A whopping £130 million per year has gone unspent in 16 to 19 funding for each of the past two years.
The budgetary underspend – attributed to low student numbers – was revealed in a parliamentary question, answered by skills minister Anne Milton, from former shadow schools minister Nic Dakin.
Mr Dakin asked how much of the Department for Education’s “budget allocated to 16 to 19-year old education was reallocated to other budgets in the financial years (a) 2014-15, (b) 2015-16 and (c) 2016-17”.
In response Ms Milton said that 16 to 19 budgets were set using “estimates of student numbers”:
“In 2014-15 and 2015-16 student numbers and associated costs were lower than these estimates, which resulted in lower spending than the forecast, by £135m and £132m respectively, representing 2.2% of the budget. This was available for reallocation,” she said.
But Ms Milton stressed that this underspend “did not affect funding per student”.
She was unable to say if there was a similar shortfall in spending for 2016/17 as “final expenditure is not yet available”.
The news has prompted angry responses from the sector.
James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association, said that any underspend was “difficult to defend” in light of “funding cuts and cost increases” in 16 to 19 education that have led to courses being cut, class sizes increasing and support services being reduced.
“This money was intended for sixth form students and it should be spent on the education of sixth form students – every last penny should reach the front line,” he urged.
Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said that Ms Milton’s answer was “the first acknowledgement that there’s a sizeable underspend” in the 16 to 19 budget.
He argued that the unspent cash should have been used to “increase funding rates in line with inflation”.
“Instead colleges have been forced to cut back on courses and restrict teaching hours. The losers have been the current cohort of students,” he said.
Both the AoC and the SFCA, along with the Association of School and College Leaders, will be working to ensure the cash gets redirected back to schools and colleges, Mr Kewin and Mr Gravatt said.
In order to deliver the skilled workers our economy needs, education and industry need to forge closer links, says Paul Kessell-Holland
The rapid pace of change in technical education shows no signs of slowing. There has been an endless succession of commissions, reports, recommendations and plans, with the over-arching theme being ‘we need more engineers/scientists/technicians but where will these people come from?’
New technical workers are a fairly straightforward economic need, but there are a range of challenges inherent in fulfilling it. We clearly require a greater number of skilled staff in a range of industrial and technical disciplines, but this means we need to get more young people interested in following a career in these fields, and to retrain people established in other areas of employment. And this means we need to provide them with a robust, relevant and comprehensive technical education.
Education providers are, in the main, reporting that recruitment to science engineering and technology courses is growing – the lure of well-paid jobs with a career path as well as a resurgence of interest in industry and manufacturing is persuading more young people to train. Unfortunately this is only exacerbating a separate problem – where do the teachers come from?
Professionalising teaching is an important aim
Traditionally many of the teaching staff at colleges have come from industry, and this is one of the great powers of the technical and vocational training sector: it means relevant and up-to-date knowledge in the classroom, and a real understanding of the world of work. However, this steady stream of career changers is not enough to meet demand any longer, and we need to begin to grow wider and deeper recruitment plans if we are to meet demand. The Education and Training Foundation is working with a range of organisations on a number of pilot programmes to see how best to establish a larger pool of technical teaching talent and source new staff.
Crucially, these programmes need to do more than simply supporting the recruitment of individuals. For example, professional engineers are experts in their field; they understand only too well the need to remain up to date in their chosen discipline. Education is no different, and without a strong understanding of educational practice many new entrants to the profession struggle to get across their depth of knowledge in their subject.
Others may have substantial academic and theoretical knowledge but lack the key industrial experience that makes their teaching come alive and feel relevant for learners. This is why in all our teacher recruitment programmes we combine initial teacher training to an appropriate level with a wider experience of industrial updating or work shadowing, to ensure everything in the classroom reflects the world of work wherever possible. By building and maintaining local partnerships with industry the ETF is working to ensure every young person studying technical disciplines does so with teachers who know their subject, and know how to teach it in equal measure.
Professionalising teaching is an important aim. The professional standards for teachers and trainers underpin all our work, providing a common language for education professionals to discuss what they do in the classroom. The Society for Education and Training is a constantly growing professional body which supports this agenda on a whole career basis. Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills provide a real pinnacle achievement for technical teaching staff wanting to demonstrate real professional skill.
Behind all this activity lies a simple equation: the more professional the teaching workforce, the better the teaching. The better the teaching, the better the outcomes for learners. The more success our learners experience, the more will remain in education and the higher their achievements. The economy needs these young people, and the economy needs their teachers to be ready and well equipped for the challenges to come.
Paul Kessell-Holland is head of partnerships at the Education and Training Foundation
Learners stuck with heavy loans debt but no qualifications, after a training provider went bust, are still being forced to make repayments, even though the government promised these would be deferred.
But Lukasz Pacuk, a 34-year-old former carpentry learner with Edudo, has now told FE Week: “I still have a big loan, no certificate, and have lost three years of studying time. Nobody contacted us about stopping the loan payments.”
“These people [the eight other former Edudo learners] are in the same situation and are harmed like me,” he said.
“I’ve had a loss of health, stress, and money is still being taken out of my account.”
FE Week has seen evidence that the nine former learners, all from Poland, are still having loan repayments taken out of their pay packets. They claim to have had no contact from either the government or the Student Loans Company to discuss deferment arrangements.
The nine, who say they were part of a bigger group of around 70 people, explained they took out advance learner loans with Edudo in 2015, amounting to £4,170 each.
They began working towards an NVQ level two in wood occupations-site carpentry, but were later told to go for level three.
Mr Pacuk claimed that Edudo assessors said that as 80 per cent of the group did not speak English, the course would take longer than the original agreed finish date of June 2015.
After completing his NVQ training, Lukasz claimed he was visited by a number of assessors on his building site, with the latest one coming in October 2016, who told him he would receive his certificate in December.
But as revealed by FE Week, Edudo, which was allocated £500,500 in advanced learner loans by the ESFA as of September last year, sold its “assets and business” to Learning Republic Group Ltd in November 2016, before entering voluntary liquidation.
The Department for Education said it was unable to comment on individual cases, but would be seeking to address any issues identified.
Edudo’s former boss Ronan Smith, who didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment this week, is the only director listed on Companies House for Learning Republic Group.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency has previously told FE Week that Learning Republic is not a provider on the register of training organisations, and does not hold a loan agreement with them.
The provider therefore cannot complete training of former government-funded Edudo learners.
FE Week has been demanding that loans debt for learners such as Lukasz should be written off since January, when we revealed how hundreds had been left with debt but no qualifications through the demise of London-based John Frank Training. Similar problems followed when Edudo and Focus Training & Development Ltd went out of business.
FE Week saw a letter in April sent to a number of students affected by provider collapses, which told them that the government would “defer your repayment status for one year”.
The Student Loans Company declined to comment this week on why this has not happened for former Edudo learners.
Prison education has been sidelined for too long and major change is needed now, says Rob Mills
The general election brought us our third justice secretary in under two years. And with Dame Sally Coates’ report into prison education now a year old, the white paper on prison safety and reform not fully implemented, and the government’s commitment to prison reform, which was given prominence in 2016, omitted from the Queen’s speech, the sector has been left high and dry.
Two recent reports have, moreover, branded prisoner resettlement services as next to useless. So what will the new secretary of state do now to a rehabilitate a system that is a billion-pound problem?
Of the 94,700 prisoners in education in 2016, 47 per cent had no formal qualifications. Over 72,000 were assessed for English and maths, with 43 per cent found to be working at or below entry level three in English, and 58 per cent at that level in maths. Of the 75,000 prisoners released that year, 75 per cent moved into unemployment and 46 per cent were reconvicted after 12 months. The total yearly cost of reoffending to the tax payer is some £15 billion.
There is a clear absence of a single point of responsibility and accountability
Spending on prison education totaled some £280 million between 2009-2014, but just £131 million has been earmarked for 2014-2020. Since the money spent so far has not resulted in a substantial decline of reoffending rates, a fundamental change needs to occur in terms of the structure and delivery of education, training, skills and employment services in prisons.
Prisoners enter a system where the landscape of education and employment support is fragmented, and good practice is patchy and inconsistent. The problem with employment support is one of coordination. Over the course of a prisoner’s sentence, multiple agencies and individuals are responsible for helping them find work on release, and there is a clear absence of a single point of responsibility and accountability for this, which creates confusion for both prisoners and service providers.
Community rehabilitation companies, which should engage with prisoners on release to find employment, are failing. In a damning report released last month into the ‘Through the Gate’ resettlement services run by these companies, the HM Inspectorate wrote: “We did not see any cases where Through the Gate services had assisted a prisoner to get employment after release.”
Employment outcomes should be effectively recorded to provide an accurate picture of the value of the programmes being delivered. At present, there is little robust, comprehensive data available that can trace positive outcomes to interventions.
These are what I believe to be some of the most important steps that need taking.
We need a clear ‘employment pathway’, and to eliminate the duplication and fragmentation of employment services. There should be a single point of contact responsible to coordinate prisoners’ journeys upon entry, through education and skills, moving towards rehabilitation.
Employment outcome data should be captured at each opportunity so that the effectiveness of a learner’s programme can be evaluated and where necessary, improvements can be made. Employers should be actively encouraged to support the development of employability skills programmes and to provide training within prisons – thereby encouraging them to employ or at least invite for interview prisoners on release.
The approved list of qualifications funded by SFA also needs to be removed, allowing governors and service providers to determine the qualifications and skills best suited to their prison, linked to local labour market demand.
Employability skills are often too narrowly identified with learning skills, with too much emphasis on CV-writing, literacy and numeracy. True employability skills should encompass the development of confidence, self-belief, resilience and the ability to work with others – skills that are much more valued by employers in helping to secure sustainable careers in an increasingly competitive employment market.
Rob Mills is a leading expert in the Justice sector and an Associate Senior Specialist Education Advisor of the Shropshire Academy & Learning Trust
If we really want to develop our economy, we should focus more on the top echelons, suggests Adrian Anderson
At the recent AELP June conference there was a lot of talk about the value of intermediate apprenticeships and the importance of not equating quality apprenticeships with those at a higher level. But let’s be quite clear: if the purpose of apprenticeships is to raise productivity and enhance social mobility, England’s apprenticeship programme must have a significant focus on higher-level skills provision.
From a productivity standpoint, ask any economist and they will emphasise the UK’s acute need of a highly skilled workforce to compete with our OECD and BRIC competitors. If you have these skills, you’re also likely to earn more. For these reasons, apprenticeships have been positioned as England’s flagship skills programme, but look at the current figures on delivery and it’s clear how much the focus of apprenticeship delivery has to change.
In the 2015/16 academic year there were 509,400 apprenticeship starts. By level, this was 57 per cent at level two, 38 per cent at level three, two per cent at level four, three per cent at level five and just 0.2 per cent at level six. The top five starts by apprenticeship framework were: health and social care (85k), business administration (50k), management (46k), hospitality and catering (32k), and customer service (26K)
Shouldn’t the skills sector embrace rather than resist change?
The apprenticeship reforms and the levy, however, herald a clear and significant shift upwards in apprenticeship levels. Employers have taken a lead through the trailblazer process to develop apprenticeships that are needed by the economy.
NHS trusts, with massive levy bills, have developed degree apprenticeships in nursing. Degree apprenticeships are also being developed by local authorities for social workers and by police forces for officers, occupations vital to the provision of high-quality public services. Surely no one could disagree with a substantial focus and public sector levy spend on degree apprenticeships in nursing, social work and policing?
In the private sector let’s hope our post-Brexit car industry makes extensive use of the manufacturing degree apprenticeship and our lights are kept on by the nuclear industry combatting chronic skills shortages through investment in the nuclear engineering degree apprenticeship. Through investment in the digital solutions higher and degree apprenticeships we’ll have a better chance of overcoming the cyberattacks that have featured in the news in recent months.
And yes, there are some occupations where intermediate apprenticeships should be valued. No one would doubt the case for apprenticeships in butchery, bakery or carpentry, for instance. My point is that the current balance in apprenticeship provision is wrong and there’s been far too much focus on the generic lower-level apprenticeships in questionable job roles. Wasn’t this also a conclusion of the Richard review?
From a social mobility standpoint, the argument is also clear-cut: intermediate apprenticeships do help many young people enter the labour market. But don’t we need clear work-based progression routes to higher level occupations, ideally through higher and degree apprenticeships, for the system to make a major contribution to social mobility? Shouldn’t one of the ambitions of the reforms be an employer-funded debt-free route from apprenticeships to the professions, in which individual learners, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, earn while they learn? And if employers want to shift away from some of the old generic level two frameworks, will not the needs of new learners who would, in the past, have followed such programmes be best met by the new T-levels?
Of course, a change in focus could be difficult for some providers – but change Will happen. The opportunities, however, are substantial: through the levy there’s significantly more funding (40 per cent more!) than in the past for delivery. The government is planning substantial investment in T-levels, which is another opportunity. We’re also seeing both independent training providers and further education colleges developing their presence in the higher and degree apprenticeship market. Shouldn’t the skills sector embrace rather than resist change and be at the forefront of developing the skills needed by the UK economy?
Adrian Anderson is chief executive of the University Vocational Awards Council
The countries with the best apprenticeships in the world have far more training than we do in the UK, explains Tom Richmond
Now that Ofsted expects numeracy to be embedded across the curriculum, let us take this opportunity to practise a little maths ourselves.
Say an apprentice is employed for 35 hours a week, seven hours a day. If they spend one day each week training off the job for a full year, that equates, excluding holidays, to just over 300 hours of training. And because the government is clear that an apprentice must spend a minimum of 20 per cent of their employment on off-the-job training, this means that every apprentice needs to spend well over 300 hours of every year of their apprenticeship engaged in learning away from their job.
The AELP is crying foul, claiming this 20 per cent rule is too crude a method to raise quality and that such a simplistic measure cannot be used to hold providers to account. It also cites a lack of willingness among some employers to release apprentices for this amount of time. On all three counts, the AELP is correct – but its complaints should nonetheless be ignored.
As far back as 2013, the government has insisted that all apprenticeships produced by their ongoing reform programme must involve at least 20 per cent off-the-job training. Leaving aside the absurdity of civil servants taking four years to explain what 20 per cent actually means, last month’s long-awaited guidance was a welcome attempt to steady the ship.
Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands are often cited as the gold standards of apprenticeships. Although each system has unique elements, they share an unwavering commitment to extensive training both on and off the job – with the latter taking up around a quarter to a third of an apprentice’s working week.
This helps to put our paltry expectation of 20 per cent into perspective. Through varying combinations of ‘day release’ and ‘block release’ delivery models, continental apprenticeships promote high expectations and standards alongside more commitment from employers, apprentices and providers.
The overriding problem with the current debate over the 20 per cent rule is that the debate should never have happened in the first place. If ministers and civil servants had been brave enough to reject the dreadful new apprenticeship standards that barely require any training whatsoever (the hospitality team member and delivery driver standards spring to mind, among many others), we would not need to have this discussion.
Contrast the poorest standards with new apprenticeships for automotive engineers, construction surveyors and welders, and you begin to understand why 20 per cent off-the-job training looks unachievable for weak standards while remaining well below what is needed to deliver the more impressive ones.
In short, any respectable apprenticeship will require hundreds of hours of training away from the workplace because it is related to a skilled occupation requiring substantial and substantive training (the government’s words, incidentally, not mine) that easily surpasses the mandated minimum of 20 per cent.
If there are any employers that take issue with their apprentices having to acquire a wider range of knowledge and understanding during their course, or if any providers are unable or unwilling to train their apprentices, then we should politely wave them goodbye and focus instead on employers and providers whose actions demonstrate that they value high-quality provision.
The 20 per cent off-the-job rule is far from perfect, but it must be protected in order to protect apprentices from the worst of what our apprenticeship system has to offer.
Tom Richmond is a sixth-form college tutor and former senior adviser to skills ministers Nick Boles and Matt Hancock
As of May 1 anyone that starts an apprenticeship – whether on a framework or new standard – must now receive at least 20 per cent off-the-job training, according to new Education and Skills Funding Agency rules.
The requirement, which was first announced back in 2013, is one of the government’s core principles for protecting the quality of the apprenticeship programme.
‘Off the job’ is defined as: “Learning which is undertaken outside of the normal day-to-day working environment and leads towards the achievement of an apprenticeship.
“This can include training that is delivered at the apprentice’s normal place of work but must not be delivered as part of their normal working duties.”
Guidance published by the Department for Education in June stipulated that “each apprentice should have a commitment statement that, among other information, outlines the programme of training that the apprentice should receive” and which “should set out how the provider intends to fulfil the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement”.
And the provider must submit evidence that the training is being delivered in order to draw down apprenticeship funding.
But actually working out what counts as ‘off the job’ – or even how much there should be – is far from simple.
The percentage is calculated on the basis of an apprentice’s contracted hours of work, spread over the duration of their apprenticeship.
For example, if someone is on a two-year apprenticeship and has an employment contract for seven hours a day, five days a week, for 46 weeks that adds up to a total of 3,220 contracted hours over the two years.
So the minimum amount of time they should spend in off-the-job training would be 644 hours, or the equivalent of one day per working week.
But this does not have to be undertaken at set times: “It is up to the employer and provider to decide at what point during the apprenticeship the training is best delivered.”
Nor does it have to be delivered in a set format.
For training to count towards the 20 per cent rule, it must teach “new knowledge, skills and/or behaviours that will contribute to the successful achievement of an apprenticeship”.
It must also be “directly relevant to the apprenticeship” and could include teaching of theory, practical training or time spent completing assignments.
Training can be carried out at the apprentice’s normal workstation, as long as they are learning new skills – “it is the activity, rather than the location” that counts.
And some – but not all – off-the-job training can be delivered via distance learning.
No training the apprentice does in their own time counts towards the 20 per cent rule – except in exceptional circumstances, and only if the apprentice is given time off in lieu – nor do performance reviews.
And any English and maths training doesn’t count either – if it’s needed, it must be on top of the 20 per cent.
The 20 per cent rule should be immediately reviewed as a universal requirement, suggests Mark Dawe
AELP totally supports the drive to ensure high quality apprenticeships with proper progress in knowledge, skills and behaviour enabling progression from one level to the next. We just don’t believe that the off-the-job element of the programme should necessarily comprise 20 per cent of working hours across all standards.
The reforms have put employers in the driving seat and the new standards are designed by employers for employers. Levy-payers are now funding the programme as well, so employers should arguably have the biggest say on what they can offer.
Let’s be clear: since the apprenticeship legislation of 2009, off-the-job training has been a mandatory requirement for any apprenticeship. But as Tom Richmond reminds us, civil servants allowed themselves to be persuaded in 2013 that the old-style equivalent of a weekly day release to college means that the requirement should comprise 20 per cent of working hours. Yet the 20 per cent is still an arbitrary ESFA funding rule which can be amended at any time.
Different levels in different sectors need different approaches. In some cases, such as dental nursing, working with a supervisor demonstrating on state-of-the-art machinery and explaining the theory behind it is better than sitting away from the workplace being pummelled with some unrelatable theory.
A mandatory 20 per cent doesn’t offer any correlation with the quality of the provision actually being delivered; it is simply a blunt broad-brush stick to be used as a compliance measure – in essence a requirement of funding by government. From public platforms in recent weeks, it appears that Ofsted shares our view, and senior officials have confirmed that they have absolutely no interest in auditing the number of hours being chalked up for this purpose. ESFA audits mean however that employers and providers will still have to keep evidence that the requirement is being met.
We must go back to the employer-driven principles behind the reforms. In trailblazer employer groups, there are already credible vehicles which should be given the flexibility and responsibility to define the required level of off-the-job training which is right for apprentices to acquire the skills, knowledge and behaviours for individual standards in each specific sector.
We need to act quickly on this because employers are already telling their training providers that the rule will limit both their participation and appetite to embrace apprenticeships. Many thousands of organisations now have no option but to pay the levy, but then they see yet further additional cost in losing employees one day a week. We speak to employers who have to backfill positions as cover and even extend contracts to provide additional working hours in which to shoehorn in the 20 per cent training time.
In some sectors, the employment costs and tight margins mean that employers can’t afford to cover the cost of unproductive hours along with the other demands of having apprentices. Are we really going to stop an apprenticeship even when the provider, employer, and learner agree an alternative approach which meets with the government inspectorate’s approval? Furthermore, what about the fact that it costs the same to have someone teaching the apprentice whether the funding is £2,000 or £9,000 a year. The funding does not support the 20 per cent requirement.
As the Taylor review has recognised this week, low-wage sectors are the ones that often most need skills development, especially in the light of Brexit, and these sectors often contribute most to social mobility. Therefore we shouldn’t be pricing them out of apprenticeships.
Opposition to 20 per cent might be less vehement if the rule wasn’t fixed on contracted working hours. All other forms of education where the state is making a financial contribution encourage young people to do homework but apprenticeships appear to be singled out for off-the-job learning to be part of a 35-hour working week.
The 20 per cent rule should be reviewed as a universal requirement and reconsidered in relation to each sector’s needs.
As of May 1 anyone that starts an apprenticeship – whether on a framework or new standard – must now receive at least 20 per cent off-the-job training, according to new Education and Skills Funding Agency rules.
The requirement, which was first announced back in 2013, is one of the government’s core principles for protecting the quality of the apprenticeship programme.
‘Off the job’ is defined as: “Learning which is undertaken outside of the normal day-to-day working environment and leads towards the achievement of an apprenticeship.
“This can include training that is delivered at the apprentice’s normal place of work but must not be delivered as part of their normal working duties.”
Guidance published by the Department for Education in June stipulated that “each apprentice should have a commitment statement that, among other information, outlines the programme of training that the apprentice should receive” and which “should set out how the provider intends to fulfil the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement”.
And the provider must submit evidence that the training is being delivered in order to draw down apprenticeship funding.
But actually working out what counts as ‘off the job’ – or even how much there should be – is far from simple.
The percentage is calculated on the basis of an apprentice’s contracted hours of work, spread over the duration of their apprenticeship.
For example, if someone is on a two-year apprenticeship and has an employment contract for seven hours a day, five days a week, for 46 weeks that adds up to a total of 3,220 contracted hours over the two years.
So the minimum amount of time they should spend in off-the-job training would be 644 hours, or the equivalent of one day per working week.
But this does not have to be undertaken at set times: “It is up to the employer and provider to decide at what point during the apprenticeship the training is best delivered.”
Nor does it have to be delivered in a set format.
For training to count towards the 20 per cent rule, it must teach “new knowledge, skills and/or behaviours that will contribute to the successful achievement of an apprenticeship”.
It must also be “directly relevant to the apprenticeship” and could include teaching of theory, practical training or time spent completing assignments.
Training can be carried out at the apprentice’s normal workstation, as long as they are learning new skills – “it is the activity, rather than the location” that counts.
And some – but not all – off-the-job training can be delivered via distance learning.
No training the apprentice does in their own time counts towards the 20 per cent rule – except in exceptional circumstances, and only if the apprentice is given time off in lieu – nor do performance reviews.
And any English and maths training doesn’t count either – if it’s needed, it must be on top of the 20 per cent.
All three mergers proposed by the Tees Valley area review have now fallen through.
News of the breakdown in talks between Middlesbrough College and Redcar and Cleveland College came in a newly published FE commissioner report.
This failure means that of the 39 firm recommendations for mergers made in the first three waves of the area reviews, 14 have so far either fallen through or changed significantly.
Two weeks ago, FE Week reported that the link-up between Darlington College and Stockton Riverside College had been called off, while a partnership between Hartlepool Sixth Form College and Hartlepool College has also fallen by the wayside.
Richard Atkins’ visit to Redcar and Cleveland College in March was prompted by the “breakdown in February 2017 of merger discussions between the two colleges”.
Redcar is currently in talks with a number of other potential merger partners
The college, which was given a grade three by Ofsted in October 2015 and has a notice of concern for financial health from the Education and Skills Funding Agency dating from March 2015, was only taken out of its previous intervention in October 2016 on the condition that the merger went through.
The report, published in early July, noted: “The breakdown in preparations for merger with Middlesbrough College reflect in part, the challenges faced by both parties in securing a thriving FE presence in Redcar, whilst addressing the risks posed by the challenging financial position as well as ongoing work required to improve quality.”
He recommended the college undergo a structure and prospects appraisal to “identify and confirm a sustainable solution” – which could include reopening discussions with Middlesbrough.
But Zoe Lewis, Middlesbrough’s principal, told FE Week that the college, which is also rated grade three, had “declined the offer to participate” in the SPA, although she had given the FE commissioner and the ESFA “a copy of our earlier proposal, should they wish to consider it”.
She said the proposal, prepared jointly by both colleges in February, “reiterated Middlesbrough College’s commitment to stabilise Redcar College’s financial position, to raise student numbers over the longer term and improve the quality outcomes for students studying there”.
“The Redcar and Cleveland College board declined this proposal at that time, pending a review of other options available,” she said.
Ed Heatley, Redcar and Cleveland College’s principal, confirmed that merger talks with Middlesbrough College “are no longer in process”.
“Redcar is currently in talks with a number of other potential merger partners, who have visited the college and will be presenting proposals in the coming weeks,” he said.
Mark White, Stockton Riverside’s chair of governors, and Pat Howarth, the Darlington chair, said in a joint statement that their decision not to merge, which was announced in late June, had been taken after “careful consideration and detailed discussions”.
And Hartlepool SFC rejected a merger with neighbouring Hartlepool College, and now plans to join forces with Sunderland College.
No one has revealed the reason for this change of plan, despite repeated enquiries by FE Week.
Reports into the fourth and fifth waves of the reviews, which completed earlier this year, have yet to be published.
Off-the-job training rules are inflexible and hard to enforce. They need urgent reform, argues Sue Pittock
Who first thought up the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement, which is now an ESFA funding rule? It seems that policymakers felt that something like the old-style day release from a local college would still be relevant in 2017 to apprenticeships across all sectors.
Don’t get me wrong. At Remit Training, we love the change in focus from assessment to high-quality teaching and learning that enriches an apprentice’s experience. It allows us to build some great programmes, and it’s a positive change from the previous, restrictive focus on assessment. But just because a standard stipulates 20 per cent off-the-job training, it isn’t necessarily going to improve quality. To make a difference, the emphasis must be on a programme’s overall quality, not an arbitrary percentage.
We would like the government to relax the policy to allow the learners to do some of this learning as homework. No other education programme omits homework as a set criteria, right from school through to further and higher education. Why should apprenticeships be any different?
With ministers remaining steadfast in their belief in social mobility, i.e. if a young person from a disadvantaged background wants to put some extra hours in to get on or to improve their English and maths, surely the manner shouldn’t be prescribed? Instead, this newly-published official guidance insists that any out-of-hours learning must be formally recognised, usually as time off in lieu, while English and maths are both excluded from the off-the-job definition.
Some apprenticeships that are vital for the economy, such as health and social care, need additional funding to accommodate the 20 per cent requirement. It is no cheaper to deliver training for a programme that attracts £3,000 of maximum funding than to deliver some of the IT programmes that attract £15,000 of funding. If the government was serious about parity across all apprenticeships, this element would be funded as a fixed cost per annum.
We need to discuss the needs of the employer and combine this with a mix of blended learning; in most cases we don’t need to do a full day of off-the-job training in a classroom. An employer may want a face-to-face visit, or online learning, webinars, time for writing assignments, or even to build part of their programme around mentoring.
Once we have mapped out all the months with the detail of the programme, we can place this document in the learner’s base file to show how we plan to deliver 20 per cent off-the-job training. The employer and learner can then see what they are committing to and agree this as part of the contracting process. This is the evidence we all need to have ready for any ESFA audit.
Ofsted was clear again at the AELP conference that it is not prepared to audit hours, but will dig into teaching and learning if it feels that learners are receiving a poor experience. It doesn’t care whether these hours are paid or unpaid – considering this irrelevant to the quality of the learning.
Anne Milton, the new skills minister, took just two weeks to fix some elements of the apprenticeship reforms that had gone wrong. Now she needs to take a hard look at the 20 per cent requirement. I wonder which Whitehall room this concept was invented in and whether anyone involved in on-the-ground delivery was part of the discussion?
Either the ‘off-the-job’ label should embrace all training and learning, no matter what time of day, or it needs a new name. In the meantime, the main message is that off-the-job training in itself is not going to go away. Embrace it, have some fun and deliver some fantastic apprenticeships.
As of May 1 anyone that starts an apprenticeship – whether on a framework or new standard – must now receive at least 20 per cent off-the-job training, according to new Education and Skills Funding Agency rules.
The requirement, which was first announced back in 2013, is one of the government’s core principles for protecting the quality of the apprenticeship programme.
‘Off the job’ is defined as: “Learning which is undertaken outside of the normal day-to-day working environment and leads towards the achievement of an apprenticeship.
“This can include training that is delivered at the apprentice’s normal place of work but must not be delivered as part of their normal working duties.”
Guidance published by the Department for Education in June stipulated that “each apprentice should have a commitment statement that, among other information, outlines the programme of training that the apprentice should receive” and which “should set out how the provider intends to fulfil the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement”.
And the provider must submit evidence that the training is being delivered in order to draw down apprenticeship funding.
But actually working out what counts as ‘off the job’ – or even how much there should be – is far from simple.
The percentage is calculated on the basis of an apprentice’s contracted hours of work, spread over the duration of their apprenticeship.
For example, if someone is on a two-year apprenticeship and has an employment contract for seven hours a day, five days a week, for 46 weeks that adds up to a total of 3,220 contracted hours over the two years.
So the minimum amount of time they should spend in off-the-job training would be 644 hours, or the equivalent of one day per working week.
But this does not have to be undertaken at set times: “It is up to the employer and provider to decide at what point during the apprenticeship the training is best delivered.”
Nor does it have to be delivered in a set format.
For training to count towards the 20 per cent rule, it must teach “new knowledge, skills and/or behaviours that will contribute to the successful achievement of an apprenticeship”.
It must also be “directly relevant to the apprenticeship” and could include teaching of theory, practical training or time spent completing assignments.
Training can be carried out at the apprentice’s normal workstation, as long as they are learning new skills – “it is the activity, rather than the location” that counts.
And some – but not all – off-the-job training can be delivered via distance learning.
No training the apprentice does in their own time counts towards the 20 per cent rule – except in exceptional circumstances, and only if the apprentice is given time off in lieu – nor do performance reviews.
And any English and maths training doesn’t count either – if it’s needed, it must be on top of the 20 per cent.
