more than £300 million to cover the cost of implementing post-area review changes, although the skills minister insisted this cash will not be “propping up failing colleges”.

The figure, which amounts to around 40 per cent of the £726 million on offer, was revealed in the latest Education and Skills Funding Agency progress report on the restructuring facility, published today.

According to today’s announcement, 29 colleges have applied for restructuring support, and a further 29 applications have come from 31 sixth form colleges to cover the costs of converting to academy status.

It confirmed what skills minister Anne Milton has said in her latest exclusive column for FE Week, also published today.

“To date we have approved over £300 million of restructuring facility funding and spent over £150 million, supporting 19 significant applications, as well as providing compensatory VAT funding and transition grants for a wider group of colleges,” she wrote.

The minister denied that the cash is being used as a bailout fund.

“This funding is not about propping up failing colleges,” she claimed. “Funding from the restructuring facility is only available after a rigorous assessment to help implement changes which will result in sustainable, effective institutions.”

Successful applicants must have “a clear plan” along with a “realistic schedule for making this happen”.

Today’s announcement doesn’t give any details of which colleges have received the cash nor how much.

The Department for Education is “not yet publishing detailed information” about successful bids while the application window is still open.

“By putting the FE sector on a sustainable footing we are making sure that people can benefit from a wide range of choice and quality education, wherever they live and whatever stage of life they are at,” Ms Milton explained.

“I look forward to sharing with you how the restructuring facility is helping to achieve this later this year.”

FE Week has previously reported on a number of colleges in dire straits that have received multimillion-pound handouts from the fund.

These include Lambeth College, which was expecting a whopping £25 million to pay off its exceptional financial support and bank loans, according to its 2016/17 accounts.

And struggling Telford College of Arts and Technology received £21 million for its merger with New College Telford – a sum that came in the form of a grant, according to its accounts.

The restructuring facility, first announced in March 2016, is part of a package of support for colleges to help them implement recommendations arising from the area reviews, or other structural changes such as a merger brokered by the FE commissioner.

The cash, usually available as a loan, comes from a pot amounting to £726 million.

The deadline for applications was originally six months after a college’s final area review meeting.

But in November last year, two months after the last deadline passed for colleges in the final wave of reviews, this was extended until September 2018 – with the funding available until March 2019.

The Department for Education denied that this meant the fund had failed, even though just 10 colleges had been allocated a combined total of £120 million to date.

 

The country’s largest FE provider didn’t get “anywhere near” quashing its now infamous ‘inadequate’ rating during its legal fight with Ofsted, the judge from the case has said.

After a seven month wait the Manchester Administrative Court has finally published the detailed judgement following Learndirect’s failed judicial review in early August last year.

Mr Justice King’s damning verdict exposes just how far away the provider was from winning the case against the inspectorate – as the challenge was backed up with little evidence and a weak fight in court.

One of the counts that Learndirect challenged on was that the lead inspectors, namely Paul Cocker and Charles Searle, had a “predetermined” negative view of its apprenticeship provision which was “procedurally unfair”.

There was no evidence of that whatsoever

However, the judge ruled that there was “no evidence of that whatsoever”.

“One of the problems with the claimant’s submissions is its reliance on the written evidence of Mr Palmer and Ms Wood [Learndirect’s bosses] to support many of the propositions put forward, but the court has to set against this, the written evidence of Mr Cocker and indeed Mr Searle,” he said.

“There has been no application to cross-examine the defendant’s witnesses.

“In these circumstances, where there is a conflict between the respective evidence on matters of fact, as I have already explained, the court is bound to accept that of the defendant’s witnesses, in this case that of Mr Cocker.”

Grounds two and three that Learndirect challenged on revolved around complaints that Ofsted’s sample size of apprentices was not large enough to reflect the size of the company, and that the watchdog should have gone back in to the provider to do more inspecting.

Mr Justice King said that although no “expert evidence” was called on behalf of the claimant to “counter the evidence of the expert regulator”, Learndirect submitted figures which it claimed “speak for themselves”.

For example, the claimant said there was only one scrutiny of a single apprentice at intermediate level in relation to some nearly 5,000 apprenticeships on health and social care.

“This was the equivalent, he suggested, of plucking just one child out of a school class for a year to determine overall educational progress in a given school,” the judge explained.

He said that the “simplicity” of this argument was “attractive” but he “cannot accept it”.

“In my judgment, none of these matters, not even the complaint as to sample size, go anywhere near to enabling this court to say that no rational decision maker could have made the decision it did on the evidence before it,” Mr Justice King added.

He then criticised Learndirect for claiming the sample size figures “speak for themselves”.

“Overall, I have no proper basis, in my judgment, upon which I could interfere with the expert judgment made by this expert regulator as to the sufficiency of the evidence base upon which the inspection’s findings and conclusions were based,” he said.

“The figures in my judgment, do not speak for themselves.”

The judge then concludes that all of Learndirect’s claims “must fail” based on the material presented before him.

The figures in my judgment, do not speak for themselves

“It is impossible for me to conclude on the material before me that no reasonable regulatory body would or could have been satisfied with the information before the defendant’s inspectors in this instance by the time of the writing of the report into the claimant activities.

“For all these reasons this claim must fail. The claim is dismissed.”

Learndirect’s battle against Ofsted has engrossed the sector ever since FE Week revealed the case in August after our lawyers successfully contested strict reporting restrictions.

The subsequent fallout led to the government singling the provider out for special treatment by allowing it to see through the end of their current contracts – instead of ending them within the usual three-month termination period.

It was then subject to investigations from the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee.

The PAC held a hearing on the saga in January, in which the NAO’s comptroller and auditor general, Sir Amyas Morse, told Learndirect boss Andy Palmer that the judicial review could be seen as a “hardnosed use of lawyers and quite hostile tactics to delay something for the purpose of improving your cashflow”.

“I do not approve of it, in fact I strongly disapprove of it,” he added.

Learndirect and Ofsted have been approached for comment.

Private providers fared best out of the whole FE sector this week as three achieved ‘good’ ratings.

There wasn’t any cause for celebration for colleges however, as two of them – Stoke-on-Trent and Moulton – were handed critical ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ ratings respectively.

Starting with the private providers: CSM Consulting Limited rose from ‘requires improvement’ to ‘good’ and Eden College of Human Resource Development and Management Studies Limited achieved a grade two in its first ever visit from the inspectorate.

CSM mainly provides apprenticeship training in the south west, Yorkshire and London for teaching assistants in school, health and social care, and business administration and team leading.

Ofsted said a “large majority” of apprentices gain their qualifications as a result of good teaching, learning and assessment.

“Apprentices improve their confidence and workplace skills as a result of effective coaching and good support for their learning by assessors,” inspectors added, and also noted that apprentices’ attitudes to their work in schools, offices or healthcare settings are “very professional”.

Eden College, based in Essex, provides training for adults with advanced learner loans, mainly in business administration, childcare, health and social care, hairdressing and beauty.

“Working in close partnership with employers and local communities, managers have developed a very relevant programme to widen the participation of adult learners and to meet the particular needs of those already employed,” Ofsted said.

“Managers and staff create an inclusive, safe and welcoming environment for learners, where they behave well, and in which they and staff treat one another with care and respect.”

The inspectorate added that learners’ achievement of their qualifications is “high, with good pass and retention rates”.

One other private provider, Apprenticeships & Training Services Consortium Limited, based in London, was subject to a short inspection where it maintained its grade two.

Another independent learning provider’s report, for London College of Apprenticeship Training, was the second of a new wave of Ofsted early-monitoring visits keeping a close eye on newcomers to directly funded apprenticeship provision, and it returned with largely positive findings.

The report rates it as making significant progress in one area and reasonable progress in two.

Meanwhile, cash-strapped Stoke-on-Trent College received its second grade three report since being downgraded from ‘good’ in 2016.

“Governors and senior leaders were slow to make the improvements recommended in the previous inspection report,” Ofsted said.

“This coincided with a period of significant turbulence in leadership and governance.”

Too few teachers provide learners with “sufficiently helpful feedback or challenging targets” to help them improve their work further, inspectors added.

However, Ofsted did point out that the recent appointments of an “experienced principal”, senior post holders and governors have “stabilised and strengthened the capacity of leadership within the college to improve the quality of provision and experience of learners”.

Moulton College, which has campus’ across Northamptonshire, was slammed with an ‘inadequate’ report for delivering “unsafe” training in “highly dangerous vocational areas” such as construction and equine studies (read the full story on the report here).

“Inspectors identified a number of serious breaches to health and safety regulations and a number of instances where practice was unsafe or sloppy,” Ofsted said.

“Not all managers with responsibility for health and safety have undertaken appropriate training.”

The only other report to be published this week was a short inspection for Enham Trust, an adult and community learning provider based in Hampshire, which maintained a grade two.

 

GFE Colleges	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Stoke-on-Trent College	27/02/2018	05/04/2018	3	3
Moulton College	27/02/2018	03/04/2018	4	3

 

Independent Learning Providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
CSM Consulting Limited	07/03/2018	05/04/2018	2	3
Eden College of Human Resource Development and Management Studies Limited	30/01/2018	03/04/2018	2	–
London College of Apprenticeship Training Limited	27/02/2018	05/04/2018	M	M

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2)	Inspected	Published
Enham Trust	06/03/2018	05/04/2018
Apprenticeships & Training Services Consortium Limited	27/02/2018	06/04/2018

The second of a new wave of Ofsted early-monitoring visit reports keeping a close eye on newcomers to directly funded apprenticeship provision has returned with largely positive findings.

The report into London College of Apprenticeship Training rates it as making significant progress in one area and reasonable progress in two. This is far more positive than the first report published on March 15 into Key6 Group, which heavily criticised “not fit for purpose” provision.

Both are part of a series of visits to companies on the register of apprenticeship training providers, which are trying to sniff out “scandalous” attempts to waste public money by newcomers to the market for directly funded apprenticeship provision.

But where Key6Group is new to delivering apprenticeships, LCAT has a longer track record: it was set up in 2014, and was operating as a subcontractor until the introduction of the apprenticeship levy last May.

According to the most recent Education and Skills Funding Agency list of declared subcontractors, it held two subcontracts in 2016/17: one, with Hull College, worth £1.1 million, and a second, with the College of North West London, worth £171,600.

A spokesperson for Ofsted explained that the monitoring visits included “totally new providers, those who have previously been subcontractors, and those who have provided other forms of education and training in the past but ceased to be directly-funded”.

Graham Howe, LCAT’s executive director for business development, quality and human resources, said he was “very proud” that the watchdog had recognised “the significant progress we have made to deliver successful apprenticeship provision”.

In particular he said the provider had “worked hard to ensure our employers and apprentices understand the commitment to spend 20 per cent of their time off-the-job in training, and this is reflected in the report as a result of direct feedback from employers and apprentices”.

LCAT had “previously provided apprenticeship training under subcontracted arrangements, but this is the first time they have been a directly-funded provider,” she said.

It delivers training for around 360 apprentices on level two, three and five courses in team leading, customer service, business improvement and management, according to today’s report.

Inspectors found that leaders had made “significant progress” in ensuring it was meeting all the requirements of successful apprenticeship provision.

LCAT’s managers “spend time with employers prior to enrolling apprentices” which helps them to “understand the employers’ priorities for training and also the culture of the employer in order to adapt training materials appropriately”, the report said.

“Employers understand clearly the requirements of apprenticeship standards for on- and off-the-job training and most support their apprentices well to meet these requirements.”

The provider is making ‘reasonable progress’ in ensuring that apprentices benefit from high-quality training that leads to positive outcomes for apprentices, and putting in place effective safeguarding arrangements.

Most apprentices make “at least good progress and achieve milestones” set for them, thanks to “well-organised teaching, training and assessment”.

“Apprentices make good progress in acquiring important practical and vocational skills which are relevant to their qualification and job role; their skills coaches support them in doing this effectively.”

It noted occasional problems with apprentices’ “poor” attendance at training sessions, as they are “not given the time away from their job role to attend”.

But attendance is improving, after managers noticed the issue and took action, the report said.

The Key6 report slammed its apprenticeship provision, which included high-profile contracts with Liverpool Football Club and charity giant Mencap, as “not fit for purpose”.

Ofsted chief inspection Amanda Spielman referred to the damning report during her speech at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference last week.

While admitting that the findings were “worrying”, she expressed hope that, following further monitoring visits, “positive results will significantly outnumber the disappointments”.

The government should do more to boost the number of 16- to 18-year-olds doing apprenticeships due to the “overwhelming” benefits to both employers and apprentices, a new report has urged.

‘Apprenticeship training in England – a cost-effective model for firms?’, published today by the Education Policy Institute, looked at the potential costs and benefits for businesses and individuals if England adopted a Swiss-style apprenticeship model.

The report, by education economist Professor Dr Stefan C Wolter and Eva Joho, concluded that the benefits for both apprentices and employers were greatest for the youngest apprentices.

While the main benefit for employers came through the lower wages paid to apprentices under the age of 19, the report found that – despite the lower wages – “the returns to apprentices are higher if they start their apprenticeship at a younger age”.

“This is a concern for England, where 60 per cent of new apprentices in 2017/18 are aged 19 or older,” it said.

“Given the overwhelming benefits to both firms and apprentices” the report urged the government to “consider the case for expanding apprenticeships in England among 16- to 18-year-olds, in line with other advanced economies”.

Today’s report, produced in partnership with German think-tank Bertelsmann Stiftung and supported by JP Morgan, analysed whether English employers could expect a net benefit when training apprentices in a similar manner to Swiss firms.

Features of the Swiss model included longer training programmes, normally a minimum of three years, and more off-the-job training.

The authors looked at three potential costs or benefits to employers: costs during the apprenticeship, benefits of an apprentice doing work that would otherwise be done by a more highly-paid worker, and any further benefits to the employer after the apprentice has completed their apprenticeship.

They used data from Switzerland, alongside UK wage data, to simulate the costs and benefits to both employers and apprentices in 10 occupations.

The report concluded that employers with apprentices under the age of 19 for the duration of their apprenticeship had the highest chance of “breaking even at the end of the training period” because “minimum wages increase substantially afterwards”.

Apprentices under 19 can be paid the national minimum apprenticeship wage, now £3.70 an hour, for the duration of their apprenticeship. Those over 19 must be paid at least the national minimum wage – which is higher – after they’ve completed their first year.

But “from the perspective of apprentices” programmes that started “at an early age, even at a very low pay, would in most cases also generate the highest private rates of return” compared with starting later.

Longer apprenticeships were “likely to bring higher returns for both employers and apprentices”, the report said, “due to productivity increases over the course of training”.

In a three-year apprenticeship, similar to the Swiss model, an employer’s “costs usually surpass benefits” in the first year, but by the third year “a net benefit arises”.

Other recommendations from the report include targeted support for small companies “especially in sectors or regions dominated by small- and medium-sized enterprises”.

This was because “big companies may be more likely to experience net benefits from hiring apprentices than SMEs, due to economies of scale and a different salary structure”.

“This report brings some much needed evidence to debates on the future of apprenticeships policy,” said David Laws, the EPI’s executive chairman.

“In learning from countries with successful training programmes, England can ensure that a sustained expansion in apprenticeships sees positive returns for both employers and young people.”