A major U-turn that should allow mandatory technical qualifications to be included in new apprenticeships had been widely welcomed by the sector.

The change was announced at a special Institute for Apprenticeships briefing event, days after it was exclusively revealed on the front page of the previous FE Week.

“I think we’ve recognised that where a qualification doesn’t do damage to end-point assessment, and doesn’t duplicate it, but is a good thing and adds value to it, then we don’t have a problem with it,” said Richard Guy, the IfA’s deputy director for quality.

Employer groups can submit proposals for approval under the new rules – which will apply to both existing and new standards – from the April 11 application window, the IfA confirmed.

“Common sense prevails and the value of qualifications to apprentices is finally recognised,” tweeted Paul Eeles, the chair of the Federation of Awarding Bodies. “The apprenticeship reforms finally make sense for both employer and learner.”

 

Common sense prevails & the value of Qualifications to apprentices finally recognised. The apprenticeship reforms finally make sense for both employer and leaner @awardingbodies fully supports this sensible development by @IFAteched https://t.co/jcMUGZJ9pG

— Paul Eeles (@PaulEeles) February 7, 2018

 

“I hope this represents the start of a fundamental shift in attitude at the IfA now that we have Sir Gerry Berragan at the helm, where new apprenticeship standards really are employer-led,” said Graham Hastings-Evans, managing director of awarding body NOCN.

Sir Gerry was appointed as the new chief executive of the IfA last November, and wasted no time in making it “faster and better”.

John Hyde, executive chairman at HIT Training, said adding mandatory qualifications to the new hospitality apprenticeships would give “confidence to learners and their parents considering a career in this industry”.

“City & Guilds or BTEC are much stronger brand images than a government apprenticeship certificate signed by current minister,” he added.

Kirstie Donnelly, the City & Guilds managing director, acknowledged that “you would expect us to be pleased at this latest U-turn”, but she warned that “it seems to go against any streamlining of the system that the government is trying to introduce”.

And Rod Bristow, president of Pearson UK – which sells BTECs – said that including qualifications in apprenticeships was “an important way to recognise the achievements of the learner”.

Strict rules limiting the use of qualifications in standards have frustrated the sector for years.

Previously, the criteria only permitted a mandatory qualification in an apprenticeship where it was a regulatory requirement, required by a professional body.

It otherwise applied if a qualification was such a “must-have in the labour market that an apprentice would be disadvantaged in job applications without it”.

The guidance now allows for an “off-the-job technical qualification that does not accredit full occupational competence and would either add breadth to the apprenticeship or provide structure for the off-the-job training”.

The blanket ban on allowing employer groups to submit a standard for approval that includes a qualification still in development – introduced last summer – has also been lifted.

Another newly announced change related to the timing of funding-band recommendations, which aims to “shorten the time a standard spends waiting for approval for delivery”.

The Institute’s “faster and better” programme also aims to simplify aspects of the development process by “changing” some of the policy criteria for approving apprenticeship occupations and standards.

It also brings in improved trailblazer guidance and “intensive” trailblazer workshops.

The skills minister Anne Milton recently admitted that “some oil on the wheels” was needed.

“We have listened and responded to what trailblazer groups have been telling us since the Institute’s launch last April: that the apprenticeships standards development process needs to be faster and better,” said Sir Gerry.

“These improvements should address these concerns.”

The government has had to pump an extra £16 million into the adult education budget to appease a group of training providers who threatened legal action over last year’s controversial tender.

The original procurement had total pot of around £110 million to use this academic year.

The process culminated in widespread fury when the results were released in August, as many providers unexpectedly lost out on huge sums due to the sheer volume of applicants.

But things changed on September 29, after a coalition of furious providers threatened court action and caused a change in the rules.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency chief executive at the time, Peter Lauener (pictured) promptly found extra cash to bring most AEB contract values for 2017/18 up to 75 per cent of previous allocations.

New figures, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, shows this extra funding amounted to £16 million, which was shared between 96 successful providers.

A Department for Education spokesperson told FE Week at the time it was always “our priority” to act in the best interests of learner.

That was why “we have confirmed additional funds to support providers in delivering quality adult education across the country”.

In the ESFA’s original policy, published in January 2017, providers which did not bid or were unsuccessful were to be offered a contract worth no more than £589,148.

But the ESFA wrote to those providers on September 5, telling them that they would now receive 75 per cent of the value of their previous contract to use in 2017/18.

Many believe this U-turn came as a result of the special treatment offered to Learndirect, which withdrew its tender bid earlier in the year.

The nation’s biggest FE provider had a contract worth £60 million last year, but received roughly £45 million to recruit and train adult learners until July 2018, even though it was slapped with an ‘inadequate’ rating from Ofsted in August – a situation which usually causes the DfE to terminate a provider’s funding.

Learndirect’s boss Andy Palmer even admitted he was “surprised” by this large allocation after his provider’s tactical withdrawal during a recent Public Accounts Committee hearing.

At this point, other providers that had been successful in the tender had seen their AEBs slashed.

For example Somerset Skills & Learning, a provider rated ‘good’ by Ofsted a history of more than 100 years, was awarded a contract worth just three per cent of its previous budget. It later lobbied with MPs to overturn the decision.

Other providers rallied together and geared up for collective action against the government.

This coalition claimed it had suffered financial loss and damage as a result of the tender – and believed it had sufficient grounds to launch a judicial review against then education secretary Justine Greening, or even appeal to the EU Commission.

They alleged that the ESFA was negligent of – or even complicit in – corrupt practice under the Public Procurement Act 2015, which states that a procurement must not be interfered with once underway.

They argued that had they known the ESFA would change its rules and reduce allocations by just 25 per cent for those that did not participate, many would have ignored the bidding round to secure sufficient funding to survive.

Ofqual will begin auditing awarding organisations’ on the “control” they have over their individual providers, after finding evidence it has reduced in recent years.

The exams watchdog wrote to AOs today explaining the decision has been made due to concerns over “direct claim status”.

It is now asking all bodies to review their “arrangements with centres” to ensure “compliance with our rules as a matter of priority”.

“As you know, irrespective of the responsibilities delegated to centres, you retain accountability for your qualifications,” wrote Phil Beach, Ofqual’s executive director for vocational and technical qualifications.

“You need to ensure that your centre controls are robust and effective, otherwise you are at risk of non-compliance. There is intelligence to indicate that the level of control exercised by awarding organisations has reduced in recent years.”

The watchdog added that a failure to comply with its “conditions” can “call into question the integrity of assessments, undermine the maintenance of standards and damage public confidence in the qualifications Ofqual regulates”.

It will be undertaking a “series of audits” over the coming year, which will focus on a “range of centre controls”.

Ofqual raised concern specifically over “direct claims status” – where there is no AO moderation prior to certifications being awarded.

“Awarding organisations and centres have told us that in some circumstances moderation of centre-marked assessments takes place only after the awarding organisation has issued results and certificates to learners,” Mr Beach wrote.

“We recognise that such an approach has immediate benefits for centres and learners, because it is efficient and allows results and certificates to be issued quickly. However, it clearly carries a risk that results and certificates for the same qualification, issued to learners assessed at different centres, will not indicate a consistent level of attainment.”

If Ofqual decides as a result of this work to change the “regulatory framework” on moderation, then it will consult on those proposals, and “we will be clear about what elements of the conditions are subject to change”.

“We will provide a period of time for awarding organisations to achieve compliance before moving into any enforcement action,” he confirmed.

The audits will begin in February, by looking at centre approvals, before looking “more widely” at other aspects.

If an AO is selected for audit, Ofqual will write to it separately nearer the time of the visit.

John McNamara, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, welcomed the audits.

“FAB supports full compliance with Ofqual Conditions of Recognition, and all FAB members are committed to maintaining high quality across the range of qualifications they offer through their centres,” he told FE Week.

“Ofqual are inviting AOs to provide further input on the implementation of conditions relating to centres, and FAB and its members will be contributing as part of this work.”

After an overwhelming response to our call for nominations, the shortlist for the inaugural AAC Apprenticeship Awards has been announced.

Earlier this month the judging panel (pictured above) met in central London to deliberate on the eventual winners; over 250 organisations submitted nominations this year, from colleges and training providers to the Home Office and BT.

FE Week and AELP are delighted to announce the shortlists for the AAC Apprenticeship Awards in association with CMI, and the national results will be held at next month’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference to recognise the very best in apprenticeship provision.

Those shortlisted in each category will be recognised at a prestigious reception, at the start of National Apprenticeships Week. Robert Halfon, the education select committee chair and a former skills minister, will meanwhile host a reception at the House of Commons.

At the reception, regional winners will be crowned in the ‘apprentice employer’, ‘apprenticeship provider’ and ‘promoting apprenticeships campaign’ categories.

“It’s a testament to the world-class apprenticeship opportunities provided by our sector that the standard of applications was so high

The winners of the national awards will be announced at a glittering ceremony and dinner at the Annual Apprenticeships Conference in Birmingham on March 22.

Shane Mann, publisher of FE Week and chair of the judging panel, described the awards as “a great opportunity to celebrate the amazing work of employers and providers in the apprenticeship sector”.

“We were delighted to receive so many nominations for the inaugural awards,” he added. “It’s a testament to the world-class apprenticeship opportunities provided by our sector that the standard of applications was so high, and the judges had a challenging job to determine the winners.

“We’d like to thank everyone who took the time to submit a nomination and our judges for their time and consideration. I can’t wait to kick off the celebrations at our parliamentary reception at the start of National Apprenticeship Week”.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of FE Week’s awards partner AELP, who helped with the judging, said, “it was very difficult to choose winners in each category”.

“It’s fantastic to get so many applications in the first year. I was blown away by the range of amazing work being done by providers and employers,” he continued. “We partnered with FE Week on these awards as a way demonstrate the amazing work done by providers in supporting their learners and employers – we certainly have many examples of outstanding work demonstrated across the sector.”

Robert Halfon said the awards are “a fantastic opportunity to showcase and celebrate the excellent work going on in apprenticeships”. 

“I want to offer my congratulations to all those nominated, and I look forward to welcoming those shortlisted to parliament during National Apprenticeship Week next month,” he added.

The AAC Conference will run from March 21 to March 23 at the International Convention Centre in Birmingham. National award winners will be announced at the AAC Gala Dinner on Thursday 22 March.

The conference programme is created in partnership with the DfE, and in a close working relationship with bodies including AELP, the Institute for Apprenticeships, the University Vocational Awards Council and Ofsted, making it the flagship national apprenticeship conference for employers and providers.

 

Stoke-on-Trent College is almost £16 million in the red and received more than £500,000 in exceptional financial support in December alone, while it awaits the outcome of a £21.9 million application to the government restructuring facility.

In the meantime, it is “reliant on the continued availability of bank loans (in respect of which covenants have been breached) and an overdraft, together with short-term cashflow support from the Education and Skills Funding Agency”, according to its 2016/17 financial statements.

These circumstances “constitute a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the group’s and the college’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

The college went through four different principals during the year – one of whom cost the college £67,000 for just over three months’ work.

An additional £150,000 was spent on “compensation for loss of office paid to former key management personnel”.

A spokesperson for the college insisted that remuneration for the top job “represented a salary consistent with the previous year” – which was between £170,001 and £180,000, according to the accounts – but with the “addition of a one-off expenditure that was in line with the organisation’s contractual responsibilities”.

He said the college had “implemented a number of cost-saving measures in the past year to stabilise its finances”, and these “unavoidable” payments were an “element of the fresh-start process through which the college is going”.

The college would not be drawn on what this fresh start involves, but a note from the college’s July 2017 governing board minutes indicated that it was expected to cost £550,000 in 2017/18.

The grade three college, which had an operating deficit of £1.61 million in 2016/17 and debts including a £12.75 million loan from Lloyds Bank, had two separate requests for EFS approved during the year, the accounts revealed.

The first, in February, was for £990,000, and the second, in July, was for £2.55 million.

It’s not clear if the £535,959 it received in December was part of, or in addition to, this £3.5 million.

Unlike other colleges with similarly precarious finances, Stoke-on-Trent has no plans to merge.

An FE commissioner-led structure and prospects appraisal in February “recommended a ‘fresh-start’ approach as the college had been unable to find a willing strategic partner”.

Despite this, the college is in the process of submitting a bid to the restructuring facility – a fund designed to pay for post-area review changes that colleges are unable to afford.

But the £21.9 million it has requested is intended cover the college’s debt, along with “a small short-term loan request to provide additional headroom in the context of adverse variances against forecast operational cash flows”.

Stoke-on-Trent, which slipped from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’ in November 2016, received a notice of concern for financial health in October 2014, which led to intervention by the FE commissioner.

That process concluded a year later, although the notice remained in place – and was joined in February last year with a notice for financial control.

Tonight the T Level public consultation closes after running for 10 weeks and seeking answers to 45 questions.

It sought opinions on the planned implementation of the new post-16 technical qualifications, which the government claims will set a new “gold standard” in training, set to emerge from 2020.

Businesses and training providers had the chance to weigh in on numerous sticking points: including how viable it would be for every T-level to include a 45-day mandatory minimum work placement as planned – a requirement described last year as “impossible” by no less than the Association of Colleges.

Respondents also discussed how they thought maths and English provision should be funded, how the proposed “transition year” would work to prepare certain learners before they start their T-levels, and what providers expect their biggest challenges to be.

FE Week asked to see responses to what we see as the six key questions in the consultation. Answers from the AoC, Association of Employment and Learning Providers, the Learning and Work Institute, and the Federation of Small Businesses feature below:

1- Which of the below options for funding maths and English within the T-level programme do you think would be the most appropriate?

Option 1: Provide it from each student’s T-level programme hours

Option 2: Provide the study as additional funded hours on top of their T-level hours

AELP: Option 2. English and maths should attract additional funded hours as separate certificates on top of technical qualification hours, ensuring that T-level technical qualifications are always comparable between individuals and unaffected by whether or not English and maths are also studied. Ideally English and maths should in all cases continue to be studied through the duration of a T-level, beyond the minimum stipulation of the standard, to optimise options for progression, but funding rates will require review to make this prospect viable.

AOC: English and maths should be funded on top of T-levels (option 2). This should apply to transition year learners as well. There should be opportunities to take higher level English and maths where appropriate; greater flexibility in the condition of funding would support this, freeing up staff to teach at level three.

L&W: Learners who need to improve their English and maths skills should have the opportunity to do so, whilst receiving the same amount of technical training as their peers. Otherwise, the disadvantage of poor English and maths skills could be compounded by giving these learners less time to develop technical skills, which potentially reduces their opportunities to progress. Option 2 supports providers to resource English and maths delivery, with the flexibility to integrate English and maths in ways that engage and motivate learners.

2- What do you think the biggest challenges will be for providers in delivering new T-levels and what additional support do you think providers will need?

AELP: The availability of work placements is the single most important factor that will determine whether T-levels can go ahead either locally, or for that matter at all. It cannot be assumed that if there are skill shortages in an area, then there will be companies in the area willing to provide work placements to help address the issue.

Without the availability of work placements, nothing else matters, so while all support will be welcome, the government must be prepared to put time and money into helping and enabling providers to identify suitable placements with employers and facilitate learners getting to them.

AOC: The funding issue is a big challenge; additional funding is for more hours, not an overall increase per hour. Will it be sufficient? There are also ongoing issues with staffing when it comes to training and recruitment. We need to consider the possible lack of facilities and resources.

Stakeholder awareness is also an issue – we must ensure that we engage well with schools, employers and parents.

L&W: The biggest challenge will be implementing work placements, particularly given the scale and range of the placements that will be required. Our call for evidence identified some of these, including: supply not meeting demand, learner readiness for work placements, engaging employers, and timetabling.

Furthermore, our call for evidence identified three approaches to providing support that the DfE could consider:

The DfE publishes guidance for FE providers and employers to ensure consistency of practice in the delivery of work placements.

National promotion of T-levels to engage a wide audience including schools, sixth-form colleges, young people, parents/carers, employers and the FE sector. While activities should aim to raise awareness of opportunities in technical education, this should be an integral part of a wider careers strategy.

3- What support should we consider as part of a transition offer to ensure that students can progress to level three study and particularly T-levels, relating to the proposed transition year?

AELP: The current transition offer implies that a lack of maths and English are the main barriers to accessing a technical education. In turn, this may mean that learners who have achieved a grade four in English or maths, but for other reasons are not ready to progress to a T-level (such as perhaps an interrupted education, caring responsibilities, or other factors), have no transition offer available for them to work towards T-level entry.

A specific transition offer could however be aimed at learners with special education needs, and/or could provide focused discrete learning to prepare learners for level three study, ensuring the hardest to reach can be engaged.

AOC: The transition offer should be funded in line with T-levels. Learners below level three make up 46 per cent of the general FE cohort and are not homogenous. The transition offer should also focus on employability skills including English and maths with a technical/vocational hook.

L&W: One of the main challenges identified through our call for evidence is learners’ readiness for a work environment. As work placements are an integral part of a T-level, learners will need support to develop employability skills to ensure they can appropriately engage with this aspect of their qualification.

4- Should we review qualifications at level two and below, based on the principles that these qualifications should support progression into employment or higher-level study, and have a value in their own right alongside T-levels?

AELP: Level two is an important entry point for those who have been let down at school and have not attained it at the end of compulsory education. More specifically, many occupations require entry at level two no matter the prior learning, so they should be considered as having a standalone value rather than merely as progression vehicles towards level three.

Many technical vocations have not been taught at all in the compulsory education period, making the availability of level two training even more important post-16. Precluding level two from inclusion in the suite of T-levels therefore risks losing a rung to social mobility.

AOC: The government should incentivise some level two qualifications that are well aligned to routes through extra hours and funding. There are already technical certificates available in this space, but more research needs to be done to check whether this is the way forward.

Regarding a level three review, this needs to be robust and include the voice of all key stakeholders. Applied general qualifications support social mobility and progression to higher education. There needs to be an impact assessment on any potential changes to the current qualifications on offer.

L&W: Yes we agree. This needs to be considered as part of technical education reform, of which T-levels are a part. Provision at level two and below are the foundation for further and higher-level learning and therefore act as a stepping stone for many learners.

FSB: Yes. Level two qualifications play an important role in opening up opportunities to individuals who may have additional needs or face challenging circumstances. Many small businesses offer opportunities at this level.

FSB research from 2016 found that 45 per cent of small firms with apprentices offered level two apprenticeships, demonstrating the demand from businesses for programmes and qualifications at this level.

However, the FSB agrees that qualifications at level two and below should be reviewed in order to ensure that they adequately prepare individuals to progress into employment or higher-level study, and to address concerns raised in the Sainsbury Review around the ability of low-level vocational qualifications to enhance career prospects.

5- Do you agree with the proposed approach integrating the work placement within the T-level programme?

AELP: The work placement is the most crucial part of the T-level concept and must provide a worthwhile experience for both the learner and their potential employers if T-levels are to gain traction.

The core competencies of apprenticeship and traineeship providers should therefore be a cornerstone in the building of a new strand of provision in which employer placements are key. AELP believes that key elements of T-level standards should be required to be demonstrated in all work placements for that T-level, rather than let the content of the work placement be designed at an individual provider/employer level, which will emerge from a sector-by-sector approach to design.

AOC: The approach to integrating work placements within T-levels comes with a major challenge of employer engagement, especially at an SME level. Rural and urban environments will have different challenges in terms of access and competition for placements. Roles and responsibilities need to be clearly defined. Flexibility will be required, as it is in many high-performing vocational and education training systems to meet the needs of all students and employers. Paying students for work placements needs to be considered more carefully.

L&W: Yes we agree. Participating in relevant and high-quality work experience improves learners’ employability skills, and will ensure that T-levels remain competitive and valued by employers alongside apprenticeships.

Employers and providers are supportive of work placements as part of the qualifications and any concerns are related to how these would be implemented.

FSB: No. FSB fully supports the inclusion of a substantial, high-quality work placement for all students undertaking a T-level. Time spent in a working environment helps to develop job-specific and employability skills that equip young people to successfully progress into employment or pursue further study.

However, our research shows that over a quarter (27 per cent) of FSB members believe that schools and colleges do not acknowledge business considerations and constraints, such as time and resourcing issues, when trying to engage firms in activities like work experience.

It is for this reason that we are encouraged to see government acknowledge the need for flexibility around the timing and pattern of the 45-60 day placement to suit the requirements of differing industries, but also the capacity of smaller firms to offer work placements in one long block.

6- Do you have any comments about how we might approach the funding of T-levels? How could the funding formula be adapted to distribute funding for T-levels?

AELP: AELP supports funding systems that allow responsive growth in the early stages before settling to a more predictable approach once uptake has stabilised. Partnerships will be key in making T-levels work, particularly in the early stages between those best placed to deliver classroom-based learning and those best placed to manage and administer work placements.

It is vital that funding flows do not limit the ability of the infrastructure to partner or subcontract in ways that encourage high-quality delivery models from emerging. There are also many independent providers delivering innovative study programmes that could form the basis of delivery, and more should be encouraged using a flexible funding system that is provider-neutral and open to all.

AOC: The current funding mechanism and formula works well.

 

CBI’s thoughts on T-levels

The Confederation of British Industry did not share its responses to the consultation.

Instead, it provided the following comment from Ed Richardson, its senior policy adviser for skills.

“T-levels have the potential to be revolutionary, opening up new routes to skilled work,” he said.

“But they can’t be rushed, or driven by Whitehall targets. Learning the lessons of the apprenticeship levy will help – this has to be a partnership.

“The government needs to work with business on curriculum design and work placements, involving a wider range of businesses in their plans.

“Key priorities for firms are delivering sufficient high-quality work placements, ensuring that there is flexible support for all learners to progress onto level three and ensuring a universal offer on provision in all parts of the country.”

The Department for Education has today published a research report exploring quality of teaching and leadership in FE.

‘Teaching, leadership and governance in further education’ examines whether the sector can cope with the reforms it is currently undergoing.

Professor David Greatbatch from Durham University and Dr Sue Tate from the University of the West of England conducted the research, which covered the whole sector albeit with a specific focus on colleges.

FE Week has the five main findings.

1. Teaching and quality of English and maths is “weak”

Evidence gathered by the authors shows that English and maths provision “remains an area of weakness in FE” due to a shortage of specialist teachers, and a lack of expertise among vocational teachers.

It says there is some evidence to suggest that FE learners benefit from “integrated approaches to teaching English and maths that contextualise learning within vocational areas”.

 

2. A majority of teachers do not do any continuing professional development

Analysis of FE workforce data from 2015/2016 showed that, on average, teachers spend 15 hours on CPD per year, although over 60 per cent of them reported spending no time on it at all on CPD.

“Senior leaders in FE often have an insufficient focus on teaching and learning and this can lead to a lack of CPD to enable FE teachers to improve,” the report says.

“CPD opportunities in FE are few and access is made difficult by lack of funding, the sessional nature of the work, and there being less of a tradition of inter-institutional collaborative networks to share good practice than there is in schools.”

 

3. There are significant issues with recruiting FE leaders with the necessary skillset

Principals and senior leaders who are recruited from the FE sector do not necessarily have the expertise to lead a large organisation, while those who are recruited from outside often do not understand curriculum issues, the report states.

Leadership models in large FE institutions are “moving away” from a focus on individual leaders to teams, with a balance between education and non-educational expertise.

 

4. The role of chair is “complex”

The relationships between FE principals and chairs of governors are “complex and nuanced”, and involve several “often conflicting” sub-roles, including “adviser”, “sounding board”, “conduit of information” to and from the governing board and “performance manager”.

Some chairs do not regard “detailed educational knowledge” as a priority in their requisite skillset, and this may result in a “relatively high level of dependency on FE college principals for knowledge about educational matters and thereby reduce the level of scrutiny by the chair”.

It adds that governors tend to be “proficient when scrutinising financial matters, but less confident about challenging the quality of teaching and learning”.

 

5. Teacher supply is a BIG problem

Managers believe that reforms of the FE sector will have a significant impact on the recruitment of teaching because they are “reshaping skills that are required”.

The report says there is likely to be a greater need to recruit in subject specialisms (English and maths, followed by science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects).

It explains that recruiting English and maths teachers is “particularly difficult” because pay in the FE sector “does not compete with schools”.

“Pay was also identified as a barrier to the recruitment of people from industry to teach the proposed technical qualification routes identified in the government’s Post-16 Skills Plan,” the report says.

“It was noted that a pipeline of training to move potential leaders into senior positions has been lacking, although the FE sector is beginning to tackle this issue.”