The government is refusing to release a crucial report that would show whether or not the forecasting tool it has developed to predict apprenticeship starts is actually working.

The Department for Education is suppressing a report that scrutinises the model it uses to anticipate starts at large and small employers, even while arguments still rage over the outcome of the recent non-levy funding tender.

A firm called Cambridge Econometrics won a £15,000 contract to assess the DfE’s apprenticeships projection tool in March this year, but no-one will say when it will be published.

The due date for the research was May 31 – and FE Week understands it was submitted as expected.

However, the DfE denied our Freedom of Information request to see the report, and refused to even to specify when it would be unveiled.

“The final report by Cambridge Econometrics, for this tender, has just been received by the department and is being prepared for publication,” the DfE said in its response. “The department intends to publish the information.

“As the report will be published, the department is withholding releasing it now because an exemption under Section 22 of the FOI Act applies.”

In its tender for the research, it described a “forecasting model” that it had developed in-house which would project apprenticeship starts and costs at both levy and non-levy paying employers for the period between 2017-18 and 2020-21.

These projections are to be used to understand the “demands on the apprenticeship budget primarily for the purposes of the financial control of apprenticeship spending”.

Cambridge Econometrics researchers were to review the design of the government’s mathematical model, consider whether it worked or if other approaches might improve its quality and capability.

Apprenticeship starts were slow to get off the ground in the first half of 2016/17, as was the case during the previous year, despite the introduction of the levy.

But starts picked up when mandatory cash contributions from employers kicked in and between February and April they grew by 52,700, or a healthy 47 per cent.

Unofficial estimates suggest that starts since May are much lower.

Official figures for May, June and July this year will not however be known until the government’s next statistical first release appears next month.

The non-levy allocations process meanwhile continues to spiral out of control.

Apprenticeship providers first faced up to the potential of mass bankruptcy in April, after many received funding for May to December this year that amounted to a fraction of their former allocations.

The situation was so dire that AELP boss Mark Dawe labelled it a “horror story” and a “bonfire of the providers”.

A new tender for non-levy allocations was relaunched in July, but it took another twist last week following a series of “clarifications” that were sent out just over a week before the submission deadline.

Mr Dawe described the situation as “totally unacceptable” and warned the whole process was “descending into a farce”.

The DfE acknowledged that there is a public interest in disclosing the apprenticeships methodology report in its response to FE Week’s FoI request, but insisted that the “public interest in permitting the government to publish information in a manner and at a time of its own choosing is also important”.

The nation’s largest FE provider has been handed around £45 million from next years’ adult education budget even though it didn’t participate in the tender process and despite its now-infamous grade four from Ofsted.

The news was confirmed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency in letters, seen by FE Week, sent to providers which either did not participate in the procurement or were unsuccessful, confirming our earlier predictions, that Learndirect would receive 75 per cent of the value of its previous contract to use in 2017/18.

This new commitment flies in the face of the original tender rules published in January 2017, which stipulated that providers which did not bid or were unsuccessful would be offered a contract of no more than £589,148.

Learndirect, which the DfE admitted had made no tender application, had a contract worth £60 million last year, meaning it will receive roughly £45 million to recruit and train adult learners until July 2018, even though an ‘inadequate’ rating from Ofsted usually prompts the department to terminate a provider’s funding.

Had Learndirect tendered for funding, the rules are clear: its grade four would have been taken into account during the evaluation.

FE Week approached Learndirect, which has more than 80,000 learners, over its AEB budget but refused to comment.

Last week, a spokesperson for the DfE also refused to reveal the true sum Learndirect would be allocated up to July 2018, claiming it was “commercially sensitive information”, though they then contradicted themselves when they conceded it would be “published at certain points in the year”.

This latest stage of the Learndirect saga has left providers who had been successful in the AEB tender furious, because many received only a fraction of their previous budget, leaving them worse off than had they not bothered to tender in the first place.

FE Week understands that one provider, which cannot be named at this stage, is so infuriated that is preparing to launch a judicial review against the decision.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the AELP, labelled the move “highly unfair” and called on the government to give all providers the same treatment.

“Having seen the ESFA letter that unsuccessful and non-bidding providers have received, we believe that all providers should receive the same as a minimum for next year,” he told FE Week.

“The difference between the 75 per cent of their previous contract value and the notified awards which successful bidders have received should be treated as an extension of their current contract to support the winding down to the new lower level of contract. Anything else would be highly unfair.”

The ESFA’s letters claim the money has been made available to support a nine-month “run-down” period for Learndirect, lasting from November 1 to July 31 next year, which will “enable existing learners to complete their programme”.

Learndirect will be able to recruit new learners during this time as long as they finish by the July cutoff.

This nine-month period has been added to a three-month extension, which ends in October, and which providers have been given after multiple delays to the tender process.

“As you chose not to participate or were unsuccessful in that competition we are offering to modify your existing contract with us for a nine-month run-down,” the ESFA letter said.

“As set out in the AEB contract extension letter you received in July, as a result of extending existing AEB contracts for three months, there was less funding available for run-down provision than previously indicated at the start of the AEB competition. Contract values have therefore been calculated to fit within a revised budget.

“Your 12-month contract value is set at 75 per cent of your 2016/2017 AEB contract value for the 2017/2018 funding year.”

The ESFA’s letter confirmed that providers’ contract values are the “maximum amount of AEB funding available” and that they will not be able to request growth.

Providers can use this funding “for new starts and carry-in” but they must only recruit learners that can “complete their programmes by July, 31, 2018”.

The results of the AEB tender were first announced on August 4, but had originally been promised on May 19, and left many providers fearing for their futures after being rejected contracts despite achieving high scores during the procurement exercise.

The AEB tender for private providers was first launched on January 27 and originally came to just £110 million for 2017/18.

The shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden has meanwhile tabled a series of parliamentary questions about the AEB allocation for Leardirect.

Awarding such a large sum to Learndirect outside of the tender will also raise questions as to whether it circumvents predetermined thresholds values within the Public Procurement Act 2015.

The Department for Education has not been contacted for comment.

Vince Cable has accused the Conservatives of sweeping his “dual mandate” consultation for the FE sector under the carpet after he left government – so he sees a new joint report into post-16 skills from a learner perspective as his chance to put things right.

The new leader the Liberal Democrats spoke to FE Week in Parliament today, ahead of the launch of the report, entitled ‘Students shaping the post-16 skills plan’.

It was written in tandem with Shakira Martin, the president of the National Union of Students, after they spoke to FE students across the country.

The dual mandate, proposed while Dr Cable was business secretary, asked the FE sector how it wanted to reform itself looking ahead to 2025.

But the report on the responses and conclusions drawn from this was never made public, as the consultation closed shortly after the May 2015 election, at which he lost his seat and the Liberal Democrats left government.

He began his work on this latest consultation, which this time is focused on the views and needs of FE learners, before he was re-elected to parliament in June.

Reflecting on the demise of the dual mandate, he agreed this provided a chance to right some wrongs.

“I think there was a sense that this was coalition government, a Lib Dem minister, let’s try and pretend that never happened,” he told FE Week.

“It is rather regrettable because I think the colleges very much bought into it – this idea of looking at the mixture of remedial work for skills level one and two for young people who dropped out of school together, and advanced apprenticeships.

“Certainly, there was a lot of enthusiasm for a kind of rationalising.”

One recommendation from the new report is for a new applied level two qualification in English and maths, for those who don’t do well in their GCSEs.

“It kept coming up everywhere with students we spoke to,” he said. “I knew it was an issue, but I didn’t realise how strongly people felt about it.

“It’s the legacy of the introduction of [post-16 compulsory GCSE] maths and English resits.

“We found again and again you have huge numbers of people who just can’t cope with the academic approach, as part of their vocational courses, and they are either trapped unable to pass, or drop out.”

The report also calls for a review of plans for maintenance loans to ensure financial support is available for all learners on higher-level technical courses.

“One of the main complaints of the FE sector is that students can’t get maintanence loans, whereas at universities, the complaint is people can get them, but it leads to debt,” he said.

So why has take-up on the existing FE advanced learner loans, introduced during his time in government, been relatively slow?

“Probably interest rates is one factor,” he admitted. “The fact that a lot of people are adults with uncertain job prospects and income prospects, perhaps people with young families, means they are probably more cautious in their willingness to take on financial obligations.”

The needs of adults returning to education are declared a “glaring omission” in the report, something the government’s post-16 skills plan “does little to address”.

“The focus of the plan is clear on progression through both academic and vocational routes into higher-level qualifications, which we can presume adult learners can enter,” the report said.

“With an aging workforce, the retirement age getting later and later, and a rapidly changing employment market, the skills plan does little to address these challenges.”

Dr Cable and Ms Martin want a “voucher-style system” for older adults from disadvantaged backgrounds “to support them with the associated costs of re-entering education and training”.

The report was first conceived after concerns that students were not involved in the current wave of FE reforms.

Ms Martin said that while the NUS welcomed “many of the proposals” in the skills plan, “the discussions we have had with our members make it clear the government has really missed an opportunity to fully review the needs of FE in the round, not just skills and technical education”.

Labour’s shadow skills minister has demanded official answers on whether Learndirect is getting special treatment from the government after Ofsted hit it with its worst possible rating.

Gordon Marsden has tabled a series of probing parliamentary questions for the education secretary over the size of the adult education budget allocation the nation’s largest training provider has received – following reporting by FE Week.

The Department for Education recently admitted that instead of terminating Learndirect’s AEB contract, as is normal practice after an Ofsted grade four, it would fund the provider to recruit additional learners until July 2018.

The decision has caused consternation across the FE sector, and more than a few bigwigs are asking whether Learndirect, which has more than 20,000 learners, is being treated with kid gloves.

The DfE told FE Week that Learndirect did not apply for AEB funding in last month’s tendering round, but based on current rules, its allocation should fall from the £60 million it received in the last academic year to just over half a million in the nine months between November 2017 and July 2018.

But we understand that the Education and Skills Funding Agency has been reviewing its policy for providers that had either been unsuccessful or not tendered.

This review might see such providers receive a minimum allocation of 75 per cent of their 2016/17 sum – which would mean Learndirect takes in around £34 million for its next nine months of operation.

A spokesperson for the DfE last week refused to reveal the true sum Learndirect will be allocated from the AEB up to July 2018, and claimed the provider itself wasn’t yet aware how much it would receive.

They claimed the information was “commercially sensitive information”, though they then contradicted themselves when they conceded it would be “published at certain points in the year”.

In light of this uncertainty, Labour’s shadow minister Mr Marsden has now demanded official answers from Justine Greening.

He wants her to explain how much AEB funding Learndirect requested for 2017/18, how much was allocated between August 1 and October 31 of this year, and how much it will receive between this coming November and next July.

An irate Mr Marsden has also demanded to know why Learndirect has been permitted to recruit additional adult education learners in the wake of its ‘inadequate’ grade from Ofsted.

“We’ve put down these questions because the situation at Learndirect that was uncovered through the court proceedings and the work of FE Week is an extremely serious one which government ministers have been silent on,” he said.

“For the confidence of the sector and clarity for all those people who have been affected, we need answers now.”

It remains unclear why Learndirect failed to tender, but the ESFA did say that it “reserves the right not to award a contract to any applicant awarded grade four for overall effectiveness, after an inspection by Ofsted”.

Every private training provider has been given a three-month extension to its 2016/17 AEB contract until October 2017, after the tender evaluation process was rocked by a series of delays.

The results of the process were announced on August 4, but had originally been promised on May 19, while the sector was plunged into chaos after many providers with high scores failed to secure any funding at all.

Learndirect’s £60 million allocation in 2016/17 was 10 times larger than that of the second largest private training provider.

The AEB tender for private providers was first launched on January 27 and originally came to just £110 million for 2017/18.

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

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

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

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

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

The college was rated inadequate-overall following this.

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

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

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

Responses to the new questionnaires are requested by October 12.

Questions include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He raised four specific concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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