Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Ofsted to ask FE learners if they feel safe in residential provision

Ofsted is asking young people in residential provision at FE colleges if they feel safe and able to raise concerns.

The inspectorate is kicking off its annual drive to obtain their views using “point-in-time” questionnaires, which will also be sent to boarding and residential special schools.

“Ofsted inspectors want to hear what children and young people, their parents and carers, and staff have to say about the boarding or residential provision of these schools and further education colleges,” a spokesperson announced today.

Ofsted has an important role in monitoring residential provision at colleges.

The watchdog has been highly critical, for example, of Hereward College, which offered on-site residential provision for 23 learners – as well as day provision for 255 more students – at the time of its last full inspection 11 months ago.

The college was rated inadequate-overall following this.

“Since the previous inspection, there have been reported a number of alleged incidents of peer-on-peer abuse in the college’s day and residential provision,” the main report warned. “One or more of the alleged incidents remains under investigation by another agency.”

The shocking scale of the problem was explained in more detail in a subsequent monitoring visit report, which described a “worryingly high proportion” of safeguarding incidents had “involved sexualised behaviour” or “in some cases sexual assaults by one learner on another”.

Another monitoring visit in April this year found “reasonable progress” had been made in resolving these issues for “all learning and residential settings”.

Responses to the new questionnaires are requested by October 12.

Questions include:

Do staff look after you well?
Do you feel safe inside your school or college accommodation?
Can you talk to staff about what you think?

“Schools and colleges should provide children and young people, their parents and carers, and staff with a link to the questionnaire,” Ofsted’s spokesperson added.

Alternatively, anyone who wants to express their views can call the inspectorate on 0300 123 1231 (select option five, then option two) or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk.

Serious adult education budget procurement fears for third sector

Many charities will lose their direct contracts as a result of the controversial adult education budget procurement process, according to a major sector figure.

Even though the Education and Skills Funding Agency finally revealed how much cash private providers would receive to deliver AEB training in 2017/18 in early August, many providers have since complained of catastrophic repercussions for their businesses.

Now Tim Ward, the boss of the Third Sector National Learning Alliance, has warned that many such providers praised by Ofsted have not been awarded contracts – and a slice of the £110 million pot.

In an open letter published in full online by FE Week to Peter Lauener, the outgoing boss of both the ESFA and the Institute for Apprenticeships, Mr Ward wrote: “I have been contacted by third sector providers who cannot understand why they have been praised by Ofsted for their work with disadvantaged learners, but were not awarded contracts.

“It seems likely that this will lead to a further erosion of the number of direct contracted third sector providers, depriving local disadvantaged communities of opportunities to develop the confidence and skills to progress into further learning and employment.”

He raised four specific concerns.

Firstly he demanded to know why smaller providers had been advised to take part.

“In early presentations from ESFA staff, we were given to understand that the EU requirements only applied to contracts above a threshold of £589,148,” he wrote.

“It is not clear, therefore, why all providers were informed that they would need to bid if they wanted to be considered for a contract beyond 2017/18.”

Secondly, he pointed out that losing out in the bidding process had in the short term resulted in a “better outcome than winning”.

“I have heard from providers who have had an allocation which represents a very large cut compared to their previous AEB allocation,” he wrote. “Yet they have not been able to benefit from the transitional support offered to unsuccessful bidders.

“I am therefore asking that consideration be given to providing additional transitional support to those successful bidders who have had cuts larger than the 29 per cent applied across the board, given that the delays in procurement mean that they face massive in-year cuts.”

Thirdly, he wanted to know whether the procurement process took into account third-sector providers that had received “administration for community living funding”, which helps older and disabled people continue living in their local areas rather than in institutions, funding that was included in their 2016/17 AEB allocations.

Finally, he pointed out that a number of registered charities had been excluded from the planned “concession of lower contract thresholds for third-sector providers”.

“I understand that this was because they failed to identify themselves as third sector on the register,” he wrote, asking for their cases to be reviewed.

Neither the ESFA nor Mr Lauener were able to comment before this story was published.

BREAKING: Non-levy apprenticeship funding tender deadline extended

The non-levy apprenticeship funding tender timetable has been “amended” by the Department for Education, and the deadline for submissions is now September 8.

In a statement, following the controversial relaunch of the process just over a month ago, the DfE said: “We have been responding to a high volume of queries and to ensure everyone has sufficient time to read these and reflect any responses in their bids, we have amended the dates in the procurement timetable set out at paragraph 8.1, table four of the invitation to tender.”

These deadlines are as follows:

The tender clarification deadline is at noon on September 1.
The deadline for responses to clarifications is at 5pm on September 5.
The submission deadline is at noon on September 8.

The DfE also confirmed that “these amendments apply to all potential providers”.

In April, the first procurement process was paused and then scrapped for the 98 per cent of employers which are not subject to the levy as it was “markedly oversubscribed”.

The DfE announced at the time that the “new procurement bid window will close at the beginning of September 2017”, with new contracts awarded in early December, and delivery from January 1.

The new tender was launched on July 28 by the new skills and apprenticeships minister Anne Milton, leaving hundreds of providers disappointed.

She claimed there were several “critical differences” from the old one, including new tender-value caps and contract-award limits to “ensure greater confidence that awards are set at realistic levels”.

The cap on the old tender for large existing providers was £5 million, but this was removed to make the cap limitless.

“We recognise that we didn’t get the previous procurement exercise for apprenticeship training provision for non-levy-paying employers quite right,” Ms Milton conceded.

“Not only was it hugely oversubscribed, it did not achieve the right balance between stability of provision, promoting competition and offering choice for employers.

“We want the sector and employers to have certainty and clarity.”

AEB procurement fears for third sector providers

Third Sector National Learning Alliance chief executive Tim Ward, wrote the following open letter to outgoing Institute for Apprenticeships and Education and Skills Funding Agency boss Peter Lauener. He expresses below grave concerns about the adult education budget procurement process, which he warns is likely to reduce the number of directly contracted third sector providers.

Dear Peter,

You will recall that I raised concerns about the AEB procurement exercise and its potential impact on the small number of third sector providers who still have direct contracts with the ESFA. These are concerns which I had been expressing for some time and which regrettably have proved to be valid.

It seems likely that this will lead to a further erosion of the number of direct contracted third sector providers depriving local disadvantaged communities of opportunities to develop the confidence and skills to progress into further learning and employment.

There are a number of specific points that I wish to raise, but firstly I would like to reiterate the key point I made that a national procurement exercise would lack the granularity to identify provision which was addressing the needs of the most disadvantaged and excluded in local communities and making a real contribution to economic and social well-being.

In my judgement, this has proved to be the case. As an example, I have been contacted by third sector providers who cannot understand why they have been praised by Ofsted for their work with disadvantaged learners but were not awarded contracts.

While I recognise the difficulties in involving outside organisations in a competitive procurement exercise, I think that it would be productive to try at least to find ways to engage sector representatives in a dialogue on the broad principles of such a procurement exercise. This could improve the impact of the procurement in terms of ensuring high quality provision is retained or secured. It might also avoid some of the problems that seem to have affected this and earlier procurements.

Our specific concerns are as below and I would be grateful for your response to these issues:

I do not understand why smaller providers were engaged in the procurement. In early presentations from ESFA staff we were given to understand that the EU requirements only applied to contracts above a threshold of £589,148. It is not clear therefore why all providers were informed that they would need to bid if they wanted to be considered for a contract beyond 17/18.
It does appear that in the short-term at least that this was a race where losing was often a better outcome than winning. I have heard from providers who have had an allocation which represents a very large cut compared to their previous AEB allocation. Yet they have not been able to benefit from the transitional support offered to unsuccessful bidders. I am therefore asking that consideration be given to providing additional transitional support to those successful bidders who have had cuts larger than the 29% applied across the board, given that the delays in the procurement mean that they face massive in-year cuts.
A small number of third sector providers had a historical allocation of non-formula ACL funding which was included in their 16/17 AEB allocation. As I understand it, the policy priorities and focus for this funding are different from those of mainstream AEB and accommodate wider issues such as family learning, health and communities as well as preparation for work and basic skills. Did the procurement process take account of this allocation? Specifically did the evaluation of bids from providers with such an allocation take account of the additional priorities or were only the mainstream priorities applied? If the latter then we would ask that you consider how providers who have effectively lost their non-formula funding can have this restored.
The final issue that has affected a small number of third sector providers is that they were excluded from the concession of lower contract thresholds for third sector providers. I understand that this was because they failed to identify themselves as third sector on the register. I don’t have access to the RoTo questions for the AEB but assume that the third sector question is the same as for the apprenticeship RoTo. The definition used in the relevant question differs from the more widely used definition as adopted originally by Government. The providers I have heard from are registered charities and patently fall within the definition. Can we ask that any such cases be reviewed and action taken as appropriate please?

One of the outcomes from this procurement will be more third sector providers having to seek subcontracts thus effectively reducing the funding available to be spent directly on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged learners. (As an aside one provider who lost their contract has been approached by a college, who were successful in the procurement, offering a subcontract from their increased AEB allocation. I am sure this was not what ESFA intended!).

Third sector providers in devolution areas may well have the opportunity to bid for new direct contracts in future years. Given the problems we and others have identified with the current procurement exercise it would be very helpful if those outside the devolution areas who have lost their contracts had the opportunity to bid for new contracts for 18/19.

Finally, a common response to these type of requests is that it is not possible because of the need for consistency in the treatment of providers. However, if press reports regarding a very large provider are correct, a precedent is likely to be set in terms of allocation of AEB for 17/18. I would therefore ask that you treat our requests on their merits and consider the impact of losing high quality provision for the most disadvantaged learners.

I look forward to your response

Kind regards

Tim Ward
CEO
Third Sector National Learning Alliance

Government outlines single awarding organisation plan for prisons

The Ministry of Justice intends to appoint single awarding organisations for seven areas of study, it has announced on the government tendering website.

The areas of study are to be English, ESOL, maths, ICT, catering and hospitality, construction, and cleaning and facilities, which between them it claims cover 42 per cent of its learning delivery. These, the MoJ says, are the curriculum areas which are studied by the largest numbers of prisoners and are most likely to be qualification bearing.

The initial approach to market will officially be opened on September 21, and the contract will run for a total of four years, from August 1 2018 until July 31 2022.

The MoJ says it “will not directly pay for the services provided by the selected awarding organisations, but instead mandate the use of particular qualifications for successor education providers.”

FE Week has learned that a “market engagement” event to outline the plan took place for interested awarding organisations earlier this month. In a presentation made at the event, which FE Week has seen, bid returns are expected by October 20, with the contract awarded on November 3.

The procurement appears to follow the Coates Review into prison education in May last year, in which Dame Sally Coates criticised existing provision.

“Currently there is too much variation between the requirements of different awarding bodies,” she wrote.

Recognising the difficulties reported by many prisons that learners are forced to repeat courses when they move within the prison system, she added: “Prison learners may have to start courses again if they move part-way through a course because their new prison’s education provider uses a different awarding body.”

The Prison Reform White Paper then published in November last year said: “we will introduce a core common curriculum across the estate, focusing on maths and English, and seek to use the same awarding bodies for particular types of provision so those starting a course at one prison can bank and build on their progress if they move elsewhere.”

If the plans go ahead, this would be the first time the government has succeeded in procuring single awarding organisations for qualifications.

Single awarding bodies is considered by some to be a high risk strategy, as there is no competition or alternative supplier were something to go wrong.

FE Week asked the MoJ about how it would manege these risks, and was told there would be “rigorous contract management arrangements in place to monitor the performance of the appointed Awarding Organisations and enable early action to address problems.”

The plan may be seen by some in the sector as a dry-run for the tender activity expected ahead of the forthcoming T-levels system, once their development continues. In July, the new skills minister Anne Milton announced a delay to the implementation of the new technical qualifications, which are now expected to launch in September 2020, a year later than first planned.

Plans to overhaul prison education were started under Michael Gove when he was justice secretary, and he certainly has history with the single awarding organisation approach from his time as education secretary.

Launching the GCSE reforms which came into force for the first time this year, he indicated that he intended to replace them with the English Baccalaureate, which would be offered by a single awarding organisation.

This reform did not come to pass, however, and in a statement to the House of Commons in February 2013, Mr Gove said: “Last September, we outlined plans for changes to GCSE qualifications that were designed to address the grade inflation, dumbing down and loss of rigour in those examinations.

“We have consulted on those proposals and there is a consensus that the system needs to change. However, one of the proposals that I put forward was a bridge too far.”

Slide from the MoJ ‘Market Engagement’ event attended by awarding organisations on 18 August

EXCLUSIVE: DfE launches £100k tender to independently review complaints against Ofsted

The Department for Education has this week started the hunt for an organisation to review complaints made against Ofsted, FE Week can reveal.

The three year contract is valued at £100,000 and will run from 1 January, 2018 to 31 December, 2020, something Ofsted spokesperson told FE Week is “a routine retendering by the DfE for providing Ofsted’s existing independent adjudication process.”

The move follows a Judicial Review lost to Ofsted, after the Durand Academy challenged their inspection and the way their subsequent complaint was dealt with by the inspectorate.

As reported early this month in FE Week’s sister title FE Week, the judge concluded that the lack of opportunity to “effectively challenge” the report rendered Ofsted’s complaints procedures unfair, which, he said, “in my judgment vitiates the report”.

At the time Ofsted responded to the judgement by saying: “Our complaints process is longstanding and has previously been commended by the independent adjudicator,” said a spokesperson.

“However, as an organisation we always keep policies and practices under review and regardless of the outcome of the appeal application will consider whether any clarification of our complaints procedure may be required.”

This evening an Ofsted spokesperson responded to enquiries by saying: “This [independent adjudication] process has existed since 2009. The current contract is coming to an end. As a result and in line with government contracts that are due to expire, a tender exercise has been advertised.”

The DfE, however, has not responded to a request for comment.

Tender information, seen by FE Week, states: “The Department for Education require a supplier to provide an independent adjudication service in relation to Ofsted’s handling of complaints including: handling individual complaints, the provision of advice, regular reporting regarding the volume and nature of the complaint and publication of an annual report.

“The successful supplier shall be required to review Ofsted’s handling of individual complaints where the complainant remains dissatisfied after Ofsted’s internal complaints process has been exhausted and offer written impartial findings and recommendations to complainants and the Chief Inspector.

“The adjudication service is independent of Ofsted and the conclusions and the recommendations of the service provider are independent of both DfE and Ofsted.”

The winning supplier will take over the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted (ICASO).

The tender specification says: “DfE require the supplier to review Ofsted’s handling of individual complaints where the complainant remains dissatisfied after Ofsted’s internal complaints process has been exhausted. The role of the ICASO service is to review and adjudicate on Ofsted’s handling of complaints concerning the work of Ofsted and offer written impartial findings and recommendations to complainants and the Chief Inspector”

The ICASO will also “produce an annual report at the end of each calendar year based on its handling of cases in that period. The final report must be published by the ICASO on its website by 31 March of the following year.”

The DfE anticipates 25 referrals will be made to ICASO each year and the Key Performance Indicator performance standards are:

Interested organisations have less than a month to respond, as the deadline for applications is midday on 28 September, 2017.

Ofsted watch: A quiet summer of good news

This week has seen an all-too-rare period of all good news when it comes to Ofsted inspections.

The heaviest hitter in the last full week in August is probably TTE Training, an independent learning provider based in Ellesmere Port, which went from a ‘good’ grade at its last inspection to an ‘outstanding’ this time around.

Specialising in petrochemical and chemical engineering, TTE was found to “have successfully established a culture of very high expectations throughout”. “Apprentices’ achievements are outstanding; almost all apprentices complete their apprenticeships by the planned end date”, though its 16-to-19 provision was only graded ‘good’ – the only dip in an otherwise unblemished record. Otherwise, leaders, managers, tutors and apprentices at the 290-learner ITP all come in for fulsome praise, as do links with industry and outcomes.

TTE Training wasn’t the only provider to improve this week, either. The high street opticians chain Vision Express, an employer-provider to 58 learners, picked itself up from a grade 3 to a grade 2 across the board.

It was singled out for the “high proportion of learners” who “make good progress, achieve their apprenticeship and continue in full-time employment” and the “good support and care” that apprentices receive to “help them to succeed to their full potential”.

There is still clearly room to improve, however: “Not all apprentices receive impartial information, advice and guidance prior to starting their apprenticeships. In a small number of cases this means that they do not have a good understanding of the programme prior to joining it.”

What’s more, “assessors do not routinely challenge all apprentices to achieve their full potential in English and mathematics”, but the outlook is largely rosy.

Otherwise, HYA Training, a Hull-based independent training provider owned by the Humberside Youth Association Charity and specialising in training vulnerable youth, maintained its ‘good’ rating across the board. Amongst the factors picked out for special mention include the commitment of the staff, who “provide exceptionally good support to learners”, enabling them “to overcome their multiple disadvantages to produce work of a high standard and develop their skills well”.

Leaders, meanwhile, “have a strong vision for the future” and “a clear strategic aim” to keep helping young people “whose educational options are limited”. The learners themselves “make good progress from their often low starting points” and “most achieve their main qualifications”, with the help of “high-quality feedback from tutors that encourages them to improve the quality of their work and to be enthusiastic about learning”.

Finally, Learning Curve Group, a large provider from Bishop Auckland in the north-east, also maintained its ‘good’ grade following a short inspection in July. It is credited with operating successful skills centres in “areas of high unemployment such as Middlesbrough and Sunderland”, upskilling disadvantaged youngsters. The group’s English and maths tuition was singled out for praise: “the vast majority of learners and apprentices develop skills in these subjects well”.

Over-19 apprentices, the vast majority of those the provider reaches, have high achievement, though small numbers of 16- to 18-year-olds struggle “to achieve their programme within the planned timescale”. Nevertheless, leaders, tutors and managers all come in for considerable praise.

Employer providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Vision Express	25/07/2017	23/08/2017	2	3

Independent Learning Providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
TTE Training Limited	18/07/2017	24/08/2017	2	2
HYA Training Limited	12/07/2017	22/08/2017	1	2

Independent Learning Providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
HYA Training Limited TTE Training Limited	18/07/201712/07/2017	24/08/201722/08/2017	2 1	22

Short inspections (remains grade 2)	Inspected	Published
Learning Curve (JAA) Limited	12/07/2017	25/08/2017

U-turn welcomed on funding for employees taught outside the workplace

Courses for people in employment are once again allowed to use public funding, so long as they are taught outside the workplace, the Education and Skills Funding Agency has confirmed in a significant policy U-turn.

Training in the workplace is not typically funded from the Adult Education Budget, but the sector kicked up a stink after the ESFA announced new rules for 2017/18 that went even further.

These made courses ineligible for funding for people in work, even if taught outside the workplace, through distance learning, for example.

But the agency has U-turned under pressure from influential FE bodies, led by the awarding organisation NCFE, and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

Esme Winch, the managing director of NCFE, told FE Week that they had been right to take notice of the many grave concerns held by those working on the front line.

“I am delighted the government has listened to our collective efforts,” she said.

“Our key concerns were not only the need to safeguard the ability of employers to access level two qualifications, which are essential to training of their workforce and filling skills gaps.

“But also to highlight that if the adult education budget couldn’t be used to deliver this support to adult learners in the workplace, that it was putting over a million learning opportunities at risk in crucial growing sectors of the economy such as health and care.”

Simon Ashworth, AELP’s chief policy officer, explained that his organisation approached both the ESFA and the Department for Education earlier this month, to raise concern over the dire consequences of “this innocuous rule change”.

“We felt the impact would be significant and strike a serious blow across a number of sectors,” he said.

“We are delighted to say that following a review, they have informed us that they have listened to our concerns and recognise the impact these changes would of had on employers, learners and also providers.”

Brenda McLeish, chief executive officer for Learning Curve Group, added: “We are delighted the ESFA and DfE have listened to sector feedback and agreed that this activity is an important part of the delivery offer, and will enable learners to develop their skills and improve their opportunities to progress.”

One example of an online qualification affected by the change, offered by Learning Curve to care home workers and certificated by NCFE, is the level two course for awareness of mental health problems.

The ESFA confirmed its change of heart in a weekly online update bulletin, where it confirmed the rules had been reverted to the previous wording from 2016/17, in version two of the Adult Education Budget Funding and Performance Management Rules 2017 to 2018.

The key section from the first version read: “We will not fund any learning aim delivered at an employee’s workplace, or is relevant to their job and/or is relevant to their employer’s business.”

The second version now reads: “We will not fund any learning aim delivered at an employee’s workplace and relevant to either their job or their employer’s business.”

Learndirect special treatment update: will it be less than £1m or over £30m to ‘wind-down’ AEB?

Learndirect’s Adult Education Budget “wind-down” allocation value to July 2018 hangs in the balance, after they failed to tender for funding, FE Week can exclusively reveal.

Based on a government contracting presentation (see image below) their AEB allocation should now automatically fall from £60m last year to under £1m, or £589,148 to be exact.

FE Week has heard that the Education and Skills Funding Agency, in light of contract extensions, were reviewing the policy for all providers that had not tendered and that this might involve a minimum allocation of 75 percent of the 2016/17 figure, meaning £45m for Learndirect (which over nine months would be around £34m).

Learndirect was eligible to tender for AEB funding and remains unclear why Learndirect did not conclude the tendering process. However, given their recent Ofsted grade four the likelihood of being successful was slim.

The tender specification says the “SFA reserves the right not to award a contract to any Applicant awarded Grade four for Overall Effectiveness, after an inspection by Ofsted.

“This also applies if the inspection takes place between the evaluation of ITT responses and the SFA’s decision to issue a contract.”

Learndirect, along with all private training providers, has been given a three month extension to their 2016/17 AEB contract, until October 2017, after the tender evaluation process was dogged by delays.

And, as reported by FE Week, the notification of tender result process on 4 August, originally planned for 19 May, has descended into chaos after many providers with high scores failed to win any funding.

There is then a “mandatory 10 day stand still period” before contracts are awarded, but when FE Week asked about the tendering a DfE spokesperson yesterday said: “We are unable to comment on this due to outstanding queries received in the standstill period.”

After waiting for nearly a week for a response concerning Learndirect’s AEB funding from November 2017 to July 2018, a spokesperson for the DfE told FE Week this afternoon that this was currently commercially sensitive but they were still to tell Learndirect, and all other providers that did not tender.

Learndirect’s allocation for the AEB was just over £60m last year, ten times larger than the AEB for the second largest private training provider.

The AEB tender for private training providers was launched on 27 January and originally £110m for 2017/18.

Questions over Learndirect’s AEB allocation and contract extension values, follow the Department for Education admitting last week it will continue to fund the nation’s biggest FE provider for current and new students until July 31, 2018, following its ‘inadequate’ Ofsted rating.

The ESFA updated their AEB funding rules, which now includes a section from paragraph 282 for: “Existing contract for service providers that did not enter, or were unsuccessful in the AEB procurement”. Click here

UPDATE on 25 August: The AELP is reporting that the “ESFA have confirmed that providers who did not participate or who were unsuccessful in the recent AEB procurement will be notified of the value of their November 2017 to July 2018 contract extension next week (w/c 29 August).”