A college in Gloucester is only the second FE provider in the country to be granted powers by the Privy Council to develop and award its own honours and masters degrees.

Hartpury College follows in the footsteps of NCG (formerly Newcastle College Group), which was given the power to award taught degrees last June.

A number of other FE colleges can currently award foundation degrees, which are equivalent of two thirds of a full honours degree, but they have to have these developed, validated and awarded in partnership with an established university.

A spokesperson for the Higher Education Funding Council for England confirmed to FE Week that Hartpury and NCG are the only two FE colleges in the country to which the Privy Council has granted taught-degree awarding powers – allowing it to run its provision without any partner university.

Russell Marchant (pictured above centre), principal of Hartpury College and University Centre Hartpury, described the change as an “exciting step”.

“We are proud to be of the first specialist providers of education that’s recognised for its quality in this way,” he said.

“Gaining taught-degree awarding powers publicly stamps the integrity of what we do. We’ve worked hard to get this status and it is credit to all of our staff that we have achieved it.”

Hartpury is a land-based college and will receive over £1.3 million funding from HEFCE in 2017-18, the fifth highest of any college in the country.

Rosie Scott-Ward, the college’s vice-principal for higher education, said the ability to validate its own degrees means Hartpury can “respond quickly to market and student demands”.

“As a vocational provider with strong industry partnerships, this is paramount to forging clear progression routes through academic levels and to our students moving into strong careers when they graduate,” she said.

Gordon McKenzie, chief executive of GuildHE, a representative body for higher education in England, congratulated Hartpury on its new powers.

“This fantastic achievement is testament to their high standards and the quality of teaching,” he said. “Specialist institutions like Hartpury offer a great choice for students and strong links to the industries they serve. This success helps make UK higher education more diverse and stronger as a result.”

 

Picture caption: Hartpury College principal Russell Marchant (centre) celebrating his institution’s new degree powers with with students

One of Birmingham’s largest colleges has failed a government fire safety test in the wake of the Grenfell Tower blaze.

Matthew Boulton College, part of Birmingham Metropolitan College, which teaches nearly 22,000 students across the city, announced on Friday that its cladding was “not of limited combustibility”.

A spokesperson said the college appreciates that the result “may raise concerns from staff, students, and parents” but moved swiftly to “reassure” them that the Fire and Rescue Service was “satisfied” appropriate fire safety measures to mitigate the risks from fire have been put in place.

The college building has now been declared safe for continued use.

It was one of 82 buildings across the country that ministers admitted had failed new fire safety checks to test for flammable cladding.

The checks follow the Grenfell Tower fire, in which at least 80 people died at a 24-storey housing block in west London on June 12, and where the death toll is expected to rise considerably.

The college said a sample of cladding from its building was taken and tested as part of the national screening process run by the Building Research Establishment.

A statement published on the college’s website on July 28 said: “The Fire and Rescue Service has already conducted a precautionary fire safety check of the college.

“They are satisfied that the college has in place appropriate fire safety measures to mitigate the risks from fire and the college has declared the building safe for continued use.

“We will continue to act on the advice of the local council and the fire service to ensure that the college remains safe.”

The statement added that colleges already have to follow a “range of strict fire-safety regulations” designed to ensure buildings are as safe as possible and “we are extremely well prepared in the event of a fire”.

The new tender for apprenticeship provision allocations for non-levy-paying employers has been launched at long last today.

Hundreds of providers were left disappointed after the Department for Education paused and then ditched the first procurement process for the 98 per cent of employers not subject to the levy in April, after it was “markedly oversubscribed”.

The DfE said its new tender, launched today by the skills and apprenticeships minister Anne Milton, has a number of “critical differences” from the old one, including new tender value caps and contract award limits to “ensure greater confidence that awards are set at realistic levels”. For large existing providers the cap on the old tender was £5 million but that has now been removed and it is unlimited.

Allocation awards will be “in line with current levels of geographical delivery in the nine English regions”, and it includes “improved” scoring criteria and evaluation methodology, and the ability to “grow above award values in year, subject to a number of conditions”.

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

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

“We want the sector and employers to have certainty and clarity which is why I am delighted to be able to confirm today that we are launching a new procurement exercise worth a minimum of £440 million.

“I am confident that this will deliver the stability and geographical spread that is needed so that even the smallest employers can have their pick of high quality training providers to meet their skills needs.”

The procurement will be open until the beginning of September this year, during which time the register of apprenticeship training providers will not be open for new providers.

Contracts and allocations for the non-levy funding will run between January 2018 and April 2019, when the government aims to bring all employers onto the digital apprenticeship service system.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said it was “really fantastic” that the skills minister has “listened to AELP and its members in coming forward with a solution that should strike the right balance between stability of provision, promoting competition and offering choice for employers”.

“With potentially a near 50 per cent increase in the overall budget, this is a very positive step forward from the scrapped tender with a proper focus on existing capability and capacity in respect of good quality providers who have plenty of SMEs lined up wishing to offer apprenticeships.

“At the same time the approach allows for the possibility of growth for providers of all sizes, whether existing or new, who perform well against their contract and deliver good quality apprenticeships to learners within small businesses.”

He added that “hopefully” today’s announcement should “significantly reduce the chances of ‘apprenticeship deserts’ appearing across the country following the big drop in starts since April”.

The DfE admitted today’s new tender would be a “highly competitive exercise”, and providers are expected to submit “high-quality bids”.

The new procurement will not affect training provision for existing learners.

The Department for Education has been accused of ignoring skills funding concerns after its international review of post-16 funding included no financial comparisons with England.

The report, entitled ‘Post-16 education: funding and expenditure review’, examines funding and expenditure arrangements for vocational programmes in Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway.

But funding comparisons with England were notably absent.

Mick Fletcher, an expert in FE funding systems and a visiting research fellow at the UCL Institute of Education, hit out at the government’s decision to exclude comparisons.

“It’s very strange; the first question any serious commentator would ask is ‘how does this compare with England’ yet the report shies away from it,” he said.

“It seems to me clear both from the structure of the report and the timing of its release that the DfE was anxious not to draw attention directly to the relative underfunding of English FE.”

David Greatbatch, a professor at Durham University and one of the report’s authors, said the DfE had set the research questions, did not stipulate a need for comparisons.

The report is 107 pages long and presents its findings in a table comparing the five foreign countries, “yet does not feel able to put alongside these five the comparable data for England – data which must be far more accessible to the researchers,” Mr Fletcher said.

He pointed out that the report’s conclusion makes up only half a page in a hefty document, and he suspects that researchers were “instructed to make no comparisons and draw no conclusions”.

A DfE spokesperson said the purpose of the research had been to “develop the department’s understanding” of how countries with leading technical education systems fund their systems – “so we are able to learn from them for our reforms and ensure we are providing young people with a world-class technical education.”

The department said direct comparisons between England and other countries was impossible because information and data is not collected or available on a comparable basis in each country.

But Mr Fletcher claimed the DfE was trying to hide uncomfortable results.

“It is odd however since the report contains information that makes such a comparison possible, and moreover proposals to increase funding for T-levels effectively concede the charge,” he said.

“I conclude that what the DfE may be doing is making the information available to a specialised audience but not making it too easy for the tabloid press to embarrass the government.”

He added that while the DfE did try to hide comparisons with England, material in the report does allow comparisons to be made.

“To give just one example in all countries studied vocational students receive around 1,000 teaching hours per year. In England it is currently 600 with the aspiration to move to 900 in a few years’ time.”

Two providers plummeted from ‘good’ to ‘inadequate’ after recent Ofsted inspections, in a week which has seen nearly every inspected FE and skills providers drop grades.

Rotherham Borough Council and ID Training, a private provider in Newcastle upon Tyne, were both handed the lowest possible rating.

ID Training was given a grade four in all categories in a report published July 27. The provider is on the register of apprenticeship training providers but a grade four in apprenticeships they will be removed.

A grade four also typically means that the government will terminate a provider’s funding contract. ID Training was approached for comment did not respond by the time of going to press.

Inspectors slammed it for not ensuring apprentices were trained sufficiently, for not teaching them about the risks associated with radicalisation and extremism, and for not involving employers sufficiently in reviewing their progress.

“Achievement rates on apprenticeship programmes are low; too many apprentices do not complete their programmes successfully within their planned time,” the report said.

“Too few apprentices receive appropriate and effective advice and guidance to help them to make informed decisions about their training options or their future learning and employment.”

The provider, which has 576 apprentices, was previously rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in April 2015.

Leaders and managers at Rotherham Borough Council meanwhile came in for heavy criticism in a report published on July 28, which rated the council ‘inadequate’ in all areas except for personal development, behaviour and welfare, receiving a grade three.

Managers do not ensure that they put “effective quality improvement plans” in place quickly enough, inspectors said. “Consequently, the progress that they make in improving courses is too slow.

“Elected council members, until recently, have not received clear information from managers about the performance of the adult learning service. This means that they were not able to challenge managers effectively or hold them to account for the decline in standards.”

Inspectors added that managers do not review the quality of subcontracted provision “with sufficient rigour”.

The council, which teaches around 1,500 learners, was previously rated ‘good’ in July 2014.

There was also a disappointing inspection for Andrew Collinge Training, a Liverpool-based private provider, which lost its ‘outstanding’ grade and dropped to ‘good’.

Its teaching, learning and assessment of functional skills English and mathematics, let it down, according to inspectors, who wrote: “Apprentices do not always improve their skills quickly enough; they do not make the progress of which they are capable, particularly the most able apprentices.

“Apprentices do not receive comprehensive careers advice and guidance to enable them to make informed choices about their future career plans. Consequently, too many intermediate apprentices do not secure permanent employment or progress to further study on completion of their apprenticeship.”

But inspectors did note that leaders, managers and tutors promote a “culture of excellence”, which “fosters high levels of hairdressing creativity and innovation in apprentices”.

The creative director and tutors at the provider also use their “excellent” practical skills and subject knowledge to “enable apprentices to produce exceptional standards of practical work”.

Two other private providers, the London College of Beauty Therapy and East Midlands Chamber, lost their ‘good’ ratings, slumping to ‘requires improvement’.

Ofsted said the quality of teaching, learning and assessment is “no longer consistently good” at LCBT, and lecturers do not plan learning “sufficiently well enough” to meet learners’ individual needs.

Assessors, training advisers and employers at East Midlands Chamber were criticised for not collaborating “sufficiently” to review apprentices’ development, nor for setting challenging-enough targets to help them make better progress.

LEO Training, an independent provider in Bournemouth, meanwhile received another grade three.

To increase its rating, leaders and managers at LEO should “produce, monitor and verify accurate data on learners’ achievement, attendance and progress and use this data to scrutinise learners’ performance and improve courses”, inspectors said.

It was good news however for Somerset Skills & Learning CIC, an adult and community learning provider, which received a grade two in its first ever inspection report.

The provider was handed ‘good’ ratings across the board, and leaders and managers were praised for having “highly productive partnerships” with a large number of local and regional stakeholders.

“As a result, the curriculum meets the needs of learners, local communities and local enterprise partnerships well,” inspectors said.

Lastly, one private provider, Youngsave Company, held onto its grade two following a short inspection this week.

 

Independent Learning Providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
East Midlands Chamber	20/06/2017	28/07/2017	3	2
ID Training	27/06/2017	27/08/2017	4	2
LEO Training	20/06/2017	27/07/2017	3	3
The London College of Beauty Therapy Ltd	13/06/2017	25/07/2017	3	2
Andrew Collinge Training Limited	20/06/2017	24/07/2017	2	1

 

Adult and Community Learning	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Rotherham Borough Council	20/06/2017	28/08/2017	4	2
Somerset Skills & Learning CIC	27/06/2017	28/08/2017	2	–

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2)	Inspected	Published
Youngsave Company Limited	28/06/2017	27/07/2017

The Institute for Apprenticeships is on the hunt for yet more experts – but this time they will be paid.

Adverts for up to 80 anonymous peer-reviewers for apprenticeship standards and assessment plans appeared on the Cabinet Office website today, and will pay £200 per “individual submission” completed.

Reviewers will remain anonymous so they can “give full and objective feedback”.

“Names of peer reviewers will not be disclosed in line with the Data Protection Act 1988,” the advert said.

These peer reviewers will be appointed in addition to the institute’s advisory panels, advertised in June – and a wider range of applicants is sought.

Applicants can be “experts from employers, professional bodies, trade associations, business representative bodies and assessment organisations” – but it said “applications from individuals from industry regulatory bodies, academia, and training organisations are also welcomed”.

Mark Dawe, AELP’s chief executive, described this as evidence of a “a sea change in approach”.

“The government now recognises that training providers with in-depth knowledge of a sector have much to offer in advising on the apprenticeship reforms,” he said. “Fewer issues are likely to arise if the advice of provider experts is taken on board by the policymakers.”

Reviewers will be expected 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”.

That feedback will be used by the advisory panels to help inform their recommendations “on whether to approve or reject standards and assessment plans”.

It’s only been a month since 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.

 

Apprenticeships funded from May will be included in the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s 2016-17 audit programme, FE Week can reveal.

Annual ESFA financial assurance audits take place shortly after the end of the academic year, typically between mid-August and the end of October, and for the first time will include a separate section for apprentices recruited from May.

Click here to see the detail within the relevant ESFA audit working papers. 

For the first time, ESFA-appointed auditors will be seeking evidence of payments from employers to providers. In section eight, the auditor must answer the following question: “Where the employer or training provider are required to make payments, does evidence exist that the payments have been made?”

An employer payment must be “evidenced by a transfer of funding visible in the provider’s (or subcontractor’s) financial systems; this will typically be in the form of a provider invoice and corresponding employer payment for a provider. For employer-providers, they must evidence how the costs are calculated.”

At the present time these audit working papers can only be accessed when producing a sample report from the Provider Data Self-Assessment Toolkit (PDSAT).

The PDSAT software is used by the ESFA-appointed auditors to check the credibility of provider data, but providers are also expected to use it regularly.

Five new reports have been added to PDSAT (see below), with a particular focus on the negotiated price, additional payments and co-investment.