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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting it is going to be a significant challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social mobility and the government’s apprenticeship reforms are set to come under the spotlight of a major new inquiry, led by education leaders, business and MPs, launched today.

The investigation by the Skills Commission will focus on the impact of the reforms on the opportunities available to disadvantaged young people aged 16 to 24 as the country moves towards Brexit.

Stakeholders including employers, training providers and current or aspiring apprentices are invited to submit evidence to the inquiry, which is co-chaired by Peter Mayhew-Smith (pictured above), principal of the newly-merged South Thames Colleges Group, Lilian Greenwood, Labour MP for Nottingham South, and Michelle Donelan, Conservative MP for Chippenham.

Mr Mayhew-Smith said: “We need to ensure that the new apprenticeship system is stable and workable, so that young people from all backgrounds can engage with the programme and develop their skills if that’s the pathway best for them.

“We also need to make sure that a high degree of social justice is embedded in the new system, so that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are given equal opportunities to succeed.”

Ms Donelan said she believed “we will end up with a very strong and dynamic apprenticeship system that will develop over a number of years,” but warned that “there is a risk that disadvantaged groups may be left behind”.

“If we want to create an aspirational society, the system should be focused on everybody,” she said.

The changes to the apprenticeship system come amid growing concerns about social mobility in a post-Brexit world.

These include questions over how the country can meet its skills need following Brexit, which will be one of the areas of focus in a separate inquiry, led by the Migration Advisory Commission, commissioned recently by home secretary Amber Rudd.

And a report by the Social Mobility Commission, published in June, on the impact of government policy on social mobility since 1997 recommended that the government should refocus apprenticeship policy on young people.

The potential impact of the changes to apprenticeship funding on young people was the focus of FE Week’s #SaveOurApprenticeships campaign, launched last September.

FE Week analysis of the proposed funding changes showed that rates for some of the most deprived 16 to 18 year olds could be cut by as much as 50 per cent.

Our campaign, backed by more than 50 Labour MPs, led to a U-turn with additional support pledged to help training providers support the youngest apprentices – but only for a limited period.

The deadline for submissions to the inquiry is August 31.

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”.