The Department for Education is on the hunt for £600-a-day consultants to advise on the “suitability of proposed assessment plans” – despite that being the Institute for Apprenticeships’ role.

And with the IfA and Ofqual also seeking experts for similar roles, the situation has been branded a “waste of public money” and a “recipe for failure” by a senior sector figure.

Adverts for up to 10 independent technical education advisers to work on apprenticeships, along with qualification reviews and T-level content development, were posted by the DfE yesterday (August 2).

Applicants for the roles – which come with a pay package equivalent to £130,000 annual salary – “need to have a strong knowledge of technical and applied education, including qualification content and assessment design, development, approval and delivery”.

Apprenticeships advisers will be expected to “consider the suitability of proposed assessment plans, and provide relevant advice to the IfA”, while qualifications review advisers will “make evidence-based recommendations as to whether individual qualifications meet the requirements for inclusion in performance tables”.

T-level advisers will “develop outline content for qualifications, beginning with core content for each route”, work with route panels “to agree the content” and “work with DfE officials and with other DfE-appointed experts to produce full criteria for these qualifications, including assessment arrangements”.

But the IfA is also on the look-out for up to 80 paid experts to provide feedback on “whether the learner would reach full occupational competence by completing the apprenticeship standard” and “whether an end-point assessment validly determines occupational competence”.

And Ofqual posted adverts at the end of June for “experts who have proven and up-to-date expertise” in 19 subject areas, to evaluate assessments and scrutinise new qualifications.

A senior figure from the vocational assessment sector, who wished to remain anonymous, told FE Week that there had already been concern that “the creation of a new regulator for apprenticeship assessment would lead to duplication and confusion”.

“With the DfE, IfA and Ofqual now all advertising for assessment consultants our fears are being realised,” they said.

“It’s ludicrous – and beyond the waste of public money on consultants it’s a recipe for failure.”

The latest adverts come just over a month after the IfA started searching for 150 industry experts to join its 15 “prestigious employer-led groups” to advice on the development of apprenticeship standards.

The names of the 15 people who will lead these panels were announced in April.

The June adverts worried some in the sector over a lack of “joined up decisions”, as it emerged that these 15 panels would be separate from those being set up by the Department for Education to advise on T-levels – even though the routes are the same.

FE Week later learned that nobody had yet been appointed to the DfE’s panels – despite the roles being advertised in January.

The government’s decision on the phasing out of the next wave of apprenticeship frameworks has again be postponed, this time until the autumn.

An update on the removal of apprenticeship frameworks was released today by the Department for Education which revealed the outcome of its long-awaited phasing out consultation would be delayed further.

It was originally meant to be published in May this year, but officials said today, given that “we are in a period of considerable change for the sector”, that to “maximise stability” the department has “now postponed the next wave of frameworks to be withdrawn until the autumn”.

The next wave to be phased out is “batch four” which includes frameworks in customer service management and business professional administration and were meant to be out by April 2018.

But today’s announcement said: “We will delay the original proposed withdrawal dates from April 2018 to a later date that will account for the postponement of the announcement, and will ensure we give a sufficient notice period to the sector.”

Association of Employment and Learning Providers boss Mark Dawe said he welcomed the news.

“AELP has been calling for a pause on the whole standards process, especially when there aren’t proper assessment arrangements in place for many standards to be rolled out in the right manner.  Therefore it’s entirely consistent to keep certain frameworks running until employers and the sector have confidence in their replacements.”

The government intends to phase all frameworks out, replacing them where appropriate with the new graded standards, by 2020 – three years later than the original planned phasing out date of 2017.

As of today there are 592 apprenticeship framework pathways still available and only 177 apprenticeship standards approved for delivery.

Today’s announcement is the latest in a series of delays that Anne Milton (pictured above), the apprenticeships and skills minister, has put into action since coming into post in June.

Last week FE Week revealed that training providers had been told they will learn the results of their long delayed adult education budget bids in August, even though the Education and Skills Funding Agency claimed the announcement would be made “at the end of July”.

And earlier in July Ms Milton also announced that the non-levy funding tender would be rerun and the teaching of the first T-levels would be delayed by a year from 2019 to September 2020.

UPDATE: FE Week asked the DfE if it was still committed to phasing out all frameworks by 2020, to which the department said: “We remain committed to all starts being on standards by 2020.”

The Department for Education has refused to tell FE Week how many apprenticeship starts there were in April – even though the data is part of its official statistics.

Figures published in early July showed 165,600 starts in the three months from February to April – up 52,700 from the same period last year.

We wanted to know if most of this growth took place in April – the month before the levy reforms kicked in – so we lodged a Freedom of Information request with the department asking for these starts broken down by month.

But our request was turned down.

The response we received cited an FOI rule that “provides for information to be exempt from disclosure where the information is held by the department with a view to its publication by the department or any other person at some future date”.

It went on to say that the DfE was “undergoing a review of the further education and skills statistical first release” which it said would include consulting on “publishing monthly data on apprenticeship starts”.

But until then “it is not reasonable for the government to be expected to release piecemeal information in advance of its planned timetable”, we were told.

Changes to apprenticeship funding rules from May mean that employers who are not subject to the levy –  in other words, the majority of employers – now have to make a mandatory cash contribution towards the cost of training.

As a result, FE Week understands that many employers and providers rushed to start apprentices before the end of April while the old rules – which didn’t involve employer contributions – were still in place.

We reported in June that members of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers had indicated that starts in May had plummeted to just a quarter of what they had been before the reforms kicked in.

At the time AELP boss Mark Dawe attributed the drop to a “number of pressures” including firms in some sectors “saying they are not going to contribute to 10 per cent employer funding”.

But he struck a more positive note when asked about the DfE’s refusal to reveal April starts.

“The picture we are getting from providers who asked for growth seems to be pretty positive, which should help to alleviate some of the concerns about the overall number of starts for the rest of this year,” he said.

A request to scrap the “controversial” £200,000 threshold in the new non-levy procurement process is going to be put forward by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

Mark Dawe, the association’s chief executive, described the minimum contract value for the tender, which was launched by the Education and Skills Funding Agency last week, as a “pro rata risk” during a webinar with members today.

Under the rule, the ESFA has said that in all cases, the lowest contract value that will be awarded for the “initial contact period” is £200,000.

The agency will “not make an award to the potential provider” if this amount is not met. The agency said the rule has been introduced so that providers can “have greater confidence that bids and subsequent awards are set at a realistic level”.

But small providers are fearing they will not be able to meet the threshold and as such, Mr Dawe is calling for it to be scrapped.

“This is going to be our main area where we need to continue the conversation with the ESFA to ask is this really right,” he said.

“There are different ways of looking at this. We are going to put forward a number of scenarios and options and one of them is to scrap the threshold.”

The AELP boss said that if the ESFA does not agree to bin the threshold, he will suggest halving it to £100,000, the same as what it is for the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

He added that another alternative “might be to allow people to come in and bid as consortium and put their smaller amounts together” or to “allow small providers to find a prime and allow their allocation to be added to the prime”.

Mr Dawe said the “most unfair” part of this proposal will be if there is a provider that is able to bid over £200,000 but “for whatever reason the agency pro rata’s that bid down because of too many bids or whatever and then the amount allocated then drops below £200,000”.

“As things stand that would then exclude the provider even though they are capable of delivering more than £200,000. We will be working on this with the agency.”

Also in today’s webinar, Mr Dawe revealed it is looking very likely that new subcontracting rules, which mean lead providers need to “directly deliver” at least some of the training or assessment of each apprenticeship programme, will start for non-levy provision in January 2018.

The rule states that “the volume of training and/or on-programme assessment that you directly deliver for each employer must have some substance and must not be a token amount to satisfy this rule” – and the government stresses that this must “not be a token amount”.

It was meant to come into play in May this year but as revealed by FE Week in April, the ESFA said it would apply the old subcontracting rules to the delivery of new starts to non-levy-paying employers until the end of December to “maintain stability through the transitional period” following the pause of the first tender.

Mr Dawe said today he has “been pushing” for the existing subcontracting rules to continue until all employers are put onto the digital apprenticeships system in April 2019, but “at the moment we are finding very strong resistance to that so I wouldn’t rely on that happening”.

“It would mean that the new subcontracting rules would be coming in from January 1 unless there is a change of heart there.

“These details of subcontracting are going to be a vital part of the process going forward.”

The potential funding rates for health and social care apprenticeship frameworks, among many others, have been increased by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

The agency announced today that a total of 29 funding bands for framework pathways had been “revised” to ensure providers can “deliver quality training and employers are getting value for money”.

Twenty six of these have seen an increase in funding, but three have experienced a decrease.

Health and social care had been a particular framework that people in the FE sector had felt was being under funded. Its band has now been increased from £1,500 to £2,000.

It is one of 26 bands which will increase with the new funding being applied for new starts from August 1 this year.

Other frameworks included in these 26 are vehicle maintenance and repair, exercise and fitness, equine and public relations (full list below).

The three frameworks to experience a decrease in funding will have their new bands applied for new starts from October 1 and include providing financial services and engineering manufacture.

The government still intends to phase all frameworks out, replacing them where appropriate with the new graded standards, by 2020.

 

The government has told providers who deliver apprenticeship provision for non-levy-paying employers that they must not speak directly with the media about their delivery until officials approve the communication.

Following the launch of the non-levy procurement last Friday, the Education and Skills Funding Agency sent providers a terms and conditions document for contracts.

Included was a clause, described by Association of Employment and Learning Providers boss Mark Dawe (pictured above) as “nonsensical”, which suggests they must not pass any information to the media about their apprenticeship delivery until it is signed by all parties involved in the contract, including the agency.

“The text of any press release or other communication to be published by or in the media concerning the subject matter of this contract shall require the approval of each party which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed,” the document says.

It suggests that if a non-levy provider wants to inform the press of any mishandling with regards to their apprenticeships contract, for example, they must now have the information approved by ESFA officials before sending it to a journalist.

“If the agency has admitted a provider on to the register and awarded it a contract, those hurdles in themselves should be enough for the agency to trust providers to get on with their own PR,” Mr Dawe told FE Week.

The AELP boss addressed the clause in a webinar he was giving to AELP members this morning about the new non-levy procurement where he said providers would “fall foul” of the clause if they “sent out a case study to your local paper about an apprentice that is funded by this contract”.

“Clearly the ESFA do not have the capacity to sign off hundreds and hundreds of press releases every day and also I don’t think it is what they meant,” he said.

“We can envisage huge bottlenecks forming at busy times of the year such as National Apprenticeship Week and we do think it is a disproportionate requirement.

“We are going to get some clarity on that but it is a slightly nonsensical clause so be aware of it.”

A Department for Education spokesperson denied its clause was designed to “block providers speaking to the media or communicating their work in any way”.

“This is simply to make sure that communications are agreed by both parties involved – something which is not new to ESFA contracts and is common in contacts such as this,” she said.

“We work closely with providers to support their work and promote the benefits their training brings to people across the country.”

Funding for students that drop-out in the second year of their two year course will be doubled, under a temporary change the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association is claiming to have secured with the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

Under current funding rules, if a student fails to finish their course (regardless of whether they achieve the qualification) the funding is halved via a ‘retention factor’. 

This means, typically, the longer the course the more likely a student drop-out before the end and therefore the lower the funding.

A-Level courses are doubling from one to two years, so pressure is on the ESFA to address the inevitable funding drop a fall in retention would create.

In correspondence from the ESFA to the SFCA, seen by FE Week, they confirmed both academic and vocational students dropping out in the second year of a two year course would now be treated as retained, and therefore fully-funded in the allocations for 2018/19. The impact per student would be more than £2,000 of additional funding (half the unweighted funding rate for a full time 16 or 17 year-old).

The ESFA said: “On the issue of the impact of two-year linear A-levels on the retention rates, we have looked carefully at this issue in light of comments from the SFCA and other associations and following a number of queries from individual institutions. 

“We have concluded that it would be right to amend the retention calculation so that we do not penalise institutions as the new qualifications are introduced.

“To achieve this, all students recorded on a two-year academic or vocational programme will be treated as retained in their first year if they have completed that year. 

“This adjustment will apply to 2018/19 funding allocations and will continue until further notice.

“To establish whether the student on the first year of a two-year programme has completed the year we will review whether the student was still in learning on 30 June. 

“Students recorded on a two-year programme who withdraw before that date will continue to be treated as not retained and a 50 percent funding reduction will apply.  

“We do not however expect the above to be a permanent arrangement. 

“We are concerned about high drop-out rates between year 1 and year 2 for two-year programmes and want to ensure that students are getting good advice before choosing courses, and effective support during their programmes.

We are therefore reviewing how retention should be treated in all institutions, particularly into students’ second year and we are investigating potential funding levers in this respect.  We would welcome your contribution, and those of other representative organisations, to help develop our thinking on this.

“I will be in touch with you in due course to discuss this further. In the mean time we will indicate for institutions, purely for information, what the retention penalty would have been if we had not made this adjustment to the rules.

“This will demonstrate to institutions where they do have a significant number of students drop out after the first year of a two-year programme.”

In response the SFCA said: “This is a very welcome and sensible response from the ESFA.  The 16-19 funding formula was designed at a time when one year courses were the norm.

“We have been saying for some time that as two year courses become the norm, it is important that the retention element of the funding formula adapts to reflect this.

“Without this change, colleges and schools would have been hit by a retention ‘stealth cut’ on top of the existing funding pressures they are grappling with. This is the right decision by the ESFA and they should be commended for taking it.”

However, the ESFA statement leaves several important questions unanswered, such as:

1. Will this change be applied to all two year academic and vocational enrollments and not just at level 3? Or, is the ESFA planning on a very restricted number of eligible vocational qualifications at Level 3 that are on the DfE performance tables?

2. Will this change only apply to full time students (those on 540 or more planned hours each of the two academic years)?

3. What, if any, impact will this have on the qualification achievement rates calculation?

4. Has the ESFA modeled the likely funding impact for every provider, and will they be sharing this ahead of the allocations?

We have put these questions to the ESFA and intend to publish them once supplied.

The first wave of adult education budget devolution deals are likely to be delayed beyond the planned 2018-19 delivery date because the timetable no longer seems viable for the government, an FE Week investigation has found.

Over the past two years, seven combined authorities have agreed devolution deals with the Treasury, which include powers to deliver the AEB, and have elected metro mayors ahead of its scheduled introduction in September next year.

But five of the seven have told FE Week that while they want to deliver on time, they are not confident that the timescale is realistic at the government’s end, given the disruption of various local elections, the EU referendum and the unexpected general election over the past few years.

The Department for Education has meanwhile also refused to commit to its own timetable for delivery.

“While we are taking every possible step within our gift to hit the 2018-19 timetable, meeting it is going to be a significant challenge; a challenge made all the more complex by the unsettled political landscape of the last 12 months,” said Sean Anstee, Greater Manchester combined authority’s lead for skills, employment and apprenticeships, who first signed a devolution deal in November 2014.

Meeting it is going to be a significant challenge

He said that to successfully transfer powers, both central government and Greater Manchester “must be ready and primed for the move”.

To this end, the authority has invited the DfE to confirm whether the timeframe is still viable – but it has had no response.

The four other combined authorities that share these concerns include the West of England, Sheffield City Region, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and Liverpool City Region.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority, which signed its deal in March this year, explained that its next steps for AEB devolution include agreement from central government on the statutory orders that were to be laid in parliament – but these orders have been delayed as a result of the general election.

The authority does not currently know when this will happen, and the delay means it does not yet have final details on the criteria for the allocation of AEB funds and the total sum to be devolved.

Sheffield City Region meanwhile agreed a devolution deal in October 2015. A spokesperson said its approach is “simple and pragmatic” and that it will do “everything we can to get ready to meet our 2018/19 timeframe”. But he added that “ultimately”, it will be “up to government to decide if the current timetable is still realistic for them”.

Ultimately it will be up to government to decide if the timetable is still realistic for them

The two other combined authorities with AEB devolution deals, the West Midlands and Tees Valley, both told FE Week that they remain confident the 2018 delivery timetable can be achieved.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said it will take a huge national effort to meet the 2018 delivery date.

“It is almost two years since the deals were first announced and their value is undermined both by inflation and also by uncertainty on future European Social Fund arrangements,” he told FE Week.

“Colleges have continued to work with combined authorities and local enterprise partnerships on their plans but it will require a concerted national effort to meet the 2018 timetable.”

FE Week asked the DfE if ministers expect any delay to AEB devolution beyond the planned timescale but a spokesperson would only say that more details on the plans would be available “in due course”.

London is also in the pipeline for an AEB devolution deal.

It will require a concerted national effort to meet the 2018 timetable

Chancellor Philip Hammond announced this in the autumn statement last year and said plans were for AEB devolution to be delivered in 2019-20.

But a spokesperson told FE Week that while the mayor of London’s office was “hopeful” of achieving the planned timescale, it was still subject to central government “increasing their pace in supporting transition arrangements”.

In 2015 former chancellor George Osborne fronted the Cities Devolution Act which paved the way for AEB powers to be devolved to major cities and city regions, saying at the time that this would give them “levers to grow their local economy”.

But there have been numerous concerns about the lack of detailed plan for providers and employers.

In May last year, FE Week reported that the Education and Skills Funding Agency had not decided how the AEB devolution system would work for providers that cross regional boundaries.

We asked the ESFA if it had any new guidance for providers and employers, but were again told that details would be “available in due course”.