Learndirect’s second Ofsted monitoring visit: 15 key findings

The second monitoring visit report on crisis-hit Learndirect has been published by Ofsted.

This was the second reinspection monitoring visit to Learndirect Ltd following publication of the inspection report last August, which found the provider to be ‘inadequate’ overall.

Learndirect Ltd is “winding down its contracts to deliver apprenticeships and adult learning”. These will finish at the end of July, though at the time of this latest visit, the provider still had 9,556 apprentices and 7,823 adult learners on programmes.

The findings were a very mixed bag. FE Week has found 15 main points – both positive and negative – that we have learned from the report:

Positive findings:

  • The most “significant improvement” was the increasing proportion of apprentices and adult learners who now achieve their qualifications. “Managers now have effective systems with which to monitor the progress of apprentices, both on directly delivered provision and at subcontractors, and are better able to identify and support those apprentices at risk of not completing their programmes”.
  • The number of apprentices who successfully complete their programmes is now greater than the number who withdraw, which was not the case at the time of the inspection.
  • Senior managers have made “reasonable progress” in addressing weaknesses identified at the previous inspection. Directors and senior managers “have increased the pace of improvement” since the first monitoring visit in October last year.
  • Managers now use a set of “challenging but realistic targets” to evaluate the performance of their directly delivered provision and the provision delivered by the large number of subcontractors.
  • The proportion of adult learners who achieve their qualifications continues to “increase steadily”, with the in-year achievement of learners on short courses now at the same level as that of similar providers.
  • Contract managers of the remaining nine apprenticeship subcontractors were said to now “scrutinise in great detail and on a regular basis the individual progress of each apprentice at these subcontractors”. They intervene swiftly when they identify that apprentices are failing to make expected progress, and “support subcontractors to tackle the causes of the lack of progress”. If subcontractors fail to respond to this support, managers “impose proportionate sanctions”.
  • The managers of adult learning subcontractors now “apply the same rigour to the 34 providers of adult learning, and monitor progress closely against a set of challenging targets”. Subcontractors are prevented from enrolling new adult learners onto underperforming courses and can only restart courses when they have taken agreed quality-improvement actions. This closer monitoring is credited for increases in the proportions of adults and apprentices achieving their qualifications “at the great majority of subcontractors”.
  • Directors and senior managers have “well-advanced plans to transfer apprentices to alternative providers by the contract end date of July 31, 2018″. Negotiations are taking place to transfer subcontractors’ apprentices who have not completed their programmes by this date “to other prime contract holders with which the subcontractors already work”.

But there were also a number of negative points.

  • Learndirect Ltd’s own management information confirmed that “not enough” apprentices are still receiving good-quality off-the-job training. Frequent changes to assessors that employers and apprentices experience has resulted in too much off-the-job training being poorly planned or of limited value.
  • “Too many” apprentices are still receiving insufficient off-the-job training or support to improve their English, mathematical and information and communication technology skills, except through the completion of past examination papers or referrals to websites.
  • Overall attendance “remains too low”. Inspectors recognised that the attendance of learners at centres has improved slightly since the last monitoring visit, but “there is still too much variation between centres”.
  • A “small number” of subcontractors were found to persistently underperform “without sufficient action being taken against them”. Inspectors warned that these subcontractors have not improved since the first monitoring visit, and their apprentices and learners continue to make slow progress.
  • Too many employers do not participate or contribute to reviews of their apprentices’ progress. This lack of participation has been exacerbated by the frequent changes in assessors that employers and apprentices have experienced, as assessors provide the main source of communication with employers about their apprentices’ training needs.
  • A “high number” of apprentices, many of whom have experienced one or more changes to their allocated assessor, “remain in learning beyond their planned completion date”. Inspectors warned that many of these apprentices are being put under “considerable pressure to complete large volumes of additional work” to catch up and complete their programmes within “a very short space of time”.
  • “A small number” of apprentices are “unclear about how they will complete their programmes once contracts with Learndirect Ltd comes to an end”. As a result, inspectors warned they feel anxious and demotivated, as do their employers.

The government should focus on apprenticeship quality, not quantity

Without proper focus on apprenticeships at the top end, the government will never achieve its ambition to close the skills gap, claims Adrian Anderson

While most of the current apprenticeships headlines have been about the recent falls in starts, there’s another issue that’s been taxing officials on the side. It’s no secret that the DfE and the Institute for Apprenticeships are concerned about the affordability of higher-cost apprenticeships, specifically at higher and degree level.

Do the maths: the government’s three million starts commitment means 600,000 per annum. The apprenticeship levy will raise £2.5 billion per annum; divide this by 600,000 and we have just £4,167 to fund each apprenticeship. Having given employers the leadership role, they are focusing on the higher-level and higher-cost apprenticeships their businesses need, rather than the lower-level apprenticeships historically funded by the Skills Funding Agency.

As a productivity programme this is excellent news. The problem, of course, is the income raised from the levy will not fund both the 600,000 apprenticeships the government wants and the tougher, pricier ones the economy requires.

The IfA must show some backbone

So what’s the solution? Firstly officials shouldn’t panic – we’re talking about a medium-term issue and decisions need to be made on the basis of clear evidence. In 2016/17 there were, for example, only around 2,000 degree apprenticeship starts. I anticipate significant growth but it will be some time before affordability becomes an issue. The current IfA priority must be to ensure employers have the standards that their businesses need. There’s plenty of work to do here.

Then the IfA must show some backbone. Put simply, quality must trump quantity. It must base its advice to ministers on the twin policy objectives of apprenticeships: increasing productivity and enhancing social mobility. I am amazed, for example, by arguments to restrict employer spend on management degree apprenticeships. Didn’t the industrial strategy suggest that management skills could account for a quarter of the productivity gap between the UK and US? If productivity is a key policy objective, then employers should be allowed to spend significant sums. Apprenticeships should be a socially mobile route to high-level technical, professional and managerial roles.

Read more: Degree apprenticeships shouldn’t just be repackaged degrees

It will then be time for the IfA to start advising on how the funding system can best be used to deliver high-quality apprenticeships in the longer term.

Two levers that could be changed are the 0.5-per-cent levy contribution and the £3 million threshold for paying the levy. The £3 million threshold could be reduced, but I suspect changes will happen elsewhere first.

If an apprenticeship is doing what it’s supposed to do, increasing the productivity and skill base of a business, then by any measure the current non-levy employer co-investment rate of 10 per cent is generous. It represents a 90 per cent state subsidy for the cost of the apprenticeship. The non-levy employer contribution could be increased to a third. There are also powerful arguments to differentiate an employer’s contribution by standard; if we’re serious about the link between apprenticeships and productivity, a lower employer contribution could be used for STEM standards. The government’s contribution to levy-paying employers’ accounts could also be phased out.

There are, however, a few areas where the IfA and government will need to tread very carefully. I think it goes without saying that, given the unacceptable and slow process in the development of standards and approvals, the 24 months employers have to use their levy should not be reduced.

A final no-go area should be meddling with funding bands, which should be based on all costs associated with delivery and assessment – not “affordability” as is increasingly emphasised by both the IfA and the DfE. If the IfA is concerned about affordability, it should suggest using the other levers at the government’s disposal to influence employer behaviour. Decent apprenticeships are costly. If the IfA wants to adopt a policy of pushing funding bands down due to “affordability”, it will have an adverse impact on the supply of apprenticeships in areas of critical need to the economy.

Degree apprenticeships shouldn’t just be repackaged degrees

Martin Doel believes there can be a place for higher and degree apprenticeships – but they can’t be near-exact replicas of regular degrees

I followed Apprenticeship Week at a distance this year, and was struck by the emphasis in much of the media coverage on degree apprenticeships. There was also much interest from my hosts in the possibility of introducing degree apprenticeships in Australia.

Many degree apprenticeships would more accurately be described as employer-sponsored degrees

The focus in the media, in the minds of policymakers and in an international audience is unsurprising. The word “degree” is a high-status word. It confers value and recognition, offering a means of redressing the perennial problem of inferior regard in vocational and work-based education. In an era of tuition fees it also offers the prospect of earning while learning without incurring a £50k debt. It offers a way forward for apprentices whose work-based learning may hitherto have been capped at level three. And finally, with the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, it offers large employers a way in which they can use their levy contribution on fewer high-value apprentices without the administrative overhead associated with more numerous (and often younger) apprenticeships at levels two and three. What’s not to like?

Well, first there’s the title: “degree apprenticeship”. I would be much more comfortable with using the title “apprenticeship at degree level”, in the way that the skills minister did in her most recent speech on the subject. It would signal that the requirements of the apprenticeship are pre-eminent, rather than those of the degree.

There are, of course, exceptions, but many of the degree apprenticeships that I have looked at in my new role at IoE would more accurately be described as employer-sponsored degrees. The content in the degrees has not been varied to meet the needs of the employer, and are often simply modularised and delivered to apprentices on a part-time basis. The apprentices start their degrees at the same time as their full-time contetmporaries and the course runs on a standard academic year basis. There is limited interplay between the off-the-job teaching provided by lecturers and in the in-work experience of the apprentice, the links such as they are being made by the apprentice rather than being required by the scheme of study. This doesn’t mean that such programmes are not useful or good value, but simply that they’re not apprenticeships.

Read more: Degree apprenticeships – let’s focus on quality, not quantity

Second, there’s the level. The OECD, amongst others, has remarked upon the relative absence of sub-degree work-related higher-level skills provision in England at levels four and five. The review of tertiary education recently announced by the government has, as one of its premises, an acknowledgement of the need to increase this level of provision. While “capturing apprentices on a full three-year journey to a full degree programme may be more attractive to universities, this could amount to no more than a displacement of current degree provsion. This would then leave the level of graduate underemployment in the economy unaffected. A more sustainable solution is to have stopping-off points at levels four and five with advancement eventually to level six (degree level) in a progressive higher apprenticeship system.

Finally, some have pointed to the expense of degree apprenticeships compared to entry-level and intermediate apprenticeships. The higher-level frameworks are funded at up to £27k a go. I can see the concern here with the levy pot being finite, but it’s perhaps too early to say if degree apprenticeships, which are still relatively small in number (albeit growing rapidly), will eat the lunches of apprenticeships at levels two and three. The way in which small non-levy paying employers can be incentivised to offer apprenticeships is a much more pressing issue.

So, even in the face of the interest of all and sundry, there are potential pitfalls in degree apprenticeships, the most pressing of which is that they are not apprenticeships at all, but repackaged academic or quasi-academic degrees. If this turns out to be the case, the technical and professional education revolution risks reverting to the norm of academic pre-eminence – and the prospects of a distinctive dual system will once again have been undermined.

Second wave of college strikes over pay begins today

The second wave of strike action by University and College Union members has begun, in an ongoing dispute over pay.

Staff at five colleges or groups – four in London and one in the Midlands – have walked out for two or three days this week in protest at a one-per-cent pay offer from the Association of Colleges, which represents colleges on pay.

“UCU members are striking in defence of their pay and conditions,” said UCU’s general secretary Sally Hunt. “Strike action is a last resort, but staff feel they have been left with no alternative. The colleges urgently need to address members’ concerns or face further industrial action.”

The colleges taking action this week are: Capital City College Group, Croydon College, Lambeth College, Sandwell College and Havering College.

Staff voted “overwhelmingly” for strike action, the union said, with 91 per cent of those who voted backing a second walkout, based on an average turnout of 63 per cent.

The union said staff at further education colleges in England have seen their pay drop by 24 per cent in real terms since 2009.

While the cost of living, expressed through the Retail Price Index, had increased by 27.6 per cent since 2009, pay had gone up by only four per cent.

The latest strike action will see fewer colleges affected than the first wave, which took place on February 28 and March 1, when the UCU estimated that more than 1,500 staff walked out at 11 colleges or groups.

Negotiations between the AoC and college unions last September resulted in an offer of a one-per-cent pay rise or the sum of £250 “where this is more beneficial”.

This was significantly below the claim for an across-the-board rise of six per cent submitted by the National Joint Forum, made up of the unions representing college staff, including UCU.

At the time Mr Hughes expressed “regret” that the AoC was unable to offer more.

“We wish we were in a position to make a better recommendation today, but current funding levels for colleges do not allow us to do so,” he said.

Bids to open for share of new construction retraining fund in April

Bidding is to open next month for a share of a new construction retraining fund worth tens of millions of pounds.

The Treasury announced back in November that it would establish a “formal partnership” with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, to oversee a new national retraining scheme focusing on improving construction and digital skills.

At least £34 million was pledged for “innovative” construction training programmes across the country, for jobs such as groundworkers, bricklayers, roofers and plasterers.

The skills minister has now revealed when bidding will open, in response to a parliamentary question lodged by South Cambridgeshire MP Heidi Allen.

Anne Milton

“We plan that the construction skills fund will open for bids next month,” said Anne Milton.

The Construction Industry Training Board also told FE Week that it had been working with the Department for Education “to help shape what the fund should be trying to achieve”, and is “likely to be managing the bidding process” for a £29 million share of the cash.

“The fund will support new investment in a strong pipeline of skilled workers, increasing productivity, and improving the work-readiness of people entering our industry,” said Steve Radley, CITB’s director of policy.

The government explained how the national retraining scheme will work for the construction sector in its industrial strategy white paper unveiled last November.

“We will provide £34 million to expand innovative construction training programmes across the country,” a spokesperson said.

This includes “a programme in the west Midlands, focused on supporting the country’s housing needs and building upon existing good practice” which it is understood will receive much of the remaining £5 million, in addition to the £29 million going through the CITB.

“A high-level advisory group – the national retraining partnership – will bring together the government, businesses and workers, through the CBI  and the TUC, to set the strategic direction and oversee implementation of the scheme,” it added.

The first meeting of the National Retraining Partnership was convened earlier this month by chancellor Philip Hammond.

Philip Hammond

He was joined by CBI boss Carolyn Fairbairn, TUC leader Frances O’Grady, and the education secretary Damian Hinds.

“We’re working to ensure that the national retraining scheme helps workers to expand their digital skills, and encourages new workers to develop much-needed construction skills,” said a TUC spokesperson.

“We know there’s a large pipeline of work in the construction sector, from HS2 to Heathrow and with Hinckley in between. Plus there’s the challenge of building the thousands of homes we so badly need.”

In the chancellor’s autumn budget, £36 million was earmarked for digital skills courses using AI, as part of the national retraining scheme.

This is “so that people can benefit from this emerging technology as they train for digital tech jobs in one of the fastest growing sectors across Britain”.

“We’re delighted to be working alongside the TUC and the government as part of the National Retraining Partnership,” said Neil Carberry, the CBI’s managing director for people and infrastructure policy.

“We anticipate an offer for individuals who need to retrain based on good guidance and access to provision that helps them into work in new areas.

“We are committed to designing a system that really delivers for those already in work, improving careers, opportunities and business performance. A great starting point is the skills base needed for the UK’s new industrial strategy.”

Young chefs serve sandwiches to the elderly in employability scheme

Five aspiring chefs have been serving lunch to elderly residents of a sheltered housing scheme in an initiative to develop their employability.

Serving sandwiches and hot soups to 30 residents every Friday afternoon, the Gateshead College learners all have learning difficulties, and are taking part in a work-placement initiative to develop their independence and build their confidence in working with members of the community.

The placement is delivered in partnership with Cambian Dilston College, and job coaches are accompanying the students on their visits to Karbon Homes in County Durham.

“Through the medium of work experience, students are able to develop their interpersonal skills and self-presentation, along with a whole host of other skills which are constantly being shaped and developed for life after college,” said Carli Hayes, one of the students’ job coaches.

“The tenants are delighted with the service and the smiles the young people bring with them,” said Deborah Kennedy, housing support officer for Karbon Homes. “It has become a very popular activity and the residents look forward to their Friday afternoons. The interaction between the generations is truly satisfying.”

First Ofsted subcontracting visit report criticises Wigan and Leigh College

The first ever report of an Ofsted monitoring visit into subcontracting has found that governors and senior management at Wigan and Leigh College have been too slow to improve performance.

The report out today recalled that Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s deputy director for further education and skills, warned last month that the inspectorate planned to focus more on the quality of subcontracted provision.

He said in a letter that Ofsted would carry out a series of monitoring visits to a sample of providers, and this is the first report to emerge.

There was insufficient progress with how leaders from Wigan and Leigh College oversee subcontracting.

“The actions of governors and senior leaders to improve the performance of subcontractors have not been rapid enough,” inspectors warned. “The proportion of apprentices on subcontracted provision who achieve their qualifications is too low and has fallen over the last three years.”

It was pointed out that in 2016/17, only just over half of apprentices with subcontractor Citrus Training Solutions completed programmes successfully.

Wigan and Leigh College currently subcontracts around a third of its apprenticeship provision to Citrus, which accounts for over 500 apprentices, mainly in business management and administration.

“Quality-assurance arrangements for CTS have had too little impact for too long,” the report warned. “Until recently, arrangements relied too much on college managers ensuring compliance with quality-assurance processes at the expense of evaluating with rigour the quality of teaching, learning and assessment.”

Recent changes have resulted in “an improved approach”, but the quality of subcontracted apprenticeships at Citrus was still “not yet high enough”.

The college also subcontracts a proportion of its education and training provision to five local, community-based partner organisations: Groundwork Cheshire, Lancashire, Merseyside (Groundwork), Power in Partnership, Progress Sports Limited, The Skills Network and Wigan Council.

Around 200 learners were enrolled on such subcontracted education and training programmes at the time of the visit.

Most learners on subcontracted community-based education and training programmes “make good progress in developing their personal, social and work-related skills”.

But the proportion who achieved their qualifications in 2016/17 was lower overall than those on the college’s directly delivered provision, and “too low at Progress Sports Limited and Power in Partnership”.

Senior leaders at the college, rated ‘good’ overall through its most recent full inspection report (which did not look at the quality of its subcontracting provision arrangements), were said in today’s report to have established a “clear strategy” to reduce the volume of subcontracted provision.

And the report recognised that “managers and teachers at Groundwork, Power in Partnership, Progress Sports Limited, The Skills Network and Wigan Council ensure that most learners make good progress in developing the skills and personal attributes that they need for their next steps”.

An example was given of an inspirational project involving learners on a Prince’s Trust programme run by Groundwork.

They carried out a neighbourhood improvement project and were “able to talk clearly and confidently at a presentation event about the skills that they had gained through the project”. For many, this was said to be the first time they had spoken in public.

Safeguarding arrangements at all subcontractors are “effective”, but while assessors at Citrus provide “effective support” to enable apprentices to improve their English and digital skills, they do not support apprentices “well enough” to improve their mathematical skills.

Ofsted said it would start on “a sample of risk-based monitoring visits to directly funded providers to look specifically at management and quality of subcontracted provision for specific subcontractors” in February, apparently in reaction to mounting demands for a crackdown.

Robert Halfon, the education committee chair asked for a “wholesale review” into why Ofsted is not directly inspecting subcontractors in November.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman also warned delegates that Ofsted will expose training providers who rip off apprentices by collecting subcontracting management fees without taking “responsibility for quality”, during her speech last week at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference.

A spokesperson for the college spoke to FE Week about the monitoring visit report. 

‘The college, as always, has taken on board the feedback from Ofsted,” she said. “Subcontracting in the college has been significantly reduced over the past two years and constitutes less than eight per cent of all the activity undertaken and this is set to further reduce next academic year.  

“We value highly the work undertaken by partners and in 2016/17 had already made a significant investment in our capacity to support them. We are however committed to our partners who provide specialist provision and value highly the contribution they make. The college was inspected less than 18 months ago by Ofsted where it was judged to be ‘good’ and the monitoring visit does not affect that judgement.”

More traineeships are leading to apprenticeships

The proportion of young people who complete a traineeship and move on to an apprenticeship has risen but it still sits below 40 per cent.

A pre-employment programme, traineeships were launched five years ago in the government’s drive to support low-skilled unemployed people below the age of 25 onto apprenticeships. But interest – which was never massive in the first place – has been flagging lately: starts fell from 24,100 in 2015/16 to 20,300 in the last academic year.

Part of the problem has been confusion over their purpose. It was never specified that traineeships should primarily be to prepare people for apprenticeships, and the government also accepts progression to a job, further full-time education, or other training as acceptable outcomes.

FE Week reported on concerns last year that the proportion of progressions to apprenticeships had fallen below 20 per cent in 2015/16, but things have now somewhat improved.

Any increase in traineeships leading to apprenticeships is welcome

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has said the rate stood at 37 per cent in 2016/17, or 3,620 of 9,760 total progressions.

“Any increase in traineeships leading to apprenticeships is welcome – it comes on the back of persistent pressure from our front bench and a range of stakeholders, including FE Week itself,” said the shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden.

“There is still a huge way for this government to go – they are not even yet at 40 per cent yet.

“The number of traineeships on offer needs to be rapidly expanded, and the persistent failure of this government to give proper support, marketing and resources to this key enabler of social mobility is costing our young people dear.”

The overall rate of progression is less encouraging in 2016/17. If total starts are compared to total progression, the figure is 48 per cent, meaning that just over half of all trainees failed to progress to any desired outcome.

Mr Marsden hosted a parliamentary event with the Association of Employment and Learning Providers in January, in which he attempted to renew enthusiasm from the government and the wider sector for traineeships.

Qube Learning was among the providers present, and admitted at the time that there is a problem with perception.

The company’s boss Joe Crossley was pleased to learn this week about the improved progression rate.

Mark Dawe

“In our experience, the traineeship learners that are most likely to stay on programme are the ones who spend three or four months focusing on their employment, before enrolling onto an apprenticeship,” he said. “So yes, this progression is a positive thing.”

AELP boss Mark Dawe was also heartened by the upturn in progressions.

“But AELP still firmly believes that getting a job or some further education is an equally positive outcome from the programme for young people, who often come from a very disadvantaged background,” he added.

“It means that most are earning and many then have the opportunity to go on and do an apprenticeship.”

The government has launched a new social media campaign to promote traineeships.

It is part of its existing ‘Get in go far’ drive which it has already used to spread the word about apprenticeships through Facebook and Twitter.

This new branch of the campaign will operate under the slogan ‘Traineeships: Everything you need to know’.

The campaign states that “traineeships are designed to help young people aged 16 to 24 who don’t yet have the skills or experience needed to get an apprenticeship or job”.

“Traineeships are providing great opportunities for young people to get the skills and experience they need to get apprenticeships and other jobs,” said a DfE spokesperson.

“We are working hard to promote traineeships through campaigns like ‘Get in go far’, so many more young people can benefit from the amazing opportunities apprenticeships bring.”

Ofsted Watch: Encouraging week for adult and community learning providers

A strong week for adult and community learning providers saw three climb up from ‘requires improvement’ ratings.

Slough Pitstop Project Limited was rated ‘good’ overall by Ofsted.

Inspectors recognised that “leaders, managers and trustees set a clear direction for the charity”, and “welcome all learners to their courses, which benefits the local community”.

It was noted that as a consequence of attending, learners “improve their confidence and behaviour, they learn to value education and become more self-assured”.

The project, which is also known as ‘the Gateway’, delivers programmes with the aim of engaging and motivating disadvantaged young people. They work with those not in education, employment or training (NEET) to equip them “with the confidence and skills to succeed in life”.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council also went up a grade to ‘good’ overall.

This service provides courses in English, mathematics, family learning, English for speakers of other languages, basic digital skills, employability and wellbeing. The courses range from pre-entry to level two.

Leaders and managers have redesigned the provision effectively to primarily improve the life chances of the disadvantaged communities in the Wirral

“Leaders and managers have redesigned the provision effectively to primarily improve the life chances of the disadvantaged communities in the Wirral and develop learners’ English and mathematics skills,” inspectors wrote.

Governors were praised for a “good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses” of the service”, and maintaining “high expectations”.

Learners on family learning courses were also said to “gain useful knowledge and skills that help them and their children develop”.

Hampshire Futures was recognised for the same level of improvement to ‘good’ overall.

“Leaders and managers have dealt effectively with the vast majority of weaknesses identified at the previous inspection; as a result, learners’ experiences and the quality of provision are now good,” the report said.

Learners’ achievements were said to have improved significantly since the previous inspection.

Hampshire Futures is part of Hampshire County Council and is based in Winchester.

The majority of its learners are adults taking mainly non-accredited community learning courses. Programmes for adults include mathematics, English, languages, information technology, art, dance and wel-being courses.

Training 2000 Limited, another adult and community learning provider, however, travelled in the opposite direction, from grade two to three.

It was described by inspectors as the largest group training association in England. The company became a wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Central Lancashire in July 2017.  

Approximately 80 per cent of its revenue is from the Education and Skills Funding Agency, “of which around three quarters is for apprentice training,” the report said.

Leaders and managers were criticised for failing to ensure “that 16-to-19 study programmes fully meet the needs of learners; many learners do not stay to complete all aspects of their programmes”.

Managers do not have effective measures to improve weak teaching, learning and assessment practices

“Managers do not have effective measures to improve weak teaching, learning and assessment practices,” it warned.

A report was also published on Waltham Forest College in London, which went from ‘requires improvement’ to ‘good’.

“The good range and high quality of adult provision enable learners to improve their life chances and develop valuable personal, social and work-related skills,” inspectors said.

The large majority of teachers were also praised for setting interesting, relevant work, and using a wide range of teaching strategies to engage learners.

And from the independent sector, Key Training Limited also went from grade three to two.

This report recognised how there had been a “relentless leadership focus on the experience of all learners has resulted in significant improvements to the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, and to levels of achievement”.

Key Training provides apprenticeships for all age groups, both with levy and non-levy employers, traineeships and study programmes.

Its provision is national, with “study programmes delivered from a centre in Wellingborough”.

Referring to its apprenticeships, the inspectors said that “the good selection process and high quality of information, advice and guidance have led to an increased proportion of apprentices who sustain their employment, remain on their programmes and progress to higher-level courses”.

There were short inspection results published for ProVQ Limited; JBC Skills Training Limited; QDOS Training Limited; Tower College Of Further And Higher Education London; Superdrug Stores; The Cornwall Council; and Leicester Adult Skills & Learning.

 

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Waltham Forest College 06/02/2018 19/03/2018 2 3

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Key Training Limited 20/02/2018 23/03/2018 2 3

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Slough Pit Stop Project Limited 21/02/2018 22/03/2018 2 3
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 12/02/2018 19/03/2018 2 3
Hampshire Futures 06/02/2018 19/03/2018 2 3
Training 2000 Limited 06/02/2018 19/03/2018 3 2

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
ProVQ Limited 13/02/2018 23/03/2018
JBC Skills Training Limited 12/02/2018 23/03/2018
QDOS Training Limited 15/02/2018 20/03/2018
Tower College Of Further And Higher Education London 19/02/2018 19/03/2018
The Cornwall Council 20/02/2018 23/03/2018
Leicester Adult Skills & Learning 20/02/2018 20/03/2018
Superdrug Stores 13/02/2018 19/03/2018