Yorkshire colleges first to publish targets in £56m AEB pre-devolution deal

Colleges in West Yorkshire have agreed a “landmark” partnership with the combined authority to align their annual £56 million adult education budget provision while it waits for an official devolution deal to happen.

The authority – made up of Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds, Wakefield and York councils, and Leeds city region enterprise partnership – has the region’s seven colleges on board with the scheme, which aims to address “acute skills shortages” faced by the area.

Each college has its own targets it needs to reach as part of the partnership, including increasing starts on higher-level apprenticeship courses, improving the proportion of full-time courses with a work experience element, and increasing its income from apprenticeships.

It is hoped that by reaching these targets, the colleges will help to narrow the skills gap in Leeds’ major sectors of manufacturing and engineering, health and care, infrastructure and digital.

The partnership has been created while the combined authority progresses with plans for a full devolution deal, which FE Week understands is in its very early stages.

Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, skills lead for the West Yorkshire’s combined authority and leader of Bradford council, said she was “immensely pleased” with the new partnership.

“It is paramount that our young people, particularly those hardest to reach, have access to training and qualifications that will lead them to rewarding employment,” she said.

“By realigning this £56 million annual spend, we can ensure that young people have the right skills to gain access to well paid jobs that meet the demands of our businesses.”

The seven colleges in the partnership are Bradford College Group, Calderdale College, Kirklees College, Leeds City College, Leeds College of Building, Shipley College and Wakefield College.

Ian Billyard, principal of Leeds College of Building said that by working with the combined authority, his college had “identified how we will improve our links with employers, grow our apprenticeship offer and develop our pathways to higher-level learning to address the skills shortages in our sector and bring affordable, high-quality education to the young people of the north.”

Andy Welsh, chief executive of Bradford College Group said he was “keen to develop” his college’s “career-focused provision further and in alignment with the needs of the Leeds City Region economy”.

“In partnership with the combined authority and with a renewed focus, we will continue to work to support the needs of Bradford residents and beyond, from the most disadvantaged to those accessing degree level training. Bradford College Group fully endorses this partnership.”

DfE quick to rebuff ‘evidence’ of employers calling for changes to off-the-job rule

A plea for flexibility in apprenticeship off-the-job training requirements has been swiftly rebutted by the Department for Education.

In a paper sent to the DfE on Monday, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, backed by leading employers, asked that employers developing apprenticeship standards be allowed to set their own rules for how much time apprentices spend in off-the-job training.

The submission included “substantial evidence” from employers, including several NHS Trusts, sandwich chain Pret a Manger and business services group Rentokil Initial, on the impact the DfE’s “arbitrary” 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement would have, and came after AELP boss Mark Dawe (pictured above) met with skills minister Anne Milton earlier this month to discuss the issue. 

The paper warned of the policy’s “unintended consequences”, while employers claimed that it “limits their participation, engagement and appetite to fully embrace apprenticeships”.

“Ramifications are wide-ranging, from limiting social mobility and hampering the achievement of the three million apprenticeship starts to which the current government is committed,” the AELP said.

In place of this one-size-fits-all approach, the organisation asked that the employer groups developing the be allowed to “decide what the percentage of off-the-job should be for required for each of their standards”.

They should “have the authority to recommend to the Institute for Apprenticeships and the Education and Skills Funding Agency the percentage which should be delivered as part of an apprentice’s working hours”, it added.

A DfE spokesperson was quick to rebut any possibility that the rule would be reviewed.

They insisted that the 20 per cent rule is “a core principle that underpins a quality apprenticeship” and “a key aspect that makes an apprenticeship distinct from other work-based learning”.

Under current ESFA rules, introduced in May, all apprentices must spend at least one fifth of their time in off-the-job training.

This is defined as “learning which is undertaken outside of the normal day-to-day working environment and leads towards the achievement of an apprenticeship”.

It can include training “delivered at the apprentice’s normal place of work” but it “must not be delivered as part of their normal working duties”.

The rule has proved extremely divisive throughout the sector.

In a recent FE Week feature, Sue Pittock, the chief executive of Remit Training, argued that homework – done outside the apprentices’ normal working hours – should count towards the 20 per cent.

This view was backed by Mr Dawe, who, as part of the same feature, described the “mandatory 20 per cent” as a “throwback” that “doesn’t offer any correlation with the quality of the provision actually being delivered”.

And Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills, told the AELP conference in June that the inspectorate would not be auditing providers’ compliance with the rule during inspections.

It’s not a universally unpopular policy, however: many others in the sector want the 20 per cent rule to stay, in order to protect apprentices from exploitation.

Exclusive: IfA turns to headhunters after failing to recruit a permanent CEO

The Institute for Apprenticeships has failed to appoint a permanent chief executive, FE Week can reveal.

A job advert for the top position at the new institute was first launched in April, with a submissions deadline date of May 22.

A person for the role should have been appointed by now, but having failed to do so the IfA has turned to Odgers Berndtson, a major recruitment firm, for help.

In an email sent last week to a sector leader and seen by FE Week, a recruiter from the company says: “I wanted to make contact about a chief executive opportunity I am working on for the Institute for Apprentices.

“Whilst I appreciate you have just moved into a new role, I would be keen to have a word to seek your thoughts and expert opinion on this assignment and see if anyone within your network you may think is suited towards this role.”

A spokesperson for the IfA then confirmed to FE Week today that the institute is still actively  looking for chief executive applicants.

“We received a good response to the advert and have a strong field for the post,” he said. “At present the competition remains ongoing and as part of the process we have used headhunters. The institute remains committed to filling the post as soon as possible.”

The spokesperson added that in the meantime, Peter Lauener will remain as interim chief executive for the institute and he has “made it clear that he is happy to remain in post until the next chief executive is appointed to ensure continuity of leadership”.

The IfA launched in April and is expected to have an annual budget of around £8 million and up to 80 staff.

The chief executive position is only a fixed term contract, of up to five years, with a salary of up to £142,500.

According to the email sent by Odgers Berndtson, the boss of the IfA will have a role in “developing and managing effective relationships with senior stakeholders, seeking to bring them on board and win their commitment to the functions of the Institute, including how those might evolve over time”.

It adds: “The chief executive will be expected to be a visible and authoritative presence on the public stage and in engaging with senior figures in the private and public sector, and will be a credible figure with employers.”

In April, the government appointed Antony Jenkins as permanent chair of the IfA, as well as the chairs for 15 route panels, and a panel of apprentices to advise the board.

Lords launch inquiry into the state of technical education

The House of Lords has called for an inquiry into whether or not FE and vocational training is funded fairly.

Lord Forsyth (pictured above), the chair of the economic affairs committee, is asking for written submissions to be sent in by September 14.

There are a number of FE areas he is hoping to receive submissions for, including the sector’s thoughts on the apprenticeships levy and the government’s target of three million new apprenticeships by 2020.

The post-16 skills plan, based on the recommendations from Lord Sainsbury’s review of technical education, is also on the agenda, as are the much anticipated T-levels, which will give 16- to 19 year-olds the option to study for technical qualifications in 15 sectors.

The inquiry will also look at higher education.

“Successive governments have committed to increasing participation in higher education,” he said. “More recently the government has pledged to increase the number of apprenticeships offered.”

“For those who do not go to university, is the system of further education and vocational training funded fairly? Should there be a greater focus on technical qualifications in STEM subjects to fill shortages in the labour market?”

The committee is keen to gather evidence from those with “direct knowledge” of the issues, including students, recent graduates and apprentices, but it also wants to hear from businesses and enterprise on whether the current system “equips workers with the necessary skills for the modern economy”.

“For our inquiry to be effective we need to hear as many views and experiences as possible,” he said. “Written evidence will play an important role in informing our work and I would encourage anyone with knowledge, or an interest in this area, to return a submission by September 14, 2017.”

Anyone wanting to give written evidence should submit their views online here.

London college merger called off at last minute

A planned merger between two London colleges has been called off at the last minute, FE Week can reveal.

Barking and Dagenham College and Havering College will no longer link up on August 1, Barking’s acting chair of governors has admitted.

Mark Bass told FE Week that merger discussions between the two colleges “have for the present time been discontinued”.

“This was a decision taken by Havering board following a response from the Barking and Dagenham College board, in light of a review of the merger conditions set by the Barking and Dagenham College board,” he said.

A spokesperson for Havering College has also confirmed that “following careful consideration and detailed discussions by the board” it had decided “not to pursue its merger with Barking and Dagenham College”.

“This is because the board considers that a merger with Barking and Dagenham College is no longer the best option to achieve the college’s aspirations for its students, staff and local communities,” he added.

The merger was one of the recommendations to emerge from the east and south-east London area review, which ended in November 2016.

It is now the fifteenth area review recommendation to fall through.

As previously reported by FE Week, these include all three of the Tees Valley review mergers, after the collapse of a partnership between Middlesbrough College and Redcar and Cleveland College was announced earlier this month.

It happened two weeks after the merger between Darlington College and Stockton Riverside College was called off, while a partnership between Hartlepool Sixth Form College and Hartlepool College also fell by the wayside earlier this year, after the SFC announced plans to join forces with Sunderland College.

Other failed mergers include Bury College, which dropped out of a three-way link-up with the University of Bolton and Bolton College in April.

And FE Week reported in February that another Manchester merger involving Stockport, Oldham and Tameside Colleges had been called off following intervention by the FE commissioner Richard Atkins.

 

 

Blackburn College students fume over two-week results delay

Degree students left waiting for overdue results from a Lancashire college have branded the delay “cruel” and are demanding answers. 

The final grades for students at Blackburn College’s university centre should have been published two weeks ago, according to reports in the local media – but have not yet been released.

The college has blamed data glitches for the delay, but hasn’t elaborated about what’s behind the problem, how many students are affected, or even when the problems will be resolved.

A number of students affected have tweeted their anger at the ongoing delay.

One user, Kylie Armstrong, wrote on July 18: “@LancasterUni celebrating graduation while they have delayed our results #cruel #wedemandanswers”

Others have complained about the impact the delay could have on their future studies or job offers.

Tracy Stuart, a vice-principal of curriculum and quality, expressed “regret” that the students had not got their results.

“The college is undertaking a robust review of its data to ensure its accuracy,” she said, resulting in “a delay which we are working hard to resolve”.

“Blackburn College is currently scheduling the submission of its results,” she added.

She refused to reveal any more information despite further questions from FE Week.

Blackburn College, which crashed two grades from ‘outstanding’ to ‘requires improvement’ after an Ofsted inspection in May, offers degrees through its university centre, the majority of which are validated by Lancaster University.

Prof Mike Wright, a dean of academic quality at Lancaster, said the university had been “informed that a systems issue is affecting Blackburn College results” and that staff at the college and the university were “working collaboratively to fix the problem as quickly as possible”.

“As soon as Blackburn’s internal systems issue is resolved and Lancaster University can be satisfied with the accuracy of the results, we will then be in a position to set a date for the college to release those results to students,” he said.

FE Week has asked the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for HE if it had received any complaints from Blackburn students, and a spokesperson told us that the organisation was “not able to comment on individual cases or to confirm whether or not we have received cases relating to a particular issue”.

She added: “It may be useful to clarify that students normally need to complete their provider’s own internal complaints process before they can bring a complaint to us.”

 

Ofsted watch: Three providers branded ‘inadequate’

Three providers have been branded ‘inadequate’ in a tough week for the FE and skills sector.

Land-based provider Easton and Otley College, independent provider EQL Solutions Limited and employer provider Compass Group UK & Ireland have all been given the lowest possible grade.

Easton and Otley College was rated grade four in all areas except effectiveness of leadership and management, and apprenticeships – both given grade three – in a report published July 20 and based on an inspection carried out in May.

“Too many students” on study programmes were found to “not make the progress of which they are capable”, while adult learners “do not benefit from effective, well-planned teaching, learning and assessment”.

Consequently, “too few” learners “achieved their qualifications”, with the proportion having “declined in recent years”.

Leaders and managers were also criticised for failing to act “swiftly to bring about improvements to the provision in order to ensure that students and apprentices make good progress”.

Governance and management at EQL Solutions Limited came in for heavy criticism in a report published July 19 and based on an inspection in March.

The Warrington-based provider was rated inadequate in all areas except adult learning, with governors and leaders slammed for failing to “eradicate the weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”.

The “strategic and operational management of subcontractors” was deemed “requires improvement”, as was the “performance management of staff at every level”.

Apprentice achievement rates had “declined significantly” since the previous inspection – but unemployed adult learners were found to “make good progress”.

Meanwhile, employer provider Compass Group UK & Ireland was handed grade fours across the board in a report published June 20 and based on an inspection in June.

“Few” line managers were found to be “engaged in the apprenticeship programme” while UK directors “do not have a clear understanding of the performance of apprenticeship delivery”.

Consequently, most apprentices “make slow progress” as a result of “operational restructuring, changes of assessors, poorly planned learning and a lack of time at work to devote to their apprenticeship”.

Leaders were also criticised for failing to “manage rigorously enough” the subcontractor’s performance.

Three providers slipped one grade from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’ – independent providers TQ Workforce Development Limited and Archway Academy, along with adult and community learning provider NACRO.

A significant decline in apprenticeship achievement rates was among the issues highlighted for TQ Workforce Development, in a report published July 19 and based on a June inspection.

Leaders and managers were deemed “slow to implement actions to improve teaching, learning and assessment” while learners’ and apprentices’ progress was “hindered” due to a lack of “challenging, detailed targets based on their individual starting points”.

Issues with data collection and progress monitoring were among those pulling Archway Academy down, in a report published July 19 and based on an inspection in June.

“Too few” tutors were “sufficiently demanding” of learners, and many did not “use results of learners’ initial assessment and education, health and care plans sufficiently well to plan learning that meets all learners’ individual education and training needs”.

Meanwhile, the report into Nacro – published July 19 and based on an inspection in May – singled out problems with the community learning and skills provider’s study programmes.

Poor design of the programmes that failed to allow “sufficient consideration of the personal circumstances that often prevent learners from being able to maintain a commitment to year-long study programmes” led to “too few learners” achieving their qualifications.

Former sixth form college Totton College, which is now part of Nacro, was also rated as ‘requires improvement’ in a separate report published July 18 and based on a June inspection.

Learners’ progress was being impeded by “low” attendance and teachers who had “insufficiently high expectations of their learners” – with the result that achievement rates were “too low”.

Just two providers were found to be ‘good’ overall this week following full inspections – one of which, Learning Skills Partnership Ltd, went up from grade three, while the other, Smart Training and Recruitment Ltd, held on to its grade two.

Leaders and managers at Learning and Skills Partnership Ltd were praised for having “overseen significant improvements” at the Hull-based independent provider, and for having a “clear and carefully considered vision”, in a report published July 19 and based on an inspection in June.

The “vast majority” of apprentices benefitted from “well-planned and effective teaching, learning and assessment”, leading to “the development of good occupational skills which their employers value highly”.

The standard of apprentices’ work at Smart Training and Recruitment Limited was deemed “good”, with the “large majority” making good progress on their programmes, in a report published July 18 and based on an inspection in June.

The “excellent relationships” developed by “very ambitious” leaders and managers at the Isle of Wight-based independent provider have enabled them to “deliver high-quality programmes that meet local and regional needs and the needs of apprentices”.

Eight providers held onto their grade two following a short inspection this week – independent learning providers Introtrain (ACE) Limited, Midland Group Training Services Limited, and Health & Safety Training Limited, and adult and community learning providers Building Crafts College, Southampton City Council, Derby Skillbuild, Derbyshire Adult and Community Education Service, and Cheshire East Council.

And finally, a monitoring visit report into safeguarding at Lewisham Southwark College was published this week, which found all aspects of safeguarding to be effective.

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Lewisham Southwark College 21/06/2017 21/07/2017 M M
Easton & Otley College 15/05/2017 20/07/2017 4 2
Totton College (Part of Nacro) 06/06/2017 18/07/2017 3 –

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
TQ Workforce Development Limited 13/06/2017 19/07/2017 3 2
Archway Academy 27/06/2017 19/07/2017 3 2
Learning Skills Partnership Ltd 19/06/2017 19/07/2017 2 3
EQL Solutions Limited 28/03/2017 19/07/2017 4 3
Smart Training and Recruitment Limited 13/06/2017 18/07/2017 2 2

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
NACRO 09/05/2017 19/07/2017 3

2

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Compass Group UK & Ireland 13/06/2017 20/07/2017 4 2

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
Building Crafts College 13/06/2017 20/07/2017
Southampton City Council 27/06/2017 20/07/2017
Derby Skillbuild 29/06/2017 19/07/2017
Derbyshire Adult Community Education Service 21/06/2017 19/07/2017
Cheshire East Council 14/06/2017 19/07/2017
Introtrain (ACE) Limited 20/06/2017 20/07/2017
Midland Group Training Services Limited 21/06/2017 20/07/2017
Health & Safety Training Limited 21/06/2017 19/07/2017

Exclusive: Government inaction as employers leave apprentices half a million pounds out of pocket

It’s likely that no-one has been fined or prosecuted for illegally underpaying apprentices, an FE Week investigation exposing the “unacceptable” failure of government enforcement has found.

The Department for Education’s own survey, published on Wednesday, found that 18 per cent of apprentices were paid below the appropriate national minimum wage in 2016, up from 15 per cent in 2014.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy admitted there had been just 13 prosecutions since 2007 for minimum wage violations, four of which were in 2016-17.

However, he claimed to “not have information” as to whether any of these related to apprenticeships.

Meanwhile, in 2015-16, he said the government identified “£558,618 of arrears for 632 workers in cases where complaints involved apprentices”, though this only refers to underpayment claims, which have to be reimbursed, and do not represent fines.

Asked directly whether any employers had been fined or prosecuted for non-compliance over apprentices’ pay, the DfE declined to respond.

It also refused to comment on whether government attempts to deter employers, through naming and shaming, and threats of fines or prosecution, had failed.

The newly elected chair of the education select committee, Robert Halfon, a former skills minister, spoke out on Twitter about government inaction.

“Apprentices not paid legal MinWage unacceptable: Emplyrs shld’ve high sanctions. Apps shld be valued not exploited,” he wrote.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour’s shadow minister for business, energy and industrial strategy, added: “The government has not taken sufficient steps to enforce payment of the minimum wage. Employment rights are only safe in Labour hands.

“That there are apprentices who are paid less than minimum wage is unacceptable, that the practice is on the rise is shocking.”

Julian Gravatt, the deputy CEO of the Association of Colleges, described FE Week’s findings as “a concern”. “Low pay is bad for the apprentice while illegal pay arrangements damage the reputation of apprenticeships,” he said.

“This issue should be a priority for the government’s new director of labour market enforcement.”

The government appointed Sir David Metcalf to this new position in January, to “oversee a crackdown on workplace exploitation”.

BEIS explained in February that “from October 2013, the government revised the naming and shaming scheme to make it simpler to name and shame employers” who break NMW law.

It identified a record 359 breaches that month alone, but continues to refuse to say which, if any, of the offences related to apprentices.

BEIS also explained five months ago that employers who pay workers less than the minimum wage could face prosecution, and “not only have to pay back arrears of wages to the worker at current minimum wage rates, but also face financial penalties of up to 200 per cent of arrears, capped at £20,000 per worker”.

FE Week learned in April that the researchers who carried out the work for this year’s apprentice pay survey handed a final draft of their report to the government back in January.

Mark Winterbotham, the director of the firm which carried out the survey, told FE Week that he didn’t know why it hadn’t yet been published, and said he had “not had any communication since early March” with BEIS’ research team.

“Headline figures on non-compliance for apprenticeship pay have been public since October 2016,” said a spokesperson for the department said this week.

“There has been no delay in publishing this report.”

Government’s new crackdown on illegally low wages for apprentices

Rogue employers who illegally underpay apprentices have been threatened with severe jail sentences, under a new government crackdown on abuses of workers’ rights.

Sir David Metcalf (pictured above), the government’s new director of labour-market enforcement, today warned that the worst offenders could face prison sentences as long as two years.

The crackdown comes just days after FE Week reported that it was more than likely that no employer had ever been prosecuted or even fined for paying apprentices less the national minimum wage.

A much-delayed Department for Education survey released last week showed that 18 per cent of apprentices were paid illegal wages in 2016, up from 15 per cent in 2014.

Government inaction allowed employers to leave UK apprentices half a million pounds out of pocket in 2015-16 alone.

“Tackling labour market abuses is an important priority for the government and I am encouraged it has committed record funds to cracking down on exploitation,” said Sir David, who was appointed to the new position in January, in order to oversee a crackdown on workplace exploitation.

“Over the coming months I will be working with government enforcement agencies and industry bodies to better identify and punish the most serious and repeat offenders taking advantage of vulnerable workers and honest businesses.”

A Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy spokesperson confirmed to FE Week that this crackdown commitment would apply to employers who fail to pay apprentices at least the minimum wage of £3.50 per hour for anyone aged 24 or under.

Read more: Apprenticeship pay survey exposes rise in proportion paid illegal wages

The wider national minimum and living wage enforcement statistics show that in 2016-17, government teams managed to recoup a record £10.9 million in back pay for 98,150 of the UK’s lowest-paid workers – a 69 per cent increase on the previous year.

BEIS said businesses that failed to pay workers at least the legal minimum wage were also fined £3.9 million, with employers in hospitality and retail sectors among the most prolific offenders.

However, there have been just 13 prosecutions since 2007 for minimum wage violations, four of which came in 2016-17.

A BEIS press officer claimed to “not have information” on whether any of these related to underpaid apprentices.

Jon Richards, head of education at Unison, said his union has raised concerns about “weak” regulation of apprentices’ pay‎ with government on “a number of occasions”.

He said that if this new crackdown is true and “not further government spin”, then it “might make employers sit up and take notice”.

“Apprentices are already paid a pittance, so any employer trying to exploit them further deserves what they get,” he added.

BEIS explained in February that “from October 2013, the government revised the naming and shaming scheme to make it simpler to name and shame employers” which break NMW law.

It identified a record 359 breaches that month alone, but continues to refuse to say whether any concerned apprentices.

Five months ago, BEIS announced that employers paying their workers less than the minimum wage could face prosecution, and “not only have to pay back arrears of wages to the worker at current minimum wage rates, but also face financial penalties of up to 200 per cent of arrears, capped at £20,000 per worker”.

Business minister Margot James claimed the government is “firmly on the side of hard-working people” and is “determined to stamp out any workplace exploitation, from minimum wage abuses to modern slavery”.

Sir David will start consulting with stakeholders from today, ahead of his first full strategy, due later this year. To contribute, you can email directorsoffice@lme.gsi.gov.uk