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.

The government will develop a new strategy to teach English to speakers of other languages (ESOL), which is aimed at improving integration.

The proposal is outlined in the Integrated Communities Strategy green paper, published this morning by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

“To boost English language skills – which are fundamental to being able to take advantage of the opportunities of living in modern Britain such as getting a job, mixing with people and playing a full part in community life – we will propose developing a new strategy for English language in England,” it said.

Sue Pember, director of policy at Holex, which has been calling for a national ESOL strategy since 2016, said she was “very pleased” the government had “finally listened”.

“We are delighted that they have recognised and want to build on our work to develop a new community-based English language programme, and support for local authorities to improve the provision of English language tuition for those who need it most,” she said.

The green paper follows the Casey Review, commissioned by former prime minister David Cameron and published in December 2016, which concluded that good English skills are “fundamental” to improving immigrants’ opportunities, but warned funding for ESOL courses had been heavily cut.

Its author Dame Louise Casey urged the government to carry out a national review of the provisions it makes for non-native English speakers, ensuring that “sufficient funding” is available.

Poor English language skills were found to result in lower wages and less community integration.

Despite this, she noted that funding for ESOL courses has been slashed by 50 per cent between 2008 and 2015.

The report also identified “a significant gap in funding for pre-entry and entry-level English language courses”.

Other initiatives outlined in the green paper include a “new community-based English language programme” and plans for a “new network of conversation clubs”.

Another idea is for more “support for local authorities to improve the provision of English language tuition for those who need it most”.

Five areas have also been chosen to pilot a new localised approach to integration, which will involve developing local strategies to target the challenges specific to them.

The proposals are backed with £50 million of government cash over two years, which includes funding for councils to “develop new infrastructure to improve the offer for English language learners”.

This could include “additional classes to help people in the early stages of learning English”.

But it’s not clear how much – if any – money will go towards the proposed new language strategy.

“To create clearer pathways for learners, improve outcomes and secure better value for the taxpayer by making best use of existing funding, we propose developing a new strategy for English language in England,” the document said.

It promised the government would “involve research and engagement with the sector” to “review and improve our strategic approach to English language provision to better support local decision makers”.

770,000 people in England over the age of 16 “say they cannot speak English well or at all”, and women are “disproportionately affected”.

In his foreword, the communities secretary Sajid Javid referred to his own childhood experiences of having to translate for his mother, who could not speak English even after 10 years in this country.

“For me, it was an early introduction to the way in which issues such as language skills create barriers to integration – and the very real impact that has on individuals,” he said.

The apprenticeship levy will generate £900 million less funding in its first four years than the government first claimed, according to economic forecasters.

A new “economic and fiscal outlook” report from the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates the tax will accumulate £10.7 billion by early 2021.

This represents a major downgrade – of £900 million, or eight per cent – in the body’s original forecast that the levy would generate £11.6 billion, which was made when it was announced in 2015.

“We have revised down receipts from the apprenticeship levy by £0.1 billion a year relative to November,” the report said.

Our latest forecast is that this will raise a cumulative £10.7 billion in its first four years

“Having only been introduced in April last year, the profile of monthly receipts is still uncertain. However, with 10 months of revenues received by HMRC, it seems likely that full-year receipts will be lower than expected when the measure was first costed.”

Expenditure on apprenticeships in the 2016-17 financial year was just over £1.6 billion, according to government accounts, split equally between 16- to 18-year-olds and adults.

So despite the downgrade, funding available for apprenticeship delivery is now around £1 billion higher than before the levy was introduced.

The apprenticeship levy is paid by employers with annual payrolls in excess of £3 million. It is charged at a rate of 0.5 per cent.

The OBR noted in 2015 that the levy is “economically equivalent to a payroll tax” and expected “the cost to be passed largely onto employees in lower wages”.

The original costing expected the measure to generate £2.7 billion in 2017-18, rising steadily thereafter.

“Since the original costing we have made regular downward adjustments to our earnings forecast and, though this has been partly offset by higher expected employment growth, the overall effect is to lower the apprenticeship levy forecast,” the OBR has now said.

“The levy came into force in April 2017 and HMRC statistics show that £1.8 billion of cash receipts have been received in the first nine months. Our latest forecast is that this will raise £2.6 billion in 2017-18 and a cumulative £10.7 billion in its first four years, an eight-per-cent drop from the original costing.”

The OBR’s report was published on the same day that the skills and apprenticeships minister, Anne Milton, told a House of Lords committee that she wants more money from the Treasury to expand the levy.

“I would like simply to expand the programme,” she said yesterday. “I would have to have that discussion with the chancellor as it is below my pay grade because we would probably have to have more money in the system.”

Robert Halfon, chair of the education select committee and a former skills minister, also wants to see the programme widened and believes this should be done by making employers with annual payrolls of £2 million pay the levy.

“To fund more degree apprenticeships, we should increase and ring-fence funds from the apprenticeships levy,” he said at a Joseph Rowntree Foundation event in December.

“And we could do this by broadening the levy’s remit, so that employers with a salary roll of £2 million qualify.”

The OBR is an advisory non-departmental public body set up by the government to provide independent economic forecasts of public finances.

Dates have been set for a second walk-out by members of the University and College Union at a number of colleges in an ongoing dispute over pay.

Staff at the colleges – all in London except for one in the Midlands – will walk out on either March 27 or 28 for two or three days of strike.

More than 1,500 staff walked out earlier this month, over what UCU described as “a disappointing” pay offer of one per cent, made last September by the Association of Colleges, which represents the colleges on pay.

“UCU members at these colleges made it quite clear that they were prepared to take strike action in defence of their pay and conditions,” said the union’s general secretary Sally Hunt.

“They will be walking out again later this month unless the colleges properly address their concerns. Strike action is a last resort, but staff feel they have been left with no alternative.”

Staff at the affected colleges had voted overwhelmingly in favour of further strike action, the union said.

Average turnout across all 12 colleges was 63 per cent, with 91 per cent of those who voted backing a second walk-out.

UCU said in a statement that staff were taking action over pay, but at some colleges the disputes also included concerns over working conditions such as workload.

The National Joint Forum, made up of the unions representing college staff, had submitted a claim for an across-the-board rise of around six per cent in April.

But the final offer from the AoC last September was just one per cent, or the sum of £250 “where this is more beneficial”.

AoC boss David Hughes expressed regret at the time that it 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.

But teachers at sixth-form colleges, which are not included in the AoC’s negotiations, will get a two-per-cent rise, backdated to last September, it was announced at the end of February.

The government needs to get a grip on the “outrageous and unjustifiable” subcontracting market which has become a “money-maker” for training providers, a panel of FE experts has urged MPs.

Robert Halfon (pictured above), the chair of the education select committee, asked witnesses during a parliamentary hearing this morning about the extent the delivery model, and the hefty management fees that go with it, affects the quality of apprenticeships.

“You will always need some level of subcontracting but it has been too high and some of the behaviour has been outrageous and unjustifiable,” said Stephen Evans, the chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute.

FE providers coming together last week to set a voluntary cap of 20 per cent on management fees “was a start”, he added, but more action is needed.

Graham Hasting-Evans, the managing director of awarding organisation NOCN, agreed with Mr Evans.

“I don’t think the high degree of subcontracting we have lived with makes sense so I would like to see that reduced progressively,” he said.

FE Week’s editor Nick Linford was also called as a witness today, and he explained that the “reality on the ground” regarding subcontracting was that it had become a “money-maker” for many training providers.

“There is a large college which has £17 million of subcontracting, £4 million worth of management fees and I’d love you to have the principal in here explaining how they’re spending that £4 million,” he said.

“Their own board minutes say ‘we are doing more subcontracting which will increase our surplus’. That worries me a great deal, as subcontracting seems to be a way of supporting quite a fragile market.”

Mr Linford added that the ESFA needs to do “a lot more” around transparency because it “feels like subcontracting is a hidden market that nobody wants to talk about, and it is huge”.

Dr Alison Birkinshaw, the president of the Association of Colleges, said later in the session and that subcontracting can be “positive” for “niche and well thought-out relationships”, but she agreed that it needs to be “managed properly”.

Mr Halfon, a former apprenticeships and skills minister, echoed the concerns of the witnesses, giving the example of the nation’s biggest FE provider, Learndirect, where management fees have reached 40 per cent.

“Surely if the taxpayer is paying a provider to do something then the provider should do that job not just get a management fee for passing that job on to somebody else, unless it is a genuine niche area such as in special needs,” he said.

“The extent of it seems to be extraordinary, and the Learndirect example shows just how much of a money-maker it has become – and there’s the fact they face much less regulation than other providers.”

Under current rules, Ofsted does not inspect subcontractors.

It announced last month that it would “increase its focus on management and quality in subcontracting” through a couple of pilots.

However, these will not be full visits in their own right, and the subcontractors will not be given a grade.

Later in the hearing, the panel agreed on the need for a “coherent” skills strategy.

Addressing Mr Hasting-Evans, the chair said: “You actually said something very important, that we don’t have a skills strategy as a country. What do you think we should do as a government in terms of having a skills strategy to meet the needs of a fourth industrial revolution?”

“It has got to cover everything, schools, colleges, universities, and skills development in the workforce and adult education,” said Mr Hasting-Evans. “We need a strategy right across the piece that deals with some of the legacy issues we have – the six-and-half million people in the workforce who can’t read or write for example.”

Mr Evans agreed a strategy was needed.

“It can’t be a DfE document,” he stressed. “It needs to be about the learning benefits to health – a whole bunch of different departments – very much a cross government thing.”