Greening announces 27 new degree apprenticeship projects, but no new money

UPDATE: HEFCE has now announced details of the 27 projects on its website.  We’ve alerted the DfE

————————————————————————————————————

Justine Greening has announced 27 new degree apprenticeship projects, but the FE sector may have to wait a while to find out what they are.

In her speech to the Conservative Party conference, the education secretary heralded the success of the government’s degree apprenticeships programme.

She also announced the “next wave of degree apprenticeship projects”. These will help “meet the growing demand for these opportunities from the next generation”, Greening said.

In information published by the Department for Education in the wake of the speech, the projects are not named. And when asked when the names would be published, officials were unable to say.

The government has also confirmed there will be no additional funding to support the next wave of degree apprenticeships.

In her speech, Greening sang the praises of the degree apprenticeship programme, which has attracted 2,000 learners since it launched in 2015.

“We will pursue excellence in FE, as we have in our schools,” Greening said today, as she repeated her pledge to introduce T-levels.

“We will make sure that the technical education ladder is going to reach every bit as high as the academic one.

“In 2015, we introduced degree apprenticeships, so individuals can earn while they learn, and in less than two years, more than 2,000 people have started one.

So today I am announcing the next wave of 27 degree apprenticeship projects, that will help meet the growing demand for these opportunities from the next generation.”

The DfE says the announcement on degree apprenticeships is one of “a number of steps to continue to diversify the training and quality of qualifications on offer and ensure we remain at the forefront of higher education.

The department has also confirmed today that the amount adult learners will have to earn before paying back their tuition fees through the FE loans system will rise from £21,000 to £25,000 a year.

The 27 new degree apprenticeship projects will be tasked with “promoting and increasing this high-quality route into employment”.

This allows apprentices to earn while they learn, while “gaining a full degree that has been developed in partnership with employers and universities”, the DfE said.

However, there will be no new money for the extension of the programme. Instead, the 27 new projects will be funded from the £10 million degree apprenticeships funding allocated in 2016.

DfE confirms HE fee policy change WILL apply to FE loans

The government’s proposed rise in the repayment threshold for student loans will apply to FE loans, it has been confirmed.

At the Conservative Party conference this weekend, Theresa May will announce that the amount people will have to earn before starting to pay back their student loans will increase from £21,000 to £25,000.

The announcement was initially made in relation to loans for higher education courses, but Department for Education sources have today told FE Week that the new threshold will also apply to advanced learner loans.

The increase in the threshold for repayments is part of a wider effort by the Conservatives to appeal to more young voters following their worse-than-expected general election performance. The party has also announced a freeze on university tuition fees and an extension of the Help to Buy scheme.

The news has already been welcomed by Dr Susan Pember, a former senior civil servant who now leads adult learning provider membership body Holex.

Pember, who used to be in charge of FE and skills at the now-defunct Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, said that the announcement was “good news” for the sector.

It follows a tumultuous period for advanced learner loans, which are available to learners aged 24 or over who are taking a level 3 or 4 qualification with an approved college or training provider.

Last month, FE Week revealed that the majority of FE loans funding has gone unspent over the last four years.

According to figures obtained under the freedom of information act, 58 per cent of FE loans funding, amounting to almost £1 billion, has not been spent since 2013.

The Student Loans Company, which processes advanced learner loans on behalf of the Education and Skills Funding Agency, revealed that just £652 million in loan-funded provision had actually been delivered since 2013, against a massive £1.56 billion in allocations.

There has also been a near-40-per-cent fall in the numbers of level three and four learners since the loans were introduced, sparking dire warnings across the sector.

Revealed: £200m adult education budget underspend

FE providers failed to spend a giant chunk of the adult education budget over the past academic year.

A staggering £200 million remains unspent, which will raise eyebrows among many private training providers, who were forced to tender for a slice of just £110 million in the recent AEB procurement exercise while their competitors like colleges and councils were exempt.

Multiple sources have confirmed to FE Week that around 13 per cent of the £1.5 billion AEB budget went unspent in 2016/17 – a situation sector leaders described as “worrying” and “frustrating”.

Certain individual colleges have underspent by nearly three quarters of a million pounds, further enraging private providers which have been crying out for more cash.

The shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden said our findings formed part of a “systemic set of problems that we are seeing all the way through to the dispersing of adult and higher skills funding” and insisted that the government needs to “urgently review the whole process”.

“There have been enough problems and difficulties already with the recent tender,” he added, calling on his ministerial counterpart Anne Milton to “take action”.

Changes to European Union law meant this was the first year the Education and Skills Funding Agency had to procure the AEB, but only for private providers.

The measly £110 million tender has been catastrophic for many ITPs; one 10,000-learner community learning provider in Somerset had its funding slashed by 97 per cent.

Gordon Marsden

A group of aggrieved private providers have since threatened legal action against the way the government handled the procurement. FE Week understands the ESFA was still working on a way out of the debacle at the time we went to press.

AELP boss Mark Dawe told FE Week that the £200 million underspend was the “final piece of evidence” that proved the government should “start a transitional shift to full procurement of the whole budget, with greater prioritisation to meet the Brexit skills challenge”.

“The fact that the recent tender was six times oversubscribed tells you all you need to know about demand for the programme,” he said, pointing out that the size of underspend could be used to treble allocations to independent providers.

Even as the tender fiasco was in full swing, Canterbury College managed to underspend its £3.2 million AEB allocation by a little over £660,000 in 2016/17. Its principal, Graham Razey, said this was mainly due to the “very competitive educational environment in Canterbury”.

Tresham College in Kettering meanwhile failed to spend £350,000 of its £2.65 million allocation, which it blamed on “fewer referrals from Job Centre Plus than predicted”.

Lowestoft College projects an underspend of £212,000 against its initial £2.3 million allocation, and Hopwood Hall College also admitted to an under delivery of £152,000.

The need is out there, but the restrictions are too severe

David Hughes, the AoC’s chief executive, said he has been discussing the underspend with the ESFA to “help them understand how frustrating this is for colleges”.

He told FE Week there was “no surprise” the underspend was this large and said 2016/17 had been the first year in which new ESFA rules “restricting the types of students, courses and activity that could be funded” took effect.

He insisted that the “need is out there, but the restrictions are too severe”.

Last week, FE Week reported that roughly £1 billion-worth of advanced learner loans had gone unspent since 2013.

In a cagey statement, a Department for Education spokesperson said: “The performance of the AEB is closely monitored by the ESFA, working with the sector.

“The final figures for the AEB funding year performance will be published in the usual way [in June 2018].”

The DfE does not however release the true underdelivery, because it applies a “three per cent tolerance” to its published figures.

This means that if a college, for example, delivers £9.7 million out of a £10 million allocation one year, it would keep the full £10 million.

While £200 million is a huge underspend, it is not as much as the £630 million that went undelivered by providers in 2011/12.

FE Week revealed at the time that nearly 17 per cent of the government’s £3.8 billion AEB allocation, previously known as the adult skills budget, went unused that year.

Mr Marsden said the government should be “worried” about any underspend of this size because it stems “from their own inability to prioritise adult learning in the first place”.

ESFA finds additional AEB funding in effort to solve tender chaos

The ESFA has confirmed it has found additional adult education budget funding and sent out letters to relevant independent training providers with their increased allocations, as revealed by FE Week earlier today.

The letter focuses on non-priority provision and delivery areas, bringing funding for everyone up to the value of 75 per cent of the amount they had last year, and therefore into line with existing providers which did not bid or failed in the tender process.

New contracts for priority delivery will continue with opportunities to bid for growth.

“This letter sets out your modified run-down extension contract value and the arrangements that will apply for the period 1 November 2017 to 31 July 2018,” reads one letter, seen by FE Week.

“We have calculated your nine-month run-down extension by taking 75 per cent of your 2016 to 2017 contract value (£) and subtracting the value (£) of the three-month extension you have already received. We have then worked out your non-priority provision as a proportion (%) of your total AEB delivery. We used your final 2015 to 2016 individualised learner records (R14 ILR) and final funding claim to do this. We have then multiplied your nine-month extension value (£) by the proportion (%) of your non-priority provision.

“We have defined non-priority ‘other’ provision as anything that is not 19- to 24-year-old traineeships, English and maths, skills provision for those who are unemployed and live in one of the priority disadvantaged areas and delivery of technical programmes for adults aged 19-23.”

In response to the letters, which were sent out electronically this afternoon, AELP’s chief executive Mark Dawe said: “We really welcome the fact that the government has recognised the importance of transitioning all providers to enable them to move from non-priority to priority provision. All we been asking for is fairness of treatment. Furthermore we hope that the opportunity to bid for further allocations will allow providers to grow priority provision meeting a significant demand around the country.”

The provider very much at the centre of the AEB tender debacle was Somerset Skills & Learning. The 10,000-student community learning provider had its allocation slashed by 97 per cent – from £3.4 million to just £111,000 – and was on the brink of collapse. But it rallied the support of four local MPs to fight its case for more funding and held emergency meetings with the DfE to reverse the cut.

After receiving today’s letter the provider tweeted: “Great news, we’ve been granted transitional funding to start running courses again. More details to come, thanks for supporting us

It added: “Some funding has been allocated, although not the full amount we bid for. It does allow us to move forward however! Good news!”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “It is vital that we continue to build the skilled workforce that businesses and the country needs to ensure we can compete across the world and adult education is a vital part of this.

“Our priority is always to act in the best interests of learners and that is why we have confirmed additional funds to support providers in delivering quality adult education across the country.”

Education is a market. But who’s buying and who’s selling?

We do not provide our young people with enough information – especially not in terms of money – on their pathways through further and higher education, says David Allison

I was interviewed this week by an up-and-coming intern who wanted some thoughts on the way young people enter the workplace. Sarah had just graduated from university and was more than aware of the challenges, but she wanted another perspective and had contacted me via LinkedIn on her own initiative. Clearly an intelligent and proactive individual, it was a really interesting conversation that got me thinking about the many thousands of other young people in her position, and those that will follow in her footsteps in the next few years.

We covered a range of topics in our discussion, from the way in which the jobs market works to the educational choices that are made at an early age and set you on a seemingly fixed course. In every case, when we tried to explore the really simple question of why, it kept coming back to funding. Why do I have to pay for a degree if it’s full-time, but get paid for doing a degree apprenticeship? Why do I get different levels of support if I choose full-time or degree apprenticeships? Why do some institutions offer incentives to students to sign up with them? Why is a university happy for me to take a year out, but an apprenticeship provider concerned?

The commodity appears to be the learner

What this discussion really crystallised in my mind was the way in which education is operating as a market at the moment. But it has become an increasingly complex and opaque market where buyer and seller don’t have equal knowledge of what’s on offer. In fact, in many cases it’s not actually clear who is doing the buying, and who is doing the selling. In the world of HE (and full-time FE), the institutions appear to be doing the selling, and young people are doing the buying, normally funded by significant debt. In reality, the majority of this student debt may not be repaid, and is simply a proxy for direct state grants.

In the world of apprenticeships, the learner doesn’t pay, however their enrolment on a programme allows a provider to be paid, or an employer to access public cash.

In either case, the commodity appears to be the learner. Their presence on a programme unlocks the money, and so they have become the target of significant marketing spend, and as we know from other markets, when cash inducements are made to the buyers, it’s a signal that the market isn’t working transparently or effectively.

Recent headlines about apprenticeship contracts, school funding, and the AEB highlight some of the issues the education sector faces and it’s obvious that there will be tension between the amount of money on offer, and the amount the education system would like to spend.

The current approach appears to have introduced an extra layer, where different funding models operated by different agencies or departments are creating significant distortions. At the end of the day, this complex and ambiguous system will not deliver a sustainable education system that meets the need of young people or industry.

When Sarah told me that after four years at university she now owes over £45,000, I asked her whether she was aware when she started that her debt would be so high, and whether it offered value for money. The line went very quiet.

That’s not to say that HE is not a good choice. Full-time university is an excellent proposition for many young people doing the right course for the right reason. When, however, you hear of universities offering cash incentives thinly disguised as “scholarships” for young people to join we should all be concerned.

Other sectors have recently been held to account by regulators or the courts for a lack of clarity when selling products or services (PPI anyone!?). I’d hate to think that education fell into the same trap.

David is the co-founder and CEO of GetMyFirstJob.co.uk and theTalentPortal.co.uk, a social enterprise that works with employers and training providers to help recruit young talent

Editor asks: Can mega colleges ever be too big to fail?

With colleges across the country pressured into mega-mergers and the government dishing out special treatment to the ailing FE goliath Learndirect, FE Week editor Nick Linford asks Ofsted’s chief inspector Amanda Spielman about whether a provider can ever be too big to fail.

The trend towards huge merged colleges is creating a whole new set of problems for those who have to oversee them.

Key among them is whether such giants, the constituent parts of which are often miles apart and offer a massive variety of provision, should be considered too big to fail, like banks during the financial crisis.

Would the knock-on effects for learners, employees, and subcontractors be too damaging to allow failure?

Ofsted’s boss does not think so; she believes the market needs to be reformed to allow the rest of the sector to “absorb” the aftershocks of a big failure.

“For a properly functioning market that provides security, you need to make sure that there’s capacity to absorb the failure of any one provider,” said Amanda Spielman. “It’s about making sure that you’ve got capacity to absorb failure.”

Mergers of two, three, four and five colleges would not become a problem for Ofsted, she says, if they are treated like multinational corporations.

“For the very big entities, there’s an analogy with audits in other sectors,” she says. “Multinationals are huge companies which get audited, and at the end of the day you look at the main operating units.

“They’re all audited individually, and consolidation is the kind of model that will have to be thought about with some of these very large emerging groups.”

When asked about funding for Ofsted, to cope with added inspection responsibilities, she concedes that the inspectorate is doing a lot more with a lot less.

“The spending review settlement means I think we have about 30 per cent less resource than we had in 2010,” she admits. “We’ve had to develop different models, different ways of risk assessing and looking forward.”

She adds that inspection “isn’t just a thing”, but has a purpose.

You therefore have to design systems “according to what purpose you’re expecting inspection to serve, what kind of risks it’s helping to manage”, she says.

But the systems aren’t fit for purpose right now, especially when applied for example to mega-colleges, right?

“They’re evolving,” she replies. “I believe they are fit for purpose.”

“The topic of campus inspection has already been floated,” she adds, discussing an idea that came up six months ago with Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills, Paul Joyce.

He said plans for “campus level” inspections, which would involve different reports for separate local college campuses that exist within a large merger, were under “active” consideration with the Department for Education.

Back in March, Ms Spielman herself discussed the evolving challenges with inspecting increasingly large college groups. So how can the inspectorate possibly be expected to give them an overall judgement?

“The most useful way of reporting on a large, diversified, multi-site college is not necessarily the same as a smaller one,” she admits.

 


Merged goliaths spreading across the capital city

In a damning opinion piece, education expert Professor Frank Coffield has claimed in no uncertain terms that Ofsted’s inspection methods for large, merged colleges are “unjust”. But how many of these mega-mergers are there? FE Week takes a look at the capital, where the super-size trend has taken hold with a vengeance.

Even before the London area reviews ended last November, the capital’s colleges had already begun to consolidate, and the process is only getting faster now the reviews are over.

The biggest is the Capital City College Group, formed in August 2016 when City and Islington College merged with Westminster Kingsway College.

City and Islington College earned £44 million in 2015/16, according to Education and Skills Funding Agency accounts, while Westminster Kingsway brought in £36.5 million – giving the new 27,000-learner group a combined income of £80.5 million.

If plans for the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London to join it go ahead in November, the new entity would enjoy a further £29.9 million added to its bottom line, based on 2015/16 figures – for a very healthy total of £110.4 million.

Another central London mega-college formed at the same time, this time when Hackney Community College joined Tower Hamlets College, creating New City College.

It welcomed a third member, Redbridge College, in April, adding a further 3,000 learners and bringing the total to around 15,000.

A fourth college, Waltham Forest, has begun working collaboratively with the group, although it has no plans at this stage to formally join.

Hackney’s 2015/16 income stood at £24.6 million, with Tower Hamlets bringing in £19.1 million and Redbridge £14 million – giving the group a combined turnover of £57.8 million.

Carshalton College, Kingston College and South Thames College meanwhile merged this August, forming South Thames Colleges Group, which has 22,500 learners.

Based on 2015/16 figures, the new group has a combined turnover of £73.9 million: £33.9 million from South Thames, £27.3 million from Kingston, and £12.6 million from Carshalton.

The smallest of the capital’s mega-mergers is made up of three colleges from south of the river, Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich, which merged in August 2016 to form London South East Colleges.

The group may only have a mere 13,000 learners, but it still brought in nearly £50 million in 2015/16.

Another giant college is on the horizon, at least if controversial plans for Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, which has a £42.9 million turnover, to merge with £9.2 million Kensington and Chelsea College go ahead.

 

 

DfE to announce solution to AEB tender chaos later today

UPDATE: An hour after publishing this article the ESFA sent out electronic letters confirming the additional AEB funding (click here for details)

————————————————————————————————————

The ESFA has begun telling private providers that they will receive a resolution to the adult education budget tendering chaos later this afternoon, FE Week can reveal.

This announcement is unlikely to be made public today, and will instead be shared with relevant parties via the DfE’s sourcing team eTendering portal.

The AEB procurement has been a particularly hot potato ever since providers were informed of its outcome on August 4, when many lost out unexpectedly on huge sums.

Some providers who won contracts have had their funding cut dramatically compared to previous years, but the government appeared to give special treatment to protect various Learndirect Ltd contracts across Whitehall, including the Life in the UK Test it administers for the Home Office.

The nation’s biggest FE provider was awarded a grade four from Ofsted – something that usually prompts the ESFA to apply an “early termination of funding agreement.”

However, as first reported by FE Week and subsequently confirmed by the skills minister Anne Milton, Learndirect Ltd was instead handed funding allocations from August 2017 to July 2018 worth £45 million after it benefited from a tender rule change at the eleventh hour.

Learndirect Ltd had applied for funds during the procurement and prior to the Ofsted inspection, but the DfE confirmed it later withdrew its bid.

The DfE repeatedly declined to comment on when Learndirect Ltd withdrew its tender, along with failing to explain why the tender rules were changed for those that did not bid.

The rule change was to the maximum 2017/18 contract value, which went from £589,148 (see image) to being 75 per cent of the allocation for 2016/17.

The ESFA original tender policy – that has now been scrapped

Good news perhaps for those that did not bid or withdrew, but many providers, such as Somerset Skills & Learning, who did apply were handed dramatic cuts. In this case, located in an area of low priority, SSL’s funding fell from £3.4 million to just over £111,000.

In fact, had it chosen not to bid, it would have been awarded over £2 million, based on 75 per cent of the previous year’s contract.

The Financial Times characterised this as “a topsy-turvy world where losers end up winners, and where ‘winners’ end up on the brink of insolvency”.

FE Week understands that following a challenge from affected providers, the ESFA has been seeking legal advice under the cover of Regulation 72 within the Public Contracts Regulation 2015. This states that under certain conditions “contracts and framework agreements may be modified without a new procurement procedure”.

However, with political pressure from Conservative MPs mounting over the case of Somerset Skills & Learning, a U-turn of some sort is inevitable.

The ESFA could award additional funding through in-year growth bids, but alone this is unlikely to be sufficient as the process will take too long for some providers already on the verge of issuing redundancy notices.

And given the news that more than £200 million of the AEB has been underspent in 2016/17 , the most likely scenario is that additional funding has been found for successful bidders like Somerset Skills & Learning.

FE Week understands that the SSL issue in particular needed resolving ahead of the Conservative Party conference next week, and everyone will benefit to avoid any legal challenges over potential claims of special treatment.

First4Skills: what happened after its disastrous collapse?

The apprenticeships giant First4Skills went bust in March after its skills funding was pulled due to an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted rating. Around 200 staff lost their jobs, while around 3,700 learners were affected, and 14 subcontractors found themselves without a prime. Jude Burke looks into what has happened since.

Six months after First4Skills’ collapse, 97 per cent of its erstwhile learners have been found new training providers.

But the future is less rosy for more than 50 learners being trained through one of its 14 former subcontractors, Lionheart in the Community, after its contract was moved to another provider that has since gone bust in shady circumstances: Talent Training.

Talent was disgraced in June after an FE Week exposé found it offering banned inducement payments to an employer.

Its skills funding was pulled and it went into administration in early September.

London-based LITC has now complained of being left “in limbo”, and having to endure a “nightmare situation” of not being paid since January [see below].

A Department for Education spokesperson said only one subcontract had been transferred to Talent, and claimed that the number of learners who had been on First4Skills’ books in Liverpool when it went bust was much lower than had been reported, at just 3,700.

Of those, “3,550 apprentices were moved over to other providers”, they said.

The remainder didn’t transfer for a variety of reasons, including some who didn’t want to continue with their studies.

“When providers are issued with a closure notice, we make sure to work with the provider and employers to put safeguards in place and ensure no apprentices lose out as a result of the contract ending,” he added.

It is not clear how long it took for the apprentices identified by DfE to be switched.

A former First4Skills employee claims apprentices were still waiting to be transferred up to three months after the provider folded, although FE Week has been unable to verify this [see below].

It’s also not clear if the number of learners transferred included adult learners as well as apprentices.

The provider had a 2016/17 apprenticeships allocation of £15 million, and an adult education budget allocation of £383,000.

The administrator brought in to wind it down revealed in April that the firm had £705,150 in the bank at the time of its demise.

A final contract payment of £670,000 had been due from the SFA by the end of March, but hadn’t been paid by April.

The delay was attributed to the SFA’s review of apprenticeship grants to employers paid by First4Skills.

But when FE Week asked the agency about this delay in August, we were told that “the ESFA considers this matter resolved”; this is corroborated by the administrator’s second report in July, which shows a payment from the agency of £591,778.

An intercompany debt of £81,167 also appeared in the April report, owed to the firm by its majority shareholder, City of Liverpool College, along with £412 owed by Shared Educational Services Limited, a subsidiary of the college.

However, by July, “further investigation of the transactions” between First4Skills and SESL meant the arrears had ballooned to £74,354.

FE Week asked City of Liverpool why this debt had grown so much, but it declined to comment.

In total, the amount realised by the administrators – including cash in the bank, money owed by the SFA, intercompany debt and other asset realisations – stood at £1,544,195.

But related costs amounted to £390,594 – including a cool £251,822 in administrator’s fees.

A spokesperson for the administrator, RSM Restructuring Advisory, said its remuneration was drawn from “asset realisation in accordance with approval obtained from creditors”.

She claimed the firm was working to “agree creditors’ claims”, but that none had yet been paid.

First4Skills’ creditors – of which there are 329, according to the April report – will “receive dividends” although the amounts still have to be confirmed, she added.

The April report estimated that £155,644 was owed to preferential creditors, relating to “employees’ arrears of wages and holiday pay”, and indicated they would be paid everything owed.

The former First4Skills employee, who did not want to be named, told FE Week that he and others had been paid statutory wage and redundancy claims.

FE Week contacted all 14 subcontractors, which were owed a combined total of £558,983 in April, to find out how they’d been affected by the collapse.

Of those willing to comment, all bar one said they were still waiting to hear how much money – if any – they would get back.

However, one told FE Week that – contrary to what the administrators told us – they had been paid.

A spokesperson for the Challenge Network, which held a subcontract worth £1,239,057, said it had “worked closely with the administrator to claim funds owed to us”.

The majority of subcontractors that spoke to FE Week told us they’d been able to transfer all their learners to new primes, with no break in their studies.

 

____________________________________________________________

“Nightmare” when Talent Training collapsed

Lionheart in the Community, based in London, delivers apprenticeships in business administration, customer service, health and social care, children and young people’s workforce, hospitality and retail, and had a subcontract value of £190,440.

A “nightmare” situation got worse after still it transferred its subcontract to the now-disgraced Talent Training.

Like many people in the sector, Alice Piller-Roner, its head of work-based learning, first heard about First4Skills’ collapse when FE Week broke the news that Friday.

But it was the following week before she received any official notification from the Skills Funding Agency, even though LITC had been subcontracted for First4Skills for two and a half years.

“That’s when the whole drama started,” Ms Piller-Roner said, as they were given just 48 hours to find an alternative prime for the 98 apprentices on programme at the time.

“The whole issue started on the Friday, and they gave us until Thursday on the following week – but we did it,” she said.

However, the contact name and number LITC had been given at the SFA suddenly became unavailable – “as in the phone number was no longer valid as of the following Monday” – so she had no idea if their proposal had been accepted.

After a period of calling and emailing the agency, LITC was able to get “initial approval” in April for a new prime – Talent – to take on board its learners.

But, she said, an official phone call to Talent to confirm the arrangement “never arrived”.

In the meantime, one of LITC’s employers got in touch with the SFA directly and was told “it had all been sorted and that now our centre was delivering under the umbrella of Talent”.

“That completely destroyed our relationship with employers. It makes us look like idiots,” she said.

It took intervention from the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, and LITC’s own contacts at the SFA via its loans contracts, before it finally got confirmation that it could transfer its learners to Talent in July.

But now LITC is “back in limbo” because Talent went into administration itself earlier this month.

While all of this has been going on, LITC hasn’t received any funding – in fact, Ms Piller-Roner said the last payment it received was in January.

The situation was “extremely difficult for the business”, and management were “only getting paid half our salaries”.

“We didn’t feel like we could or should abandon our learners because of our mission as an organisation,” she said.

While LITC’s apprenticeships delivery has taken a hit, Ms Piller-Roner said that, despite everything, she remained confident that “we will definitely manage to get through this”.

____________________________________________________________

Smooth apprentice transfer to JGW Training

JGW Training, based in Derbyshire, delivers primarily digital marketing and management training with some business administration, with a subcontract value of £950,157.

Less than 24 hours after FE Week broke the news of First4Skills’ demise, Chris Ash, JGW’s director, was already in communication with the SFA.

“I was having email communication with them over the weekend, which they were responding to instantly,” he said.

In fact, Mr Ash had nothing but praise for the support he received from the SFA “right from provider-manager upwards”, all focused on “trying to get things resolved as quickly as possible”.

JGW Training had around 200 apprentices on programme funded through First4Skills at the time it collapsed.

He was able to transfer around half of those learners to its own direct contract, but had to find a new provider for the other half.

With the help of the SFA, Mr Ash was able to organise a new prime for the remaining apprentices “within a week” – although the process of transferring the contract took longer.

But “not one learner suffered as a result of the process”, Mr Ash insisted.

“Every single one of our learners that was funded through First4SKills continued to be supported in exactly the same way as they had been before the administration process,” he said.

The First4Skills subcontract had been worth around “50 per cent of our monthly income”, so its loss did have an impact.

The four months when they “had a gap in revenue” were “painful”, Mr Ash said – although they didn’t have to make any redundancies as they were “able to essentially plug the gap financially ourselves”.

Perhaps surprisingly, he described the First4Skills fallout as a “positive experience” – due to the outpouring of support he received.

“That was brilliant,” he said. “Because when you know you’ve got that level of support from your own employers and learners – it’s fantastic.”

____________________________________________________________

Three-month wait for learners

Many of First4Skills’ learners may have gone as long as three months without being trained, a former member of staff has informed FE Week.

The ex-employee, who asked not to be named, said “there were some I know that weren’t trained for about three months” after First4Skills went bust in March.

The company’s demise had come as a “shock” even to those who worked there, they said.

Staff were told of the company’s fate on the Friday via letter, after being sent home from work earlier in the week, he said.

They and other staff members had received wages and redundancy payments they were owed – but were told they wouldn’t be getting any unpaid expenses.

“I was owed something like £500, and got nothing,” he said.

The whole situation had left them feeling “very disappointed, very bitter, and shocked”.

 

The questions-without-answers pile up

Since June, when Anne Milton took on the brief of skills minister, we’ve had all our interview requests either ignored or rejected and questions not fully addressed or answered.

In August a series of significant policies descended into chaos, from the special treatment given to Learndirect to the unfairness of the AEB tender. The minister was nowhere to been or heard.

The Financial Times described the AEB tender outcome as creating a “topsy-turvy world where losers end up winners, and where ‘winners’ end up on the brink of insolvency.”

And the chair of the Public Accounts Committee has asked the National Audit Office to investigate the handling of the Learndirect saga.

At a time of major uncertainty and scandal the FE sector needs visible and open leadership.

So if you happen to bump into the minister at the Conservative Party conference or elsewhere, we have 10 questions you might want to ask her on our behalf – I hope you have more luck than me!

  1. Before it was allocated a further £45m for Adult Education Budget funding, when did Learndirect Ltd withdraw its tender and why?

 

  1. Did the ESFA advise Learndirect Ltd to withdraw its AEB tender in order to allocate it the £45m outside the procurement process?

 

  1. Why does the DfE refer to the Learndirect Ltd AEB contract as being gradually wound down, when it is permitted to use the additional £45 million to recruit new learners?

 

  1. Why does the DfE say Learndirect Ltd contracts “will be terminated at the end of July 2018” when there is no Notice of Early Termination nor contract termination of any kind?

 

  1. How come the DfE says it is protecting the Learndirect Ltd Life in the UK contract, but the Home Office claims always to have “detailed contingency plans which cover a number of possible scenarios, including where a supplier ceases trading”?

 

  1. How can it be consistent for the DfE to say it is “entirely wrong” to suggest Learndirect Ltd has been given special treatment but it still wants to protect the Life in the UK contract with the Home Office?

 

  1. When and why did the ESFA change the AEB procurement rules for failed and non-bidding providers, such that the maximum allocation went from £589,148 to 75 percent of the 2016/17 allocation (£45 million for Learndirect)?

 

  1. The Somerset Skills & Learning AEB tender was successful, but its allocation has fallen from £3.4 million to £111,000. After at least two meetings with four concerned MPs representing constituents in Somerset, has the ESFA subsequently applied any special treatment? 

 

  1. Why are local authorities and colleges excluded from the AEB tendering process and allowed to keep up to three percent of funding for courses they have not delivered?

 

  1. Why does the AEB consistently underperform and what will happen to the unspent millions?