Ofsted watch: Provider on apprenticeships register rated ‘inadequate’

A provider on the new apprenticeships register has been hit with an inadequate overall grade, in the only full inspection report to have been published this week.

But Norfolk Training Services Limited, which we reported had been added to the register in April, was given a grade three for its apprenticeships provision – meaning its place on the register of apprenticeships training providers is secure.

In a report published May 15, but based on an inspection in February, inspectors criticised leaders at the independent training provider for their “ineffective” efforts to “improve the weaknesses identified at the previous inspection” in February 2015, which resulted in a grade three rating overall.

“Leaders and managers do not identify most weaknesses accurately or plan to rectify them swiftly,” the report noted.

“Too few” learners “complete their qualifications” or “make good progress in their learning”, inspectors found.

“Much teaching” was deemed “inadequate”, with “too many tutors” lacking “skills in the craft of teaching to enable learners and apprentices to make rapid progress”.

But the report noted that a “majority” of apprentices “develop good work-related vocational skills”.

Norfolk Training Services was one of three main providers quietly added to the apprenticeships register in an unannounced update in April, a month after the list was first published.

FE Week reported that the decision to overturn the rejection related to the way the register’s Ofsted grade rules were being interpreted.

These state that a provider with a grade four for overall effectiveness can only apply to be on the register if they’ve been inspected since September 2015 and have at least a grade three for apprenticeships.

Meanwhile, Telford College of Arts and Technology was found to be making progress in almost all areas, in a second monitoring visit following its inadequate grade in June 2016.

The report, published May 17 and based on a visit on April 27, found the 19,500-learner college had made ‘reasonable progress’ in four areas, ‘significant progress’ in two areas – but ‘insignificant progress’ in one.

Three providers held onto their ‘good’ ratings this week following short inspections.

These were independent learning provider PGL Training (Plumbing) Limited, adult and community learning provider West Berkshire Training Consortium and employer provider Mercedes-Benz UK Limited.

 

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Telford College of Arts and Technology 26/04/2017 17/05/2017 Monitoring

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Norfolk Training Services Limited 14/02/2017 15/05/2017 4 3

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
PGL Training (Plumbing) Limited 20/04/2017 17/05/2017
West Berkshire Training Consortium  27/04/2017 17/05/2017
Mercedes-Benz UK Limited 26/04/2017 15/05/2017

College student named as Manchester bombing victim

A Lancashire college has expressed its “enormous sadness” at the death of one of its students in last night’s terrorist attack in Manchester.

Georgina Callander, an 18-year-old health and social care student at Runshaw College, was the first named victim of the suicide bombing at the Manchester Arena.

The college released a statement this morning that said: “It is with enormous sadness that it appears that one of the people who lost their lives in Monday’s Manchester attack was one of our students here at Runshaw College.

“Georgina Callander was a former Bishop Rawstorne pupil studying with us on the second year of her health and social care course.

“Our deepest sympathies, thoughts and prayers go out to all of Georgina’s family, friends, and all of those affected by this loss.

“We are offering all available support possible at this tragic time, including counselling with our dedicated student support team.”

Twenty-two people, including children, were killed and 59 injured in a suicide attack at the concert by singer Ariana Grande at Manchester Arena last night.

The lone male attacker died in the blast after letting off an improvised explosive device at 22:35, police said.

Can a college chair of governors job share?

Dr Sue, director of policy and external relations at Holex, answers your questions, backed by her experience as principal of Canterbury College and in senior civil service posts in education and skills.

Question One: Advice for chairs

I am new to FE but have chaired a charity and found the National Council of Voluntary Organisations useful. Where should college governors look?

Answer: Colleges are exempt charities and the Charities Commission website should be your first port of call.  You already know about NCVO and much of the material on their website is useful, but because colleges have a strong business ethos you will also find pertinent items on the Institute of Directors website. However, the material on these sites has not been contextualised for the FE college world. The most useful source is the material funded and supported by the Education and Training Foundation which sits on the Association of Colleges website. This material has been developed by college clerks and chairs and is an invaluable bank of information and advice. Your clerk can help signpost you to the subjects and areas most relevant.

There is also a relatively new organisation on the scene called the Association of Chairs. They have been formed to support chairs and vice chairs of charities and non-profit organisations in leading their boards effectively and ensuring delivery of their organisation’s mission. They provide peer network, chair-focused seminars, speakers and briefings and resources specifically for chairs and vice chairs. They have also published a supportive document called the Chair’s Compass, which offers guidance on the role and impact of chairs.

 

Question Two: Job share

My role as chair of governors is becoming more substantial as I work full-time. I have a governor colleague who wants to job share. Is this possible?

Answer: I can see that in circumstances like the one you describe job sharing or co-chairing could offer a suitable, practical and effective solution. Although not widely practiced in the FE sector, school governing bodies have had the option to do this for a while. First you need to check your college’s Instrument and Articles to see whether it expressly disallows co-chairing. If it is silent on the issue then I see no reason why you shouldn’t go ahead. However, the board would need to ensure that any role-sharing arrangement does not lead to a loss of clarity in its leadership. In order for co-chairing to work, there needs to be transparency and trust and probably some work with the clerk to produce a formal programme on who does what.

 

Question Three: Election advice

As we receive most of our funding from public sources, are there any election guidelines for governors to follow?

Answer: Colleges are exempt charities and the Charities Commission has produced a clear guide. In summary, campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake. However, it must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity.

Charities can campaign for a change in the law, policy or decisions where such change would support the charity’s purposes. Therefore, as long as you are even-handed, don’t financially support in any way and/or do not try to influence results, there is no reason why as a trustee or governor you cannot make your views known to prospective MPs. Ensuring the financial stability of your college is a clear part of your role and prospective MPs need to know what impact government policy or proposed policy changes have on colleges. Remember any material used must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base.

Too much flexibility, not enough foresight

Decades of policy turbulence have left a sector that is resilient but not necessarily forward-looking, and this needs to change, says Ruth Silver

All three major parties have launched their manifestos, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats committing extra funding to colleges, while the Conservatives pledge to ‘give Britain the technical education it has lacked for decades’. All recognise FE’s critical role in improving Britain’s low productivity.

This attention is all very welcome, of course, in a sector subjected to continuous reform over several decades, and which has seen its funding cut and its curriculum narrow.

In tough and unpredictable times, it is gratifying to see politicians finally groping their way towards a genuine vision for the future of a sector they have often struggled to properly understand or appreciate.

It is crucial that the sector and the politicians responsible for it are forward-looking in their thinking. There is no doubt that FE and skills currently face a complex array of issues, from area-based reviews to localisation, which rightly absorb the attention of its leaders. But it is increasingly clear that fundamental new challenges are emerging, which can only be addressed by seeing beyond the day-to-day concerns that have, for many years, been a barrier to far-sighted sector leadership.

Our sector is bright enough and bold enough

This is not to point any finger of blame at sector leaders. Decades of restless policy turbulence and ministerial churn have resulted in a sector that is resilient, flexible and seriously good at stretching resources – but not necessarily used to scanning the horizon for the trends that will shape provision in the decades to come.

That is why the latest report from the Social Market Foundation and the Further Education Trust for Leadership, called ‘Rising to the challenge: the further education and skills sector over the next decade’, matters.

It outlines some of the key competitive challenges FE and skills will face, and proposes a number of ways in which the sector might make a place for itself in a diverse and increasingly competitive market.

These challenges include increased competition from schools and universities as budgets dwindle and EU student numbers decline, the changing role of employers in driving the skills system, and the development of educational technology.

To these we might add the UK’s ageing population and the changing face of a labour market increasingly characterised by self-employment and intense global competition for skills.

The OECD’s ‘Skills Outlook 2017’ report, also published this month, has meanwhile highlighted the urgent need to invest in the skills of adults and young people, particularly in those higher-level specialised skills that are necessary to compete in global markets. It also stresses the importance of a wide curriculum and ‘skills for social progress’ including so-called ‘soft skills’ such as communication, organization and readiness to learn.

So while there are challenges for the sector in this new environment, there are also huge opportunities. Brexit will inevitably mean a much greater need for homegrown talent, particularly in highly skilled professions in which we have previously tended to rely on immigration, mostly from Europe, to plug skills gaps. The case for a strengthened role for the sector post-Brexit could not be clearer, though it must still be made.

The SMF argues that the sector must evolve in response to these challenges, with colleges and independent providers rebranding themselves as ‘local champions and engines of social mobility’, and transitioning from ‘physical learning and physical estates to virtual learning’.

The report, finally, calls for greater security of funding and stability in policy to support the sector in realising its potentially central role in this brave new world. For some time now, public policy in this area has been headed in the wrong direction, reducing funding where greater investment is required and shrinking the curriculum to focus on a narrow definition of employability alone.

We are at a point where there is more risk in remaining the same than in accepting the need for change. But I believe that if we can get the policy environment right, our sector is bright enough and bold enough to rise to the challenges.

 

Dame Ruth Silver is founding president of the Further Education Trust for Leadership, and co-chair of the Skills Commission

ESFA is jeapordising degree apprenticeships

The ESFA’s approach to the allocation of apprenticeship funding for non-levy employers undermines the apprenticeship reforms and specifically, degree apprenticeships, says Adrian Anderson

The apprenticeship reforms put the employer in the driving seat. Employers develop apprenticeship standards that define the knowledge, skills and behaviours required for an occupation, and they decide which to use to develop the performance of their workforce.

A key feature of this approach has been the development of standards for higher-level occupations, in particular the new degree apprenticeships. This is hardly a surprise: to be competitive, employers and the UK economy need to invest in developing higher-level skills.

Degree apprenticeships have been encouraged by government, LEPs and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies. For individuals it’s good news: they offer a debt-free route to and through higher education to the professions, and appeal to individuals who may in the past have been put off by the debt associated with HE. It ticks the social mobility box, and demonstrates to any parent, young person or teacher that apprenticeships aren’t just about low-level skills or for those who don’t go to university.

ESFA has put the non-levy paying employer back in the passenger seat

Unfortunately there’s a problem: the Education, Skills and Funding Agency. It has based its recently announced allocations for funding for non-levy paying employers on historic patterns of apprenticeship delivery rather than patterns of future employer demand and the apprenticeship standards developed by trailblazers. Yet degree apprenticeship is a new type of provision, requiring new providers – specifically higher education institutions.

Regardless of future demand and the effort involved in applying to the register of apprenticeship training providers and tendering, HEIs without a prior SFA apprenticeship contract have not received funding to deliver degree apprenticeships to non-levy paying employers.

For HEIs on RoATP with a prior SFA apprenticeship allocation, the new allocation has been negligible because degree apprenticeships are a new programme and the ESFA is basing allocations on historic provider patterns of delivery. Any ESFA claim that apprenticeship budgets follow employer demand is untenable. Existing providers with extended contracts cannot simply step in to deliver degree apprenticeships. There will be gaps in the provider base and substantial occupational and geographic gaps in provision.

The situation is made even more bizarre when the Degree Apprenticeship Development Fund is considered. DADF funding was allocated, through a competitive tender process, to support the development of degree apprenticeship provision. The ESFA allocation process means some HEIs that have developed degree-level provision may not be able to deliver starts from September. Non-levy paying employers that have worked with such funded institutions could be denied access to the higher-level skills provision their business needs.

It’s also interesting to contrast the apprenticeship offer for levy-payers with non-levy paying employers. Levy-payers will be able to use apprenticeships that are of maximum benefit to them and degree apprenticeships could boom. In contrast, non-levy paying employers’ use of degree apprenticeships will be severely restricted.

Big business and the public sector can invest in and use any apprenticeship it wants, but a non-levy paying organisation will have its choice contained and skewed towards the apprenticeships delivered by the ESFA’s existing provider base. The ESFA has put the non-levy paying employer back in the passenger seat.

The University Vocational Awards Council has raised these concerns with both the ESFA and IfA, and outlined options that would ensure non-levy paying employers can use degree apprenticeships.

We await a response. The ESFA must demonstrate its commitment to the higher-level skills agenda in general and degree apprenticeship in particular. It must also ensure SMEs have access to the degree apprenticeships they have been promised, which are critical to the future success of their organisations and in turn, to the productivity of the UK economy.

 

Adrian Anderson is chief executive of University Vocational Awards Council

UTCs should be allowed to recruit at 11

To circumvent the problem of recruitment at 14, LSEC is setting up a vocational free school – a UTC in all but name. Sam Parrett argues that UTCs should be allowed to start at 11

Another week, another story about a failing UTC.

Seven of them have now closed their doors and 60 per cent are rated as ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted, so many young people are missing out on the pioneering education they deserve.

The former prime minister David Cameron famously called for “a UTC in every single major town”, and the concept of employer-sponsored, specialist and technical education for young people is indisputably a good one.

With the country’s ever growing skills gap likely to be impacted further by Brexit, the need for high-quality technical education has never been as great.

So why, despite pumping millions of pounds into buildings, marketing and excellent headteachers, are many UTCs failing to recruit?

One barrier is that, in a country where the age of transfer has mostly been 11, it is a challenge getting parents, students and teachers to opt for a move in Year 10. Such transfers will usually happen only if the child is not getting on at school, as opposed to a conscious decision for a well performing student to move.

We at LSEC have first-hand experience of this challenge. We established our own direct entry 14-16 technical academy in 2014, offering 14-year-olds a real alternative to a traditional school route. Students were able to choose a vocational specialism (engineering, hospitality, childcare) to study alongside rigorous GCSEs in academic subjects.

We reached out to headteachers, explaining who we were and what we could offer. We had hoped schools would then offer impartial advice to their students about the options and act in the best interest of each individual.

We have been seen as the place for schools to offload students

Sadly, the reality is that we were viewed as alternative provision. Instead of attracting children with a real passion for vocational learning, in the main we have been seen as the ideal place for schools to offload students unlikely to pass their GCSEs who would ultimately pull their original schools down the league tables.

This meant we were unable to recruit with integrity and realise our key vision: to offer local 14- to 16-year-olds a high-quality vocational alternative.

Despite this, we absolutely maintain our belief in career-led pathways, working closely with employers to provide young people with industry experience.

In 2014 we were approved by the Baker Dearing Trust to develop a health and wellbeing UTC in partnership with a major local employer and university partners. After some detailed scoping work, and with the benefit of our experience, we approached BDT with the suggestion of allowing us to pilot a new 11-19 model of UTC. We were confident this approach would turn what is a great concept, into a viable and successful school model.

Our proposal was duly turned down by BDT, on the basis that UTCs are strictly 14-18. This was despite our plan to keep all the key elements of the UTC concept, including the employer/university sponsorship and a curriculum offer with the post-14 specialism.

We also embraced the innovative teaching methods and pedagogy showcased by the UTC movement, via employer-led projects and the extended day incorporating enrichment and homework time.

Yet despite our obvious passion, our proposal was rejected. I feel this was extremely short-sighted and would question why BDT hasn’t been put under more official scrutiny in relation to recruitment challenges at 14 and the sustainability of UTCs.

We remain undeterred and are now instead setting up a specialist vocational free school in Bromley, which we expect to open in 2020.

This will be a high-performing school for 11- to 18-year-olds specialising in the science, health and wellbeing industry. It is supported by key employers and will help address the shortage of secondary school places in the area as well as skills gaps within this expanding industry. In other words, a UTC in all but name.

In the majority of cases, our education system is simply not set up to allow transfer at 14 to succeed.

If only BDT would accept this, I have no doubt UTCs would be thriving – offering young people the real technical alternative employers are crying out for.

 

Sam Parrett is CEO of London South East Colleges

How to improve apprenticeship completion rates

Apprentices need to understand why completion is so important, and this needs to be led from the top, says Alan Woods

The phrase ‘I’ve started so I’ll finish’ might be commonly associated with University Challenge presenters, but it also articulates a mental resolve that should be adopted by young apprentices.

When it comes to the national apprenticeship agenda, the spotlight has firmly focused on the number of new starts the government will commit to.

The recent Association of Employment and Learning Providers manifesto, for example, suggested an increase from three to four million in the next parliament.

While getting young people into apprenticeships is crucial in terms of securing employment and creating a skilled workforce, these outcomes are dependent upon one critical factor: the completion of apprenticeship programmes.

The real measure of success in apprenticeship reforms is not in the number of new starts but in the number of completed programmes, and as such, it is vital that the next government commits to improving this.

Deliberate manipulation of the apprenticeship system needs to stop

The most recent figures show that in 2015/2016, only 67 per cent of apprenticeships were completed. To increase this rate, learners need to be shown that apprenticeships can be engaging, worthwhile, and ultimately rewarding.

If we are to achieve this, the learner perspective must be at the heart of initiatives, rather than allowing the national narrative to be too employer-led, or economy-driven.

Apprentices’ voices have been somewhat drowned out in all the industry noise. We hear so much about skills gaps identified by employers – particularly in the STEM sector – which are perceived to be the answer to improving the UK economy.

But learners pursuing other types of apprenticeship have to see the value of completion. We need a top-down recognition of all apprenticeship routes, rather than a STEM-centric approach. If a learner is made to feel that their skills aren’t appreciated, that their chosen career path isn’t important, or that they won’t meaningfully contribute to the economy, it can beg the ultimate question: what is the point?

Incentivising a learner to complete an apprenticeship needs to hinge on more than just conceptual support, however. There needs to be a real, tangible end-goal: in short, an apprenticeship needs to represent a direct line of sight to a job.

This clear pathway sometimes gets lost in tactical employer positioning. An individual can often be encouraged to undertake the next level apprenticeship immediately after completing their current one, effectively establishing a type of permanent apprenticeship position.

In many cases, this is not about providing the apprentice with a substantive job at the end, but so employers can be seen to be doing apprenticeships.

This deliberate manipulation of the apprenticeship system needs to stop, or else we risk entire cohorts of disillusioned apprentices who see no apparent end in sight. We need to make sure that employers and training providers are wholeheartedly committed not just to ensuring the learner passes the course, but actually gets a job at the end of it.

With that in mind, we need to raise the collective ambitions of everyone involved in apprenticeships. Employers should be encouraged to see apprenticeships as an opportunity to retain the very talent they have nurtured; providers should in turn deliver a programme of excellent teaching that meets employer set standards; awarding organisations need to make sure quality is upheld and duly recognised. The commitment of all these individual players will ensure that leaners are reassured that they are at the centre of a process which is primarily about helping them.

Getting young people into apprenticeships should be celebrated, but we need to remember that crossing the finish line is just as important as starting the race. The way to facilitate this is by ensuring that all routes are valued, and that all routes lead to job opportunities with market rates of pay.

The number of completed programmes will serve as the only meaningful indicator of the success of government reforms.

 

Alan Woods OBE is CEO of awarding organisation VTCT

What now for colleges that tried and failed to merge?

When they were launched in July 2015, the area reviews were expected to result in a huge number of college mergers.

The former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills made it clear that the aim of this mass rethink of nationwide post-16 education and training was to create “fewer, larger and more resilient” colleges.

Early predictions from the then-FE commissioner Sir David Collins were that the number of colleges could drop by a third once the process was over, with up to 80 mergers taking place.

But by March this year the prognosis from his successor Richard Atkins was for “50-ish” mergers.

The aim of this mass rethink of post-16 education and training was to create fewer, larger and more resilient colleges

And published reports into the first three waves of the reviews, which involved 138 colleges and 70 sixth form colleges, revealed firm recommendations for just 37 mergers – a number that is likely to fall even further.

FE Week analysis has revealed that more than a quarter of these proposed mergers – 11 of the 37 – have either fallen through or changed since the reviews ended.

It’s not always clear why these unions aren’t working out, and in many cases, the colleges involved simply won’t say.

But when a college partnership falls apart, the weaker party is often left needing to find another merger partner just to secure its future.

This could be because of poor finances, a bad Ofsted rating or because the college is too small to survive in the longer term.

We’ve outlined the 11, and highlighted the party that could find itself in this position – as well as any further plans the college might have.

 

* Not all of these providers are struggling – but as we move into a world in which colleges will be allowed to go bust, there could be trouble ahead for any one of them.

Stockport College

Ofsted score: Grade 4  
FE Commissioner: Administered status   
Notice of concern: Financial health, inspection minimum standards
Revenue (2014/15): £22.8 million

A link-up involving Stockport, Oldham and Tameside colleges was one of two mergers to come out of the Greater Manchester review – but this was scrapped following intervention by the FE commissioner at grade four Stockport in December.

The college, which has been in administered status since 2013 and is in precarious financial health, is now planning to join forces with grade two

Trafford College, with a merger date set for December 31.

Transition principal Dr Mike Potter told FE Week that Trafford was its “preferred partner” for a number of reasons including location and “meeting the skills needs and specialisms” of the area.

South Staffordshire College

Ofsted score: Grade 3
FE Commissioner: No intervention
Notice of concern: None
Revenue (2014/15): £25 million

A merger between grade three South Staffordshire College and grade one Walsall College would mean the latter’s financial strength would “impact positively” on South Staffs, according to the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire area review report.

But earlier this month, the college told FE Week the merger was off as the costs “outweighed the benefits to the learners and the wider communities we serve”.

It subsequently announced plans to close one its campuses, in Cannock, as a cost-saving measure. But when FE Week asked if it was planning to seek another merger partner the college declined to comment, citing “political sensitivities”.

Mid-Cheshire College

Ofsted score: Grade 4
FE Commissioner: Administered status
Notice of concern: Financial health, inspection, minimum standards
Revenue (2014/15): £12.7 million

The Cheshire and Warrington area review recommended a four-way merger that has since unravelled.

Grade two South Cheshire College and grade three West Cheshire College merged at the end of March.

But grade four Mid Cheshire College and grade three Warrington Collegiate opted to pair up separately – even though both have financial notices of concern, and the FE commissioner recommended last year that Mid Cheshire should “seek a merger with a strong partner while there is time to do so”.

We asked Mid Cheshire why it chose Warrington as a merger partner, but did not receive a response.

Bury College

Ofsted score: Grade 3
FE Commissioner: No intervention
Notice of concern: None
Revenue (2014/15): £33.4 million

Grade three-rated Bury College was set for an innovative merger with the University of Bolton and Bolton College, as recommended by the Greater Manchester area review.

But, as reported by FE Week, the college was recently dropped from those plans, with the sticking point being that it would not be able to merge on the terms originally agreed.

Principal Charlie Deane confirmed that the college – which recently lost the ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating it held for nearly a decade – was still financially “very strong” and planning to “remain standalone for the foreseeable future”.

Hartlepool Sixth Form College

Ofsted score: Grade 2
SFC Commissioner: In intervention
Notice of concern: Financial
Revenue (2014/15): £5.9 million

A merger between grade two Hartlepool Sixth Form College and grade two Hartlepool College of FE was recommended through the Tees Valley area review. But in March the SFC announced it was planning to join forces with Sunderland College instead – but refused to say why its plans had changed.

At the same time, it was hit with a financial notice to improve from the ESFA, and was subsequently visited by the SFC commissioner.

His report deemed the SFC “unviable on a standalone basis” and he pressed for it to merge with Sunderland “as a matter of urgency”.

Lakes College West Cumbria

Ofsted score: Grade 3
FE Commissioner: No intervention
Notice of concern: None
Revenue (2014/15): £13.4 million

The Cumbria area review ended with a recommendation for grade two Carlisle College and grade three Lakes College to merge to create a “large, financially sustainable and resilient” institution that would “benefit from economies of scale”.

But Carlisle – which was handed a notice of concern from the ESFA in November – rejected this in favour of joining Newcastle-based NCG in April.

FE Week asked Lakes College if it was seeking another merger partner, or planning to go it alone, but it declined to comment.

However, at the time the proposed merger was called off, the college said it had “full confidence” it was “sustainable”.

Guildford College

Ofsted score: Grade 3
FE Commissioner: 2014 – out of intervention 2015
Notice of concern: Financial health, minimum standards
Revenue (2014/15): £35.3 million

Grade three Guildford College and grade one Farnborough College emerged from the area review process with plans to merge, after taking part in separate reviews.

The Surrey review report made it clear that remaining standalone “would not be in the best interests of students” at Guildford, which currently has notices of concern for both financial health and minimum standards.

Despite this, plans for the link-up have reportedly been put on hold. A spokesperson for the college told FE Week that the merger would be discussed at its corporation meeting this week.

Stanmore College

Ofsted score: Grade 2
FE Commissioner: Taken out of administered status April 2017
Notice of concern: None
Revenue (2014/15): £11 million

Previously troubled Stanmore College, which bounced back from a grade four to a grade two in 18 months, emerged from the west London area review with a recommendation to link up with three other nearby colleges – Harrow, Uxbridge and West Thames.

But the college turned this down in favour of a merger with grade one West Hertfordshire, which had been the college’s preferred option following an FE commissioner-led structure and prospects appraisal.

However, as reported by FE Week, this partnership was dropped just three months after it was announced. We asked if the college had any plans to seek a new merger partner, but did not get a response.

Waltham Forest College

Ofsted score: Grade 3
FE Commissioner: No intervention
Notice of concern: None
Revenue (2014/15): £21.3 million

FE Week reported in April that a planned link-up between grade two Barnet and Southgate College and grade three Waltham Forest College – recommended through the east and west London reviews – had been called off.

Penny Wycherley, Waltham Forest’s principal, told FE Week that the college was seeking a new partner.

She explained the college did not have to merge but “in the light of the area review process and long-term sustainability we believe we ought to”.

A call for expressions of interest had generated “quite a degree of interest” and she was confident the college would decide on a future partner in June.

Doncaster College

Ofsted score: Grade 2
FE Commissioner: No intervention
Notice of concern: None
Revenue (2014/15): £30.1 million

The Sheffield area review ended with a proposal for grade two Doncaster College to merge with grade one Barnsley College – but this was swiftly rejected by governors at Doncaster.

The college has since announced plans to join grade two North Lindsey College, having had “informal discussions” about a possible merger since last year, according to a college spokesperson. Among the benefits of the new merger was the ability to “establish a skills infrastructure that supports the economic connections across an east-west corridor from the Sheffield City region to the Humber”, she said.

West Thames College

Ofsted score: Grade 2
FE Commissioner: No intervention
Notice of concern: None
Revenue (2014/15): £22.5 million

A proposed merger between grade three Harrow College, grade one Uxbridge College and grade two West Thames College – as recommended through the West London area review – went out for consultation in October.

According to the consultation document the merged organisation would “provide a strong financial profile that ensures its sustainability and growth”.

But that three-way merger subsequently became a two-way, as West Thames dropped out of the proposal. It’s not clear why, or what its plans are now, as the college declined to comment when FE Week asked.

Confusion for new providers on RoATP over compulsory training

Hundreds of training providers don’t know when they can start apprenticeship programmes, because the government has failed to inform them of the mandatory training they need to complete first.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has added over 500 companies to the register of apprenticeship training providers, but FE Week has found that none were told they would need the mandatory ESFA training that was first revealed in March at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference.

Over 800 providers attended the training in April, but the ESFA has never actually published details of this requirement, leaving many to wonder whether it had been scrapped.

Despite this, a Department for Education spokesperson confirmed to FE Week that the mandatory training was still necessary, and admitted the government would be writing to the new providers about it shortly.

Many organisations which classify as new apprenticeship providers on the RoATP have told FE Week that they are “confused” by this as they were unaware of the requirement.

The only communication any of them have had from the ESFA is the notification of their successful applications to the register on May 17 via the government’s tendering portal Bravo, but there was no mention of mandatory training nor the date they could recruit funded apprentices.

The ESFA’s updated RoATP web page notes May 17 as the date for delivery for new entrants – implying starts are acceptable from then, an undertaking impossible for new providers as they haven’t yet completed the mandatory training.

An ESFA spokesperson told FE Week that “all providers” were “notified of the steps they need to take to set up with our systems and sign their provider agreement”.

They continued: “Further communication will be issued shortly, including information about mandatory training and details of their provider manager who will be their point of contact in the ESFA.”

Keith Smith

In March, the agency’s director of funding and programmes Keith Smith told delegates at FE Week’s event that “any new provider will be required to attend mandatory training”, something that’s “going to happen before any apprenticeship activity starts”.

New providers would all “be case-loaded with an account manager in the agency” for “one-to-one sessions”.

He said the agency would then take a “snapshot” of the new provider’s delivery three to six months into their training, at which point they could potentially be taken off the register following a “pass-or-fail judgment”.

FE Week understands that the training sessions for providers included in the first round of the RoATP was comprised of one-day sessions which included videos on how they can claim funding.

The mandatory training is only for those providers who have never had an agency allocation contract before.

As revealed by FE Week in March, the first round of the RoATP included many new providers who had no delivery experience whatsoever.

One person operating from a rented office in Knutsford, Cheshire had succeeded in getting their three companies, Cranage Ltd, Obscurant Limited, and Tatton Solutions Ltd onto the approved ‘main route’ register – even though none of them had run government-funded apprenticeships.

An Essex-based private provider was also accepted onto the RoATP despite only being incorporated in February last year, apparently from a residential property.