Students take to the airwaves to debate the future of nursing

Health and social care students from Salford City College recently appeared on BBC Radio 5 Live to debate whether nurses should train for free.

The four students, all on studying at level three, Olivia, Godwin, Hussain and Eunice, visited the BBC’s Quay House at MediaCityUK for the broadcast, and were joined by Janet Davies, the chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing.

BBC presenters Sam Walker and Jason Mohammad asked the students why they wanted to pursue a nursing career, and whether the abolishment of bursaries would affect their decision.

While the students were somewhat unsure how the changes would affect them, fellow guest Steve West from Universities UK assured them there was still support
funding available for nursing degrees,
telling them “don’t lose that passion and let your dreams fly away because you think you can’t afford it.”

The debate followed reports appearing across the national press that there had been a 23 per cent drop in applications to university nursing courses.

Olivia said: “It was amazing to have the opportunity to go on national radio and have our say about things that affect us. 

“I was really nervous about the show being live but afterwards I felt really confident and it’s good to do things that push you outside your comfort zone.”

 

Main photo: (L-R) Hussain, Olivia, Eunice, Godwin

Movers and Shakers: Edition 200

Your weekly guide to who’s new, and who’s leaving.

Michelle Swithenbank has been appointed deputy chief executive of Hull College Group.

Based in Yorkshire, the college has an enrolment of around 28,000 students, making it one of the largest colleges of its kind.

She will take up the role from her previous position as interim vice principal at the Grimsby Institute Group, where she oversaw multiple faculties.

Beginning her career as a full-time nurse in the NHS and private sector, she moved into further education following an opportunity to work in curriculum development of overseas nursing programmes.

Her first FE role was as a lecturer at Hereford college of technology (now Herefordshire and Ludlow college), before going on to hold roles as head of school at City of Wolverhampton college in 2014 and interim associate principal at the Grimsby Institute.

Ms Swithenbank said of her new role: “I am very excited to join Hull College Group at a time when the city of Hull is undergoing such amazing cultural transformation. Hull College Group’s campuses are well placed in the heart of each area and house an incredibly diverse range of talented staff and students.”

_____________________________________________________________

Niko Phillips has been appointed group director of international at Activate Learning, an education and training group based in Oxford, which runs schools, FE colleges and work-based training. It also delivers international study programmes. 

Activate Learning currently comprises three UK FE colleges, four schools, two apprenticeship and training providers and four colleges in Saudi Arabia.

Mr Phillips will take up the role from his current position as group operations director for the BSC Group of schools, where he oversaw areas such as safeguarding and developing the use of technology in schools. 

He brings a total of 16 years’ experience working internationally as a teacher, trainer, academic director and school leader to the role, which will see him develop Activate Learning’s international presence.

Speaking of his new role, he said: “I am very excited to be taking up this role. Activate Learning’s growing reputation means that we have an unrivalled opportunity to transform lives through learning in an international arena.”

_____________________________________________________________

The former head of policy at OCR, Gemma Gathercole, has joined Lsect – the publisher of FE Week – as our head of funding and assessment.

Lsect was established in 2010 and publishes two weekly newspapers, FE Week and FE Week, alongside putting on regular training events for those working in the further education sector. 

Ms Gathercole had worked at awarding body OCR for more than 11 years, holding various roles including funding strategist, development manager, and her most recent position as head of policy for FE and funding.

In her new role she will be responsible for the consultancy and training side of the business, working closely with founder and FE Week editor, Nick Linford. She’ll also write opinion pieces for both newspapers, alongside providing editorial advice.

Speaking of her decision to join the Lsect team, she said: “It was really important to me to do something in this sector because I absolutely love working in FE.

“I’ll do my bit to make sure that, although there’s massive change, we can have a sector that’s prepared and supporting apprentices in making their next steps in their careers.”

 

If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk

Principal racked up £60k bill on overseas trips

A former principal spent more than £60,000 on worldwide recruitment trips but it’s unclear if he managed to persuade a single overseas student to join his London college, it has been revealed.

Kensington and Chelsea College spent tens of thousands of pounds on jetting Mark Brickley (pictured above), who unexpectedly resigned last November, on eight overseas trips between September 2014 and October 2016.

The information emerged from a Freedom of Information request lodged by the Grenfell Action Group, a local campaign group, requesting information on the college’s overseas spending.

The enquiry also revealed that on two of these visits, Mr Brickley had been accompanied by an unnamed college member of staff at a cost of £2,957.

The trips, which cost a total of £64,403, were to allow him to “attend conferences, student recruitment fairs and exhibitions, to meet with recruitment agencies and agents, and to promote and market the college in overseas markets”, according to the college’s FOI response.

And in return for the hefty bill, just nine international students have applied to join the college “either online, via staff or by word of mouth”.

Edward Daffarn, from Grenfell Action Group, told FE Week: “Nearly £70,000 is an outrageous amount of money for the college to waste on trips that have provided such little in return.”

Ruth Levin, national officer for FE at public services union Unison, added she was “concerned” to learn that Mr Brickley spent such a high amount on overseas visits “which didn’t seem to reap any significant benefit for the college”.

“It is, as ever, vital that money is invested where it is most needed to improve the college for staff and students,” she said.

The FOI response from Kensington and Chelsea College also said that “in line with many FE colleges”, the corporation agreed an overseas strategy to recruit international students “as a way of enhancing turnover with student funding having dropped significantly due to changes in government funding for both adults and young people”.

FE Week approached the college and asked if this was considered a good return on its travel costs.

We also asked whether any overseas students had yet officially joined the college.

All it would say in response was: “There has been an FOI request into the previous principal’s overseas business activities. The clerk to the corporation has provided a response to the questions without breaching either the Data Protection Act or commercial confidentiality. We are therefore not going to comment further.”

FE Week was unable to contact Mr Brickley despite repeated attempts.

Mr Brickley, who joined Kensington and Chelsea College as principal in September 2013, resigned with immediate effect last year.

His shock departure was for “personal reasons”, a college spokesperson said at the time.

The college has around 3,350 learners and received a ‘requires improvement’ rating, including a grade three for effectiveness of leadership and management, following its most recent Ofsted inspection in June 2015, having received the same grade at two previous inspections in 2013 and 2012.

The issue of whether colleges should concentrate more on international opportunities as their funding from the Skills Funding Agency diminishes has raged on for years.

The former Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw warned of the dangers of foreign recruitment in FE way back in 2012.

His remarks came in an introductory speech to Association of Colleges delegates at a London conference, where he said the focus should be on “Deptford not Delhi”.

Lord Baker scored a victory for FE

Lord Baker deserves a big pat on the back for his victory in the House of Lords this week.

The Baker Clause, as it will inevitably come to be known, will force the hand of many in schools that are clearly biased against post-16 skills training.

They haven’t done enough to steer students more suited to vocational study away from A-levels.

Now colleges and independent training providers will hopefully be given a fair chance to sell the valuable alternative they offer to young people who will benefit.

I will certainly be interested to see what impact this has on post-14 UTC learner recruitment, which has failed to take off so far.

It’s also worth noting that the resident minister in the House, Lord Nash, backed the amendment.

It hopefully shows that the government has finally accepted the era of obsessing over academic routes is over. FE’s time has come!

Apprenticeship outcomes: how do we know what they are?

Reporting on outcomes will not be mandatory, which risks undermining the status and quality of apprenticeships, says Shane Chowen

Back in November, when I first wrote about the Technical and Further Education Bill, it had only just begun its journey through the Houses of Parliament. By the time this goes to press, the bill will have moved one step closer to becoming law after completing its committee stage in the House of Lords. This is the point at which peers have the opportunity to table amendments to the bill. 

One such amendment of particular interest to me and the Learning and Work Institute, the first one to be discussed in fact, would have required the new Institute for Apprenticeships to report annually on a number of apprenticeship outcomes: job outcomes, earnings growth, progression to further learning and satisfaction rates of employers and apprentices. 

What exactly is the Institute’s role?

Rarely do amendments tabled by members of the opposition to government legislation go anywhere either in the Commons or the Lords, which makes it relatively unsurprising that on this occasion the amendment was withdrawn, following some assurances from the minister.

I want to explain why, even though reporting on apprenticeship outcomes won’t be a statutory requirement through this bill, it is still something the minister must take seriously in his mission to improve the status and quality of apprenticeships. 

For apprenticeships to sit in their rightful place as an attractive, mainstream pathway, we need to improve the information available about what apprenticeships give people. Furthermore, while everyone agrees that a start is not an outcome, we are less clear about what is, and how we know if an apprenticeship is actually working. 

What assurances will be offered to taxpayers and employers that apprenticeships are delivering the outcomes they are supposed to? After all, reporting on outcomes is becoming an increasingly important feature elsewhere in education and across most other public services. 

These problems have at least been acknowledged in part by DfE ministers. Speaking in the Lords on reporting outcomes, Lord Nash said “it is of course critical that reporting measures are in place to enable us to assess how well the programme is achieving quality outcomes”.

The minister went on to quote the Institute’s proposed operational plan, which is to “make more use of learner, employer and wider economy outcome data when reviewing the success of standards.”

Decisions need to be made within the DfE about the extent to which outcomes inform definitions of apprenticeship quality

However, he later said that the type of outcome information outlined in the amendment was “well beyond what is in scope of [the IfA’s] remit”. It sounds to me like some decisions need to be made within the DfE about the extent to which outcomes inform definitions of apprenticeship quality, as a matter of policy, rather than process. If an apprenticeship isn’t delivering positive outcomes for learners, but the development of the standard and assessment plan ticked all the right boxes, then what exactly is the Institute’s role?

This was just the first of three committee stage sessions in the Lords; the other two are still to take place. In this session, amendments concerning redefining technical qualifications, autonomy of tech-ed providers, and producing a careers strategy were also tabled and withdrawn. 

Impressively, Lord Baker did marshal cross-party support for one amendment which was accepted. This new addition would require all schools to allow a range of education and training providers access to their pupils, and require schools to issue a policy statement detailing how such providers could access the school to provide information. The government is to be congratulated for recognising that tough new legislation is sadly necessary here. 

Peers have another 54 amendments to debate over two days this week. The bill then goes back to the whole House of Lords before passing back to the House of Commons before it receives royal assent.  

Now that a conversation about apprenticeship outcomes has started, the sector needs to lead a challenge back to government that broadens what we mean by high-quality apprenticeships beyond ‘lasting 12 months’ and ‘look, employers designed the standard’. 

 

Shane Chowen is head of policy and public affairs at the Learning and Work Institute

Ofsted could re-inspect after QAR loophole crackdown

Ofsted could re-inspect providers for questionable achievement rates that have come to light following a recent Skills Funding Agency crackdown.

Last week the Department for Education admitted to a loophole in the SFA’s qualification achievement rates calculation, which it said “artificially” boosted the scores for around a tenth of all providers, with some benefiting by more than 20 percentage points.

In the updated January Statistical First Release published on February 16, the DfE outlined three loopholes it has now closed.

One of these was described as an “inappropriate use of the planned break exclusion rule”, which allowed providers to report most learner withdrawals as planned breaks, and therefore gave those that exploited it “a significantly higher QAR”.

As a result, the SFA has recalculated all QAR data from 2014/15 onwards; before this date, QARs were calculated using different methodologies for each of the different strands of FE provision.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the AELP, tackled the developments in a newsletter to members this week, telling them that Ofsted had confirmed that “where providers have been recently inspected and data makes inspection judgments questionable, they won’t be re-inspecting”.

But FE Week checked this with Ofsted, and received a contradictory answer.

A spokesperson said the watchdog was “aware of issues about the latest QAR data” and would take this into account during FE inspections, but “for those providers whom we have recently inspected, we will consider each case on its merits”.

FE Week approached 14 large providers, each of which has over 500 apprentices, an ‘outstanding’ rating from Ofsted, and QAR data for 2014/15 of over 80 per cent, to ask their views on the changes and how their rates had been affected.

Despite repeated enquires, three of these 14 said they did not wish to comment and seven were unable to respond by the time of going to print.

Rachel Randall, chief executive and managing director of HTP Apprenticeship College said: “We are looking at our own data, but ours hasn’t dropped significantly.

“We may have had a few that have been over-stayers, but other than that we are not going to challenge it.”

A spokesperson for Skills Group Limited, meanwhile admitted that the new methodology had caused a minor fall in its data for 2014/15, while data for 2015/16 remained unchanged.

“In our case, the 2014/15 reduction is the result of breaks in learning for three learners out of 1,150. All three re-engaged in 2015/16, with two of them going on to achieve. It would appear that we’ve been penalised unfairly for two of the three learners,” she said.

“While this does point to unfair treatment of positive outcomes after re-engagement, we will not be disputing with the SFA. We will, however, be changing how we deal with breaks in learning going forward.”

A spokesperson for Uxbridge College said: “The changes have had no effect on the college’s QAR.

“The College is pleased to find that the SFA has now updated the methodology.”

An RAF spokesperson said the changes would not affect its QAR.

According to last week’s DfE report, the SFA’s analysis found that approximately 10 per cent of apprenticeship providers had received “an artificially high QAR rate for apprenticeships” due to “three loopholes in the methodology”. Some gained “a significant advantage of more than 20 per cent in their overall QAR”, while other providers “were able to avoid falling below the minimum standard threshold which was 55 per cent at the time”.

 

Mr Halfon, please protect learners from FE loan scandal

As FE Week launches #saveourapprenticeships, our editor Nick Linford explains why he passionately believes loans should be written-off for undeserving victims where training providers go bust

FE loans are a relatively new way to fund courses, but through no fault of their own adults are already being left with large government debts for cancelled courses.

The short-term solution, to write the debt off, is both simple and obvious. But it is important to also learn from why and how the loans were introduced.

Before August 2013, people aged 24 or over who started a vocational course at level three or above would have typically shared the cost with the government.

For example, someone looking to change career and get qualified as a personal fitness instructor might pay £1,500, and the Skills Funding Agency on behalf of the government would pay the other £1,500.

An advanced learning loan, as these were named, isn’t classed as government expenditure

The college or training provider would then have £3,000 to deliver a level three qualification in personal fitness instruction.

This co-investment funding model as it’s known, where the costs are shared between the learner and the government, had been working well for many years.

However, the government obsession with cutting departmental budgets by up to 40 percent changed all that, when they converted both the £1,500 learner and £1,500 government contribution into a loan.

An advanced learning loan, as these were named, isn’t classed as government expenditure, so as far as the Treasury is concerned a budget cut had been achieved.

In the example above, the full £3,000 is paid to the college or training provider by the Student Loans Company.

The learner pays nothing until after the course finishes. And, like a loan to study at university, they only have to start repaying once they are earning over £21,000, with a relatively low interest rate.

So assuming the learner is still willing to take out a £3,000 income contingent loan, the provider still receives their funding and the provision continues.

Robert Halfon should now ensure learners let down by a negligent SFA should also have their loan written off

So far so sensible, but now comes the insanity.

The SFA gave people running companies, with no history of receiving public funding, access to millions in loans cash from the Student Loans Company.

These people would fill out online forms with the SLC to receive the funding, and often pay other companies to deliver the training via subcontractors.

The sadly predictable outcome of giving a few individuals access to millions in public funding is a growing list of liquidated companies, and thousands of learners with debts for courses they are unable to finish, as increasingly reported in the pages of FE Week.

The SFA has slowly begun to address the problem, by tightening up the way it sets and increases access to loan funding, as well as gradually banning the use of subcontracting.

But it also needs to acknowledge the early failings, by changing policy towards learners left with debts for courses they cannot complete.

Cancelling the loans for these learners would not only end an injustice, it should also be a simple policy to implement, given this is already what happens for others.

Learners using loans for level three Access to Higher Education qualifications don’t have to pay them back, if they go on to pass a degree. This is a policy the then skills minister, John Hayes, implemented.

The current skills minister, Robert Halfon, should now ensure learners let down by a negligent SFA should also have their loan written off.

It really should be an easy policy change to end an obvious injustice.

Over to you Mr Halfon.

 

Article first published on the NCFE blog.

Why not give Ofqual more power over apprenticeship standards?

The assessment community is calling for Ofqual’s role in apprenticeships to be extended – which shows something is badly wrong, says Gemma Gathercole

When I first started working for OCR way back in 2005, there was a single body responsible for both the content of qualifications and their regulation: the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. 

It is a difficult task, designing the rules governing content, and then writing the rules that regulate it in the form of qualifications and regulating the organisations that offer them. And because it is a difficult task, it led inevitably to questions about conflicts of interest. For those with long memories in this sector, and I don’t yet count myself as one, there are probably many more examples of this sort of conflict. 

However, we are on the verge of recreating exactly that sort of conflict in a new organisation: the Institute for Apprenticeships, but the picture is now even more complex.

Now is the time to act

For apprenticeship standards, there is no single approach to external quality-assurance. Depending on the version of documentation you read, there are three, four or five. The official government guidance says there are three options: an employer-designed solution within specified parameters set by the guidance, professional bodies taking on the role, or Ofqual regulation. 

The fourth, isn’t described as an option as it’s a route of default rather than choice: the Quality Assurance Agency, which retains its remit for regulating degrees, and therefore degree apprenticeships. 

And in FAQs or presentations given before the IfA launched, there has also been a fifth option: to ask the IfA itself to take on the role. 

It’s this final option that provides the same conflicts of interest that afflicted QCA. And what happened to QCA? Well, it was disbanded and from it two organisations were created: the now-defunct Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and Ofqual, as an independent regulator. The legislation that established Ofqual gave it five objectives: qualifications standards, assessments standards, public confidence, awareness and efficiency. It’s hard to understand what might put this at odds with apprenticeships.

At the heart of these reforms is a drive to put those with the right experience at the centre of the design

And yet, in this round of apprenticeship reform, while we are not replacing Ofqual (at least not directly), we are adding further complexity into a system that almost everyone already thinks is too confusing. 

It would be difficult to imagine a similar approach to qualifications like GCSEs and A-Levels, where, say, an academy trust or local authority could set the bar for school-leaving qualifications. So why is it acceptable for apprenticeships?

At the heart of these reforms is a drive to put those with the right experience at the centre of the design. It’s an obvious, important step, but while it’s easy to understand, it is baffling that the same message – about putting those with experience in the driving seat – does not extend to quality assurance and regulation. In an era where budgets are getting tighter, and government expenditure does not reach as far as it once did, spending money on duplicating the functions of an existing non-ministerial department seems frivolous.

Regulators are often disliked – it’s the nature of their role – but the function they fulfil is an important check to ensure quality. At some point, probably in the not-too-distant future, questions are likely to be raised about disparate approaches to quality assurance within apprenticeships. And to where should those concerns be directed?

Indeed, the fact that the assessment community is actually calling for Ofqual’s role in apprenticeships to be extended should indicate that something is wrong. 

It is not common for the regulated to be calling for their regulator to have more power. Correcting this misstep would mean some changes to standards that have already been approved for delivery, but that is much easier to do right now, while the numbers of starts is low. It would certainly be easier to do before the Institute begins to develop a regulatory function, and given it doesn’t yet formally exist, now is the time to act.

 

Gemma Gathercole is head of funding and assessment at Lsect

Government tight-lipped over second allocation window for register of apprenticeship training providers

The government is remaining tight-lipped over whether results of a surprise second allocation window for the register of apprenticeship training providers will be unveiled before the key reforms go live.

The first round of applications for the new register, which providers have to be on if they want to deliver apprenticeship starts from the start of May, closed for applications on November 25.

The Skills Funding Agency then announced on February 8 that it “will reopen the register for new applicants and/or those who were unsuccessful in their initial application.

“The re-opening will be soon after the first planned publication, probably in March,” a spokesperson added.

She said that exact timetables will be communicated through the “usual media channels” and the application process would follow the same format as the first opening.

FE Week asked the department that evening if this was a panic measure to bring in more providers, and if the results of this second window would now be published before the May 1 date when the new apprenticeship levy and associated reforms will go live.

A spokesperson finally responded in-part today, insisting that this isn’t a sign of panic.

But the question over when the results of the second process will be published remains unanswered.

The SFA warned just hours before the first on register deadline on November 25, that some providers had been failing to follow instructions and applying via more than one route.

It also reminded providers that ITTs should be submitted as well as a main route application – but despite this, FE Week understands not all providers knew they needed to submit the separate ITT.

Providers could apply to be on the register via three routes.

The main one was for all colleges and independent training providers who wanted to deliver training to levy-paying employers, either directly or as a sub-contractor.

The supporting route was an “entry route to the apprenticeship market for organisations that offer a specialism, and providers who only want to deliver as a subcontractor”, according to the SFA’s guidance.

The employer-provider route was for companies that wish to deliver apprenticeship training to their own staff.

In addition, providers that wanted to deliver apprenticeship training to non-levy paying employers could also submit an invitation to tender alongside a main route application.

FE Week reported last November that a quarter of apprenticeship providers had opted against the latter route.

A total of 1,753 providers applied to the register to be able to deliver training directly or as a sub-contractor to large, levy-paying employers.

Of these, just 1,310 – or 75 per cent – also applied to deliver training to smaller, non-levy paying employers.

This meant that 25 per cent of providers turned down the opportunity to receive an allocation to deliver apprenticeships to companies that won’t be subject to the levy – despite them making up the overwhelming majority of businesses in England.