Revealed: How to get the DfE Institute of Technology kite-mark

UPDATE: The Department for Education has now confirmed they’ve published documents launching the IoT invitations on the lep network website. You can access them here.

 

After more than two years and three Skills Ministers since the Institutes of Technology (IoT) concept was announced, FE Week can exclusively reveal the “process and timeline” ahead of their launch in 2019. 

Institutes of Technology were first mooted in the Productivity Plan in July 2015 , which said: “The government anticipates that many colleges will be invited to specialise according to local economic priorities, to provide better targeted basic skills alongside professional and technical education, and that some will be invited to become Institutes of Technology.”

In documents seen by FE Week that have been “agreed by ministers” and were due for publication this week, the DfE sets out details of the IoT invitation process.

The DfE will be calling on those that “would like to register an interest in the IoT initiative” to complete a short form and email it back to institute.technology@education.gov.uk by the 31 October 2017.

Despite the DfE repeatedly saying the plan is to “establish high quality and prestigious institutions”, in truth and as previously reported by FE Week, the IoT funding is in fact a relatively small three year wave of capital funding for mainly existing colleges, not to create new ones.

The “successful bidders will receive the right to call themselves Institutes of Technology (precise branding to be confirmed)” and receive funding “for capital investment to support high quality, industry-standard facilities and equipment” as well as “cover new build investment or upgrades and improvements to existing assets.”

Much like the ill fated 400 Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVE) scheme for colleges under the Learning and Skills Council, it is expected that funding for new equipment will come with IoT plaques and IoT kite-marks for websites and email signatures.

But the invitation is not only for colleges, in fact the ‘IoT policy statement’ seen by FE Week says: “Delivery will be through partnerships of employers, FE and HE but could be through a range of legal structures and delivery models ranging from Joint Venture or Special Purpose Vehicles, wholly new  FE or HE institutions  or other entity of a type which is permitted to conduct HE and/or FE provision under existing FE and/or HE legislation.”

To get the IoT kite-mark and capital funding, the DfE says an IoT will need to “have employers at the heart of their leadership and governance, and in the design and delivery of curriculum. IoTs will strengthen and grow provision to fill gaps in the market; they will focus particularly on technical (eg Science, Technology, Engineering Mathematics) skills at levels 4 and 5 but will extend to degree level and above (level 6+) to strengthen routes into higher levels of technical education, as well as directly into employment.”

And the DfE has recently set-up an IoT LinkedIn group (click here) to “facilitate connections between potential collaborators who are interested in establishing an Institute of Technology.”  

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges told FE Week: “I’m pleased to see clarity on the way forward on the Institutes of Technology after the original proposal way back in July 2015.

“New capital investment in colleges is always to be welcomed and this will undoubtedly help provide great facilities and equipment for much needed higher level technical skills and education. I expect lots of great bids to come forward and with collaboration between employers, colleges and others which will really start to increase demand for Level 4 and 5 in this country.

“We must also invest more in careers advice and maintenance support for people to participate if these new Institutes are to be successful.”

FE Week understands the delay to the policy was to enable synergy with the new T-level policy concept launched in July 2016 Skills Strategy,  followed by the Industrial Strategy in January 2017 which promised to fund IoTs with £170m in capital funding over three years.

The imminent launch of the invitation to apply to become an IoT will come as a relief to everyone in the further education college sector, after the Conservative manifesto referred to universities, stating: “World class technical education, underpinned by prestigious new institutes of technology with the freedoms that make our universities great.”

The DfE document seen by FE Week concludes: “We expect the first IoTs to open in 2019.  More details on the bidding process will be published at the competition launch before the end of 2017.”   

New RoATP window opens on Monday

The register of apprenticeship training providers will open for a third time starting on Monday, FE Week can reveal, and the window will last for one month.

An email from the Department for Education said applications would “reopen for applications on Monday, 25 September”.

“This reopening will close on Friday, 27 October,” it continued. “This opening is open to all organisations, including those organisations that have not previously been successful.

“If you have already been successful in your application to the RoATP, you do not need to reapply as this opening is not a refresh.”

This is the third time the register has opened for applications.

The first window ran for a month in November 2016, while the second window opened in March – just days after the first register was published.

That first register prompted shock across the sector as many established providers – including all of Birmingham’s general FE colleges – failed to make it on, while large numbers of new, untested providers were successful.

Although many of those who failed first time around made it onto the second register, published in May, a number of one-man bands also made it on – including one provider with no previous experience, and no registered office address except for a semi-detached house in Birmingham.

In June, the apprenticeships and skills minister Anne Milton announced that the register would not open for new applications while the new procurement process for delivering apprenticeships to non-levy payers was open.

That process closed on September 8.

Click here for more on how to apply to the register (gov.uk)

Why are so many college mergers falling apart?

The area reviews are a disaster slowly unfolding before our eyes, claims Jonathan Brash, who believes the process was motivated by cuts alone

Hopelessly flawed and done for the wrong reasons. That’s the only rational assessment we can make of the government’s ill-fated area review programme.

Hartlepool Sixth-Form College was part of the first wave, and less than a year on from the “final” report, not one recommendation has been – or ever will be – enacted.

The rhetoric beforehand mentioned “quality” and “student outcomes”; but in reality it was about money. Area reviews are a cost-cutting exercise pure and simple, designed to plug the financial hole created by government cuts.

Remember, funding for 16-to-19 education has had a real-terms cut of 22 per cent over the last 10 years, exacerbated by demographic downturn.

Fewer pupils, less money and (certainly in the case of the Tees Valley) historic debt stemming from a multitude of new-builds is a ticking time-bomb.

Something had to give and it is inconceivable that government did not know. The choice was simple: return funding to sustainable levels or attempt to push the sector into a widespread merger programme which had nothing to do with quality or student outcomes.

Forcing colleges down the wrong path is doomed to failure

The one positive we can take from our area review is that it did encourage dialogue, not always constructive, but institutions that had traditionally had very little to do with one another did come together to talk about their priorities. Beyond that, the process was hopeless.

The problem lay in the scope, detail and timescale of the review. School sixth-forms were not included (in Hartlepool we have two) yet it was supposed to be a review of 16-to-19 education.

The ludicrously compressed timescale meant that we were expected to gather, assess and analyse enough information to put forward recommendations that would reshape the entire sector in just a few months.

Details of the financial support for any restructure recommendations (from the near-mythic “transaction fund”), depended on who you spoke to. Would it be a grant or a loan? Nobody seemed sure.

The financial analysis in individual recommendations barely scratched the surface. So much so that within three meetings of our joint committee, which was charged with implementing the merger between us and another college, it became clear that the numbers simply did not add up.

It is unimaginable that a process so rushed, so lacking in detailed analysis, and built on such shaky foundations of evidence would ever produce robust, long-term solutions. And so it proved.

We backed out first. Our rationale was simple: the recommendation would do more harm than good. Instead, we turned to an alternative merger option, one not sanctioned by the review.

Then the pressure started. We were told there would be no financial support for our merger. Should we find ourselves in financial difficulty in the future, no-one would help. I lost track of the phonecalls and meetings all aimed at changing our position.

In short, if we went against the wishes of the area review, we were on our own. These tough tactics felt designed to hold us up as an example of what happens if you back out, to stop others following suit. It did not work.

Thankfully, support did come from our local and combined authorities, which recognised that the option we had chosen was better for students and better for the college. With this backing we held our ground and the future of the college is now bright and secure.

As for area reviews, I would offer this advice. There is nothing wrong with dialogue, greater efficiency and bringing institutions together. But forcing colleges down the wrong path, based on limited evidence and trying to hold them to it with vague promises of cash is doomed to failure.

Right across the country the programme is in trouble and there is an alternative: fund the sector properly.

Encourage open dialogue for sure, but let the colleges find the solutions that are best for them. Put quality and student outcomes first.

Jonathan Brash is the former chair of Hartlepool SFC

What do employers really want from an apprenticeship provider?

Employers are becoming increasingly savvy about what they want from training providers. Annette Allmark explains exactly how to make your pitch stand out and win more business

It’s almost six months since the levy was introduced, enough time to make an initial assessment.

After a snapshot survey in August, we discovered that employers struggle to find a provider that meets their business needs. Almost two thirds say it is hard to get an outstanding service, and half say providers’ readiness to deliver apprenticeships under the new system is poor or very poor.

So we decided to ask what employers really want from an apprenticeship provider.

A good cultural fit

From the businesses we spoke to, it’s clear that employers are looking for long-term partnerships with providers.

The role of cultural fit in underpinning this relationship was deemed critical: apprenticeships are a journey and the right provider has to take the time to understand the culture and values of a business if it wants to become a trusted travelling companion.

“If they turned up to pitch with a generic presentation when they’d been given a lot of detail in the brief about the values, culture, and what was important to us, and that did not come across in the presentation, they would be ruled out,” wrote one employer whose comment was broadly illustrative.

Providers also need to understand that there can be big difference between a company’s internal and external brands. One large national restaurant chain told us that a provider turned up and based its presentation on its external brand, even though in the brief it had been given lots of information about the internal culture.

Tailor-made training

The clear message is that employers will not be satisfied with generic, cookie-cutter solutions. Rather, they are looking for a tailored, flexible approach that uses the new standards and fits into their way of doing business.

“They need to focus more on the stuff they do differently, rather than the stuff they do as standard,” said one employer.

Another rejected a provider because “it felt like we were going to be squeezed into how they did things”.

Passion for apprenticeships

A commitment to the cause is also important, above and beyond delivering the training. One employer told us that it wanted to work with providers that cared as much as it does, and which could really demonstrate true passion about apprenticeships.

“If we get the right people who are really passionate about what they’re doing, and they have the same degree of excellence that we aspire to achieve, then I know we are on to a really good thing,” said the employer.

Insider knowledge

Building relationships with internal stakeholders also emerged as something providers could improve upon. Providers need to have a rapport and relationship with the management and operations teams as well as HR, because their buy-in is vital for the success of any apprenticeship programme.

They also need to understand how the business’s recruitment process works and how the role of apprenticeships fits in with its broader talent management strategy.

Simplifying bureaucracy

The complexity of the information that emerges from the government has been a hallmark of recent reforms. Anything that can help relieve the burden on employers when it comes to complicated processes such as evidencing 20 per cent off-the-job learning – which is often cited by businesses we talk to as a source of particular confusion – is a vital component in any offer.

Overall, it’s encouraging that almost 60 per cent of the businesses we surveyed are confident that they will see a positive return from their investment, but it’s clear that being assured of quality in the delivery of apprenticeships is really key for employers, and that working in true partnership with providers is vital to their success.

Annette Allmark is director of strategic policy at People 1st

Ofqual considers special treatment for new AOs

New apprenticeship exam bodies are next in line for special treatment, after Ofqual hinted that it’s considering a lighter regulatory touch for those that fall under its remit.

But established awarding organisations groaning under the weight of increased regulation have begun to complain about double standards.

The exams regulator is about to take charge of numerous organisations newly approved to deliver end-point assessments (EPA) for the new apprenticeship standards that it quality assures.

The EPA organisations will have to apply for Ofqual recognition, but the watchdog said it would be “working with the ESFA to explore how to reduce any unnecessary burden.”

Ofqual has so far been asked to provide external quality assurance for 62 apprenticeship standards – 26 of which it will also regulate, with a further 36 are under review.

One apprenticeship standard quality assured by Ofqual is team leader at level three.

Of the 18 bodies already approved to deliver its final exams, five aren’t yet recognised by the exams watchdog.

There are dozens more end-point assessment organisations which aren’t established exam boards in the pipeline, including large firms like BT, meaning Ofqual is likely to be swamped with new responsibilities.

As a result it is mooting special treatment for new EPA organisations, in sharp contrast to the situation faced by exam bodies it already regulates, which in certain circumstances will fall under the responsibility of two quality assurers for the same standard.

Ofqual has said it will regulate an EPA if it “falls within a regulated awarding organisation’s scope of recognition”, regardless of who the EQA provider is.

The leader of one awarding organisation, who asked not to be named, claimed Ofqual had asked to see his EPA specification and assessment materials – a request that duplicated the process his organisation had already gone through with the ESFA to get on the register.

Employer groups developing apprenticeship standards are currently able to choose from four different EQA options: Ofqual, the Institute for Apprenticeships, a professional body, or an employer-designed option.

At last count there were 38 different bodies offering quality assurance, the majority of which assure just one standard.

Stephen Wright, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, wants the different bodies involved in EQA to work together to “tighten up and harmonise standards across the apprenticeship system” to “avoid the risk of poor regulatory practice, inconsistency and regulatory burden”.

A spokesperson for Ofqual insisted it was “committed to reducing regulatory burden” and that the requirements it placed on organisations “either currently or potentially regulated by Ofqual is both proportionate and appropriate”.

The watchdog is reviewing its guidance “to ensure that they are appropriately tailored for apprenticeship EPAs and the organisations delivering them”, he said.

“The bar for recognition remains unchanged but we are always looking to work with AOs to help improve and build on their understanding of our regulations.”

Rotherham AO investigated by regulators twice in two years

An awarding organisation is under investigation by regulators for the second time in two years after an anonymous tip-off.

Ofqual was alerted in May to irregularities at Focus Awards, an AO based in Rotherham, and official inquiries began on September 11.

In a statement, it said it was “currently investigating allegations made to us in relation to Focus Awards Limited”, but refused to make further comment.

Last year, the AO was investigated by the Northern Irish exams regulator, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, between February 2016 and June 2017, following a complaint from Leisure Industry Academy, a private training provider based in Belfast which went into insolvency last November.

It was alleged that Focus moved LIA students onto courses that they had not registered for and sent them the wrong awarding certificates, meaning many never got their qualifications.

CCEA’s report found that it was in compliance with its general code of operating rules, but that its learner registration system did not have “sufficient controls for the maintenance of learner numbers that allows learners to be clearly and uniquely identified”.

“Focus Awards became aware on September 11 that Ofqual is investigating a purported issue raised by an unidentified party,” Joshua Cole, the owner, sole director and chief executive of Focus, told FE Week.

“This is of course its duty as our regulator and we would expect nothing less. Ofqual can expect to receive our full cooperation.

“In a recent investigation carried out by our regulators in Northern Ireland, we were found to have acted in compliance with the general code of operating rules and in the interests of learners. We are confident Ofqual will draw the same conclusion.”

A spokesperson for CCEA told FE Week that it was aware of Ofqual’s new investigation and that both regulators were cooperating.

“Since Focus Awards is an English-based awarding organisation, it is appropriate that Ofqual leads on this investigation,” she said.

Mr Cole also runs a private training provider in Rotherham called My Distance Learning College.

This hit the headlines back in 2014 when FE Week reported that 32,000 paying learners might not get their certificates after a number of awarding organisations pulled their approval due to payment issues.

NCFE claimed it had around £20,000 of “outstanding invoices owing”, while the Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education claimed the provider had been reselling its qualifications through other firms without permission.

Mr Cole disputed both claims but Reed, a major recruitment agency, decided to stop reselling the troubled provider’s courses.

He describes himself on his AO’s website as “an inspirational, visionary leader with a unique blend of entrepreneurial skills and business acumen”.

He says he employs more than 25 staff across his various enterprises, and is “skilled at managing and controlling multidisciplinary teams. Some of the staff operate remotely from Ireland, Spain, India, Serbia, Pakistan and the USA”.

FE loans are broken – so what’s the fix?

Justine Greening wants to tell you about T-levels, which in truth appear to be going nowhere fast or somewhere slowly, even though the advanced learner loans system, a major technical policy from 2013, is in need of rescuing now, not by 2023.

The worst thing is that the government appears to be in denial as to how to rescue the unpopular and discredited loans model.

The person in the street might be forgiven for thinking it’s just extra money that’s not been spent.

But readers will know it replaced grant funding, so the £1 billion underspend uncovered by our investigation isn’t just disappointing, it represents a huge reduction in spending on higher-level technical education.

The government needs to make good on its manifesto commitment to “launch a major review of funding across tertiary education”, but there has been precious little sign of this so far.

We can’t just wait for the magic, “world-class” T-level tree to sort all our ills.

ESFA breaks its promise to audit untested providers

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has missed its own deadline to make sure new providers approved to deliver apprenticeships are up to scratch.

Even though its programme director outlined the checks and balances the ESFA was planning for untested firms on the register of apprenticeship training providers in June, FE Week has learned that no firms have been visited.

Keith Smith, director for funding and programmes at the ESFA, told delegates at the AELP’s annual conference in June that the ESFA would visit any providers which did not have prior experience of apprenticeship delivery by September.

FE Week understands that no new provider has actually received a visit – even though some of them already have hundreds of apprentices.

The Department for Education was criticised by the National Audit Office a year ago for sluggishness in managing risks to the system.

“Past experience of market-led reform in the education and skills sector suggests that significant behavioural risks can materialise when changes are made in the market at a fast pace,” the NAO report warned, urging the DfE to “expand its work on behavioural risks” and to learn from “previous initiatives which have not turned out as planned”.

The ESFA announced additional audits for new providers after a much larger number of untested firms than expected made it onto RoATP.

In March we discovered that one person operating from a rented office in Cheshire had succeeded in getting three new companies onto the register.

And in May a three-month-old firm with one director and an office address registered to a semi-detached house in Birmingham was added to the list.

Mark Dawe, AELP’s chief executive, urged the ESFA to “keep to the commitment it made” in June.

“With the future of many good specialist providers now under threat because of the recent non-levy procurement, it would be more than unfair if cowboy operators were allowed to escape under the radar,” he said.

The ESFA’s presentation to the AELP conference acknowledged the sector’s concerns surrounding these new, untested providers.

“I hear lots of stories about people worried about some of these new providers working out of a shed in their back garden or the living room of a property,” he said.

He stressed that the register was just the “first hurdle” for untested providers, who would have to make it through a tough process of checks to keep their place.

The next stage would be mandatory training, followed by visits that would “look at these organisations and to test the things that they told us when they applied to the register”.

The final stage, which had been due to start this month, was to be audit visits to all new providers deemed medium- to high-risk.

A DfE spokesperson refused to say whether any of the visits had gone ahead.

“Over the coming months we will be testing new apprenticeship training providers to ensure they are compliant with their provider agreement and funding rules,” they said.

What government can learn from Learndirect

The government needs a skills strategy that cuts across every department, argues Stephen Evans

The recent scandal involving Learndirect, coupled with the ongoing troubles in our procurement processes, shows the need for a clear vision for learning and skills.

The Learndirect affair opens up a whole set of questions around corporate governance that also apply to quite a lot of the rest of our economy, and while it might be an extreme example, like a canary in a coalmine, its issues are symptoms of a bigger problem.

The recent, messy procurements for the adult education budget and the register of approved training providers are further symptoms. The pages of FE Week are filled with stories of late and sometimes contradictory changes to rules and guidance, and of many results that are odd at best.

I would say there are three larger problems.

Strategy for learning and skills

If the country doesn’t have an overall vision for learning and skills – and to be clear three million apprenticeships and reforms to technical education are only part of this – then the risk is that any process you embark on disappears down a rabbit hole. Whether it’s grant funding or competitive procurement, one decision leads to another, like driving a car and deciding to turn left or right without knowing where you’re trying to get to. I’ve been loath to call for a national learning and skills strategy (we’ve had so many over the years) but I’m now convinced of the need for one, and for it to be pan-government.

Vision for the market

Taking the various recent procurements together, it’s difficult to discern what the government’s vision for the market truly is. For example, does it want to increase the number of new providers, or is it happy with the current provider base? Does it want a smaller number of larger providers, or a greater diversity of smaller providers? How does this vary by sector and geography? When the employment minister David Freud said he wanted a small number of larger providers managing supply chains in welfare-to-work, whether you like it or not, it was a clear vision that drove decision-making. Absence of vision makes it challenging to run procurements and makes action taken outside the rules of these look like unfair special treatment. It’s like trying to get to somewhere without a map.

Commissioning skills

Setting a vision for a market and then managing that market takes a very different set of skills for civil servants than direct delivery or grant-funding delivery. Ministry of Justice officials have had to think about a market for probation services, rather than publicly delivered services. DWP officials have had to think about a market for welfare-to-work services rather than directly delivered services.

It’s easy to get depressed about the challenges

I would say the Cabinet Office needs to set out a clearer strategy for ensuring civil servants have the market-management skills they need (given the government’s desire to make greater use of markets) and for departments to learn from each-others’ experience. Perhaps this is a good use for the apprenticeship levy? You wouldn’t get behind the steering wheel without taking driving lessons.

It’s easy to get depressed about the challenges. For providers who’ve seen their budgets cut and can’t understand why, particularly when compared with others, that’s perfectly reasonable.

However, it’s great to FE having status in a government. We have perhaps a once-in-a-generation chance to make sure it’s at the centre of our national mission for social mobility and economic prosperity.

But to make that a reality we need some pretty urgent changes. These include being clear on what our strategy for learning and skills is, the plan for how to achieve it, and ensuring those overseeing the system have the skills they need.

This could not be more important for the people FE serves or the future of the country.

Stephen Evans is chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute