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.

Training providers are being are being told they will learn the results of their long delayed adult education budget bids in August, even though the Education and Skills Funding Agency claimed the announcement would be made “at the end of July”.

This is far from the first time this news has been held back – the tender took place between January and February of this year, with the results promised on May 19. 

After missing that deadline, the ESFA told the relevant providers in June that they would have to wait until the end of July.

And now, providers have been let down again.

They were told today that their results would be published on August 4, in a message sent via the ESFA’s e-tendering portal.

“Following the earlier message issued on June 28, the ESFA can now confirm that the award notification as a result of the invitation to tender for education and training services – adult education budget 2017 to 2018, will be made on the August 4,” it said.

“Contract awards resulting from the tender exercise will be for a nine-month period running from November 1 2017 to July 31 2018.”

The delay was a hot topic at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ conference in June, where Keith Smith, director of funding and programmes at the ESFA, told delegates that an announcement was expected “very, very shortly”.

“We’re looking at how we manage the transitions from the current allocations to the new allocations,” he explained.

“I can’t say anything more on it yet but it’s imminent; I think it’ll be good news for the sector.”

Independent learning providers were first told as long as as last October that they would need to re-tender for around £110 million of the Adult Education Budget for 2017/18.

On hearing of the August date, chief policy officer at the AELP, Simon Ashworth, said: “All the indications are that the tender has been heavily oversubscribed.  Given the reports that the AEB has been underspent, we retain the view that the whole budget should have been procured to secure better outcomes and improved value for money.”

The tendered AEB contracts were originally meant to have started on August 1 – three days before the tender results will finally – we hope – be revealed

An end-point assessment organisation claims that the Education and Skills Funding Agency will allow it to subcontract apprenticeship exams – even though the agency is in the middle of a significant crackdown on similar arrangements.

SSL Assessment Services Partnerships is currently approved to deliver EPA for the level three team leader standard, and is listed on the register of apprentice assessment organisations.

The arrangement involves two separate entities – SSL working as a consultancy, responsible for quality and process, and a training provider looking after occupational competence.

And while the bulk of any fee is to go to the training provider for carrying out the actual assessment, SSL intends to retain a portion of it for its services.

Nigel Sweeney, the firm’s managing director, accepted that “perhaps this is subcontracting in its broadest sense”, but said he preferred the term “partnership”.

“We are a partnership in which the lead partner [SSL] has the ability to pick the very best occupational lead partner for each specific standard,” he insisted.

He added that the “occupational lead partner is a partner in their own right”.

The ESFA, which manages the AAO register, has been hammering subcontracting arrangements like this amid widespread concerns over abuses of the system.

Providers can no longer subcontract whole apprenticeship frameworks or standards, after numerous lead organisations were caught charging massive “topslice” fees.

And, as of August 1, subcontracting of advanced learner loan provision will also be banned, with only lead providers allowed to deliver these courses in the future.

Despite this, Mr Sweeney told FE Week what he was doing was “fair” – and claimed it had been approved by the ESFA.

But FE Week has been unable to get confirmation on this fact.

A spokesperson for the Institute for Apprenticeships said it “abides by the register of apprentice assessment organisations, administered by the ESFA” and that it was up to each employer to decide “which of the registered organisations they contract to deliver the end-point assessment”.

But when we asked the ESFA if such a model was allowed, we were directed back to the IfA’s comment – even though it clearly indicates that responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the ESFA.

However, during a webinar in January for the Future Apprenticeships programme, run by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and funded by the Education and Training Foundation, representatives from what was then the SFA hinted that there would be a new models for EPA coming through – including partnerships.

Janet Ryland, of the funding and programmes division, said the agency was not “prescribing the type of models or consortia”, while her colleague Richard Mole said they needed to be “clear about who’s responsible, where the conflicts of interest lie and how those will be managed”.

Mr Sweeney said that he and the training provider partner were working together to develop the assessment materials, with the training provider bringing the “occupational competence” and his own company providing “policy and process” and quality assurance.

The training provider will carry out the assessment, but the final decision on whether an apprentice passes will rest with SSL.

The “lion’s share” of the fee is to go to the provider, but a portion would be retained by SSL for “admin, engaging with the employer” and handling “quality issues”, Mr Sweeney said.

Currently SSL is partnered with White Rose Training to deliver final exams for the team leader standard, but Mr Sweeney said he wants to engage other providers to deliver assessments for other standards, and would be applying for recognition by Ofqual.

An Ofqual spokesperson confirmed that SSLASP was not yet recognised by the qualifications regulator.