Minister wrongly claims there are no grade four providers on new apprenticeships register

The written response from apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon to an open letter, complaining about the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers’ selection process, wrongly claimed that there are no ‘inadequate’-Ofsted rated providers on it. 

Team leader and assessor at Acacia Training, Anne-Marie Morris, wrote the open letter expressing her sense of injustice – as published in FE Week on March 16 – after her company failed to get a place on the RoATP despite its Ofsted ‘good’ rating.

Mr Halfon’s letter in response, which has now been shared with us (click here to download), mistakenly said: “I can confirm that there are no Ofsted grade four organisations listed on the new register.”

Exclusive FE Week analysis has infact found there are five colleges and one council on the new register – Amersham & Wycombe College, Ealing, Hammersmith & West London College, Essex County Council, Huntingdonshire Regional College, Mid-Cheshire College, and North Shropshire College (see more details in table below).

He added: “Where an organisation has a grade four overall, or a grade four for apprenticeships, they will not be allowed to enter the register.

“If an organisation listed on the register attains a grade four in the future, then they will be removed from the register immediately.”

The minster stressed that all providers were given a clear set of criteria they had to meet, through the RoATP application process.

Key elements under consideration were, he said “due diligence; financial health; capacity/ capability, and quality”.

He warned that “if a provider does not meet these criteria they cannot be on the register.

“Your organisation would have been provided with feedback as to why it did not make it onto the Register, to help you with any future applications.”

He added the SFA plans to re-open the register “very quickly, around 20 March”, to give further opportunities for providers to submit an application, “including brand new providers as well as those that were not successful in the first round”.

He subsequently confirmed to MPs in the House of Commons this afternoon that providers who feel aggrieved because they did not make it onto the new RoATP will be able to reapply from tomorrow.

Mr Halfon concluded by stressing that the new register “will not affect provision for any apprenticeship starts before May 1”.

“Existing arrangements will continue to apply for these learners, and providers will still be able to deliver training through their existing contracts,” he added.

The open letter from Ms Morris, which included complaint over the lack of a clear appeals process, was to Sue Husband, director of the National Apprenticeship Service, Skills Funding Agency.

“As you can imagine, everyone in the company is devastated as all the hard work and commitment we make towards supporting learners to achieve their apprenticeships to such a high standard appears to not have been considered at all,” she said.

“I personally would really like to understand how this can happen and why we as a company cannot appeal the decision.

“I, along with my colleagues, will surely lose the jobs we have been so proud of and the future of such a professional, caring company is now in doubt. We are only a small training provider with 70 staff members but this will have a devastating impact on all of our lives.”

A Department for Education spokesperson told FE Week it was a simple mistake in the letter. “We are clear that where an organisation has a Grade 4 for overall effectiveness they will not be eligible to apply for the register unless they have a 3 or above for apprenticeship provision. This is set out in the guidance. There are no providers on the register who have a grade 4 for apprenticeship provision.

“We will be contacting the recipient of the letter in question to clarify the Department’s position.”

 

Making sense of the 20% off-the-job apprenticeship funding rule

One of the most important apprenticeship funding rules from May is the requirement that every apprentice “spends at least 20 per cent of their time on off-the-job training”.

This simple sentence actually raises a series of questions, such as how to define “their time” and “off-the-job training”.

We understand the SFA will shortly publish dedicated guidance about the off-the-job training rule, but in the meantime we asked for a definition of “their time”. 

The SFA today told FE Week that “their time” refers to contracted employment hours and said:

  • “Off-the-job training must amount to 20 per cent of the apprentice’s contracted employment hours across the whole apprenticeship.
  • “We do not stipulate how this should be spread out.
  • “It cannot include time spent on English and maths, or on training to acquire skills, knowledge and behaviours that are not required in the standard or framework.”

Thus, if an employee is on a two year apprenticeship and has an employment contract of 7 hours x 5 days x 46 weeks x 2 years that is a total of 3,220 contracted hours. Hence, at 20 per cent the minimum off-the-job training would be 644 hours (equivalent to one day per working week).

And for current completeness, here’s what version two of the ‘Apprenticeship funding and performance-management rules for training providers’ says:

The 20 per cent minimum off-the-job rule

“To use funds in an employer’s digital account or from government-employer co-investment for an apprenticeship, you must have evidence that the apprentice spends at least 20 per cent of their time on off-the-job training, recognising that apprentices may need more than 20 per cent off-the-job training, for example if they need English and maths. It is up to you and the employer to decide how the off-the-job training is delivered. This may include regular day release, block release and special training days/workshops.”

Definition of off-the-job training

“Off-the-job training is defined as learning which is undertaken outside of the normal day-today working environment and leads towards the achievement of an apprenticeship. This can include training that is delivered at the apprentice’s normal place of work, but must not be delivered as part of their normal working duties.”

The off-the-job training must be directly relevant to the apprenticeship framework or standard and could include:

  • “The teaching of theory (for example, lectures, role playing, simulation exercises, online learning, manufacturer training).
  • “Practical training; shadowing; mentoring; industry visits and attendance at competitions.
  • Learning support and time spent writing assessments/assignments.”

Off-the-job training does not include:

  • “English and maths (up to level two) which is funded separately
  • “progress reviews or on-programme assessment required for an apprenticeship framework or standard
  • “training which takes place outside the apprentice’s paid working hours”

Evidencing the off-the-job

“The evidence pack must, among other things listed in the funding rules, contain:

  • “evidence to support the funding claimed and must be available to us if we need it. This must include details of how the 20 per cent ‘off-the-job’ training, excluding English and maths, will be quantified and delivered.
  • “details of employment including: the name of the employer and the agreed contracted hours of employment, including paid training and 20 per cent ‘off-the-job’ time, the total planned length of the apprenticeship.”

SFA apprenticeship funding rules strengthened to deter employer kick-backs

The apprenticeship funding rules, which come into force from May, have now been updated by the SFA to deter employer kick-backs.

In early March the SFA expressed concern over “emerging delivery models that are contrary to the policy intent.

“For example, some providers are offering incentives for employers by paying or re-funding them for certain aspects. These include:

  • inflating training costs to refund the employer’s co-investment
  • funding ineligible costs to employers as subcontractors
  • claiming higher prices to fund non-English apprentices free of charge to the employer

“Providers must not make payments of this kind to employers.”

Now, an additional paragraph has been added to version 2 of the rules, published 17 March, which for providers reads:

“P85. You must not pay incentives or inducements or any other payment not authorised by us to the employer in relation to any part of the apprenticeship programme.”

And a later section adds: “P172. You must not return, in total or in part, the employer’s contribution once the co-investment has been collected.”

But is there a risk a separate rule (P151) provides for a loop-hole?

However, payments to employers have not been completely ruled out, which risks being exploited as a loop-hole.

In a section titled: “special conditions for subcontracting to organisations not on the register of apprenticeship training providers” a new rule has been added which tells the provider: “P151. Where the employer is the delivery subcontractor they must report the actual costs of delivery” and tells the employer: “where you are the delivery subcontractor you must only report actual costs of delivery to the provider.”

The SFA has said that this is a “clarification that where the employer is the delivery subcontractor they must charge for actual costs in the same way as employer-providers.”

There is also a new rule for providers stating they “P160. We will only pay for commitments made with an employer on the apprenticeship service where the employer is expecting to pay the apprenticeship levy in that financial year.”

The SFA add in their change document that providers “should not enter into commitments on the apprenticeship service with employers who have no prospect of paying the levy.”

The latest version of the funding rules also removes the requirement for Early Years Education apprentices to study GCSE maths and English, a government u-turn that was reported in FE Week.

And there appears to be a change of heart on the maximum cost of the end-point assessment, following reporting of the issue in FE Week. The wording has been changed from “20% of the total agreed price” to “20% of the funding band maximum.” The SFA has said the rule was amended “to allow greater flexibility, where appropriate, in the end point assessment cost.”

————————————————————————————————————-

Other changes in version 2 of the provider funding rules. Bold added to highlight change.

Version 1: P32.4.3  “Off-the-job training does not include training which takes place outside the apprentice’s normal working hours (this cannot count towards the 20% off-the-job training)

Version 2: P32.4.3 “Off-the-job training does not include training which takes place outside the apprentice’s paid working hours.”

Version 1: P39 “The minimum duration of an apprenticeship is one year unless the framework or standard specification or assessment plan requires it to be longer.”

Version 2: P39 “The minimum duration for apprenticeship training is one year unless the framework or standard specification or assessment plan requires it to be longer.”

Version 1: P54.3 “To use funds in the employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment, the individual must not be enrolled on another apprenticeship at the same time as any new apprenticeship they start.”

Version 2: P54.3 “To use funds in the employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment, the individual must not be enrolled on another apprenticeship, or another DfE funded FE/HE programme, at the same time as any new apprenticeship they start.”

Version 1: P79.1 “Funds from an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must only be used for activity directly related to the apprenticeship. These funds must only be used to pay for training and assessment, including end-point assessment, to attain an apprenticeship that is eligible for funding up to the limit of the funding band. This includes Off-the-job training, including the costs associated with mandatory qualifications, through an externally-contracted provider or evidenced costs for employer-provider delivery.”

Version 1: P79.1 & P79.2 “Funds from an employer’s digital account, government-employer co-investment or the additional transitional funds paid for 16 to 18 year olds on frameworks must only be used for activity directly related to the apprenticeship. These funds must only be used to pay for training and assessment, including end-point assessment, to attain an apprenticeship that is eligible for funding up to the limit of the funding band. This includes off-the-job training through an externally-contracted provider or evidenced costs for employer-provider delivery. This could include some or all of the training aspects of a licence to practise or non-mandatory qualification. In both cases there must be a clear overlap between this training and the knowledge, skills and behaviors needed for the apprenticeship standard. [it also includes] Registration and examination (including certification) costs associated with mandatory qualifications excluding any licence to practise (see paragraph P82.7).”

Version 1: P82.6 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any training, optional modules, educational trips or trips to professional events in excess of those required need to achieve the apprenticeship framework or meet the knowledge, skills and behaviours of the apprenticeship standard.”

Version 2: P82.6 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any training, optional modules, educational trips or trips to professional events in excess of those required to achieve the apprenticeship framework or meet the knowledge, skills and behaviours of the apprenticeship standard. This includes training solely and specifically required for a licence to practise.“

Version 1: P82.7 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any training, assessment, exams or tests in any skills and knowledge solely and specifically required to acquire licences to practise, or the certification of any licence to practise, where it is a legal (or statutory) requirement for all practitioners to obtain a licence which confirms the licence-holder meets prescribed standards of competence, including situations in which it is unlawful to carry out a specified range of activities for pay without first having obtained a licence. This applies even where such a licence is required in the apprenticeship standard and the assessment plan.”

Version 2: P82.7 (reference to training removed) “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any registration and examination (including certification) costs associated with a licence to practise. This applies even where a licence is specified in the apprenticeship standard and assessment plan.”

Version 1: P82.17 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any specific services not related to the delivery and administration of the apprenticeship. This includes the recruitment and continuing professional development of staff involved in apprenticeships, company inductions, managing agents and those providing a brokerage service to an employer.”

Version 2: P82.17 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any specific services not related to the delivery and administration of the apprenticeship. This includes the recruitment and continuing professional development of staff involved in apprenticeships, company inductions, managing agents and those providing a brokerage service to an employer or provider.“

Version 1: P114 “You must contract with the apprentice assessment organisation that has been selected by the employer. You must have a written agreement in place with this assessment organisation and make payment to them for conducting the end-point assessment. The written agreement must set out the arrangements for end-point assessment, including arrangements for any re-takes and payments.”

Version 2: P115 “You must contract with the apprentice assessment organisation that has been selected by the employer and have a written agreement in place. This allows you, on behalf of the employer, to make payment to them for conducting the end-point assessment. The written agreement must set out the arrangements for sharing relevant information about the apprentice so end-point assessment and certification can take place, including arrangements for any re-takes and payments.”

Version 1: P116 “Costs of end-point assessment will vary but we expect that it should not usually be more than 20% of the total agreed price for delivering the apprenticeship training and assessment.”

 Version 2: P117 “We expect that the cost of end-point assessment should not usually exceed 20% of the funding band maximum. This does not mean that end-point assessment must cost 20%; the cost that individual employers will pay for assessment varies between standards and we expect we expect employers to negotiate with assessment organisations to secure value for money. Where total costs are higher than the funding band maximum the difference must be paid by the employer.”

New rule: P186. Providers must “offer the employer the option of using the recruit an apprentice service for all new recruits.” and “where you advertise on behalf of the employer you must make it clear in the advert how many hours will be expected and this must meet the minimum duration requirements”

Version 1: P196.3 “Where apprentices are made redundant, you must record apprentices more than six months from their planned end-date as having left learning if a new employer is not found within 12 weeks.”

Version 2: P200.3 “Where apprentices are made redundant, you must record apprentices more than six months from their planned end-date as having left learning if a new employer is not found within 12 weeks of their contract end date.“

Damning Ofsted report that caused downfall of huge provider published

The damning Ofsted report that caused the downfall of huge apprenticeship training provider First4Skills has now been published.

The Liverpool-based provider went bust earlier this month, affecting around 200 staff and around 6,500 learners, after the Skills Funding Agency pulled its contract.

That action was prompted by a grade four rating from the education watchdog, following an inspection carried out from February 7 to 10 – the findings of which have now been made public.

As typically happens with private training providers that receive an inadequate-overall Ofsted verdict, this prompted the Skills Funding Agency to terminate its contract.

The Ofsted report slams First4Skills, which was 60 per cent owned by troubled City of Liverpool College, as inadequate across the board with no strengths.

Inspectors blasted leaders at the provider for failing to “tackle the significant weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”, with the result that “outcomes for learners and the quality of teaching, learning and assessment have declined further and are now inadequate”.

“Strategic priorities focus disproportionately on maximising the company’s income at the expense of providing high standards of education and training for learners,” it said.

Trainers’ targets “focus on recruiting more learners and increasing their caseload, and not on the aspects of training and assessment that they need to improve,” it continued.

Managers were also criticised for not ensuring “that the principles and requirements of an apprenticeship” were met, and for “failing to implement appropriate arrangements to monitor accurately the progress that learners make”.

First4Skills’ monitoring of its 14 subcontractors was found to be “poor”, and focused on “the processes that they have in place rather than the quality of training”.

Safeguarding at the provider was deemed “not effective”, with managers slammed for taking “insufficient action to support learners about whom they have serious safety concerns”.

The quality of teaching, learning and assessment at both First4Skills and its subcontractors was found to be “poor”.

The report said: “Trainers place too much focus on assessing skills that learners already possess as opposed to developing new ones.”

“Inadequate teaching, learning and assessment” meant that “too many learners” failed to make the “expected progress” on their qualifications, inspectors found.

Furthermore, feedback given by trainers was found to be “overly positive and inaccurate” with the result that “too many learners” felt they were making good progress when they weren’t.

As previously reported by FE Week, staff at First4Skills were told on March 3 that the company had gone into administration.

It held an annual £15 million apprenticeship allocation, according to the most recent SFA figures.

First4Skills was jointly owned by City of Liverpool College and the Sysco Group.

When asked at the time whether the Skills Funding Agency were aware of the situation, a DfE spokesperson said: “We have exercised our right to terminate First4Skills Limited’s contract.

“We are working to ensure learners’ programmes are not disrupted and that where required alternative training provision is identified and transfer arrangements made.

“We will work with employers through the National Apprenticeship Service to ensure they are fully involved in the transfer process.”

Unison came forward a week later to say that the company might have acted unlawfully by hiding the degree of problems it was experiencing from its staff.

“The closure of First4Skills will cause uncertainty for staff and apprentices as jobs are lost and learners are moved to new training providers,” said Jon Richards, the union’s head of education.

“It’s now clear there will be redundancies. Unison believes redundancy laws may have been breached because the company failed to share the extent of the company’s woes with the workforce.”

The college was placed into administered status by the apprenticeships and skills minister, Robert Halfon, in October after it became the first college to be re-referred to the FE commissioner due to “severe financial problems”.

FE Week asked the college to comment on First4Skills’ Ofsted report, but it was unable to do  so ahead of publication.

Major provider chaired by ex-SFA boss calls in administrators

A major training provider whose chair was the first chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency has gone into administration after failing to make it onto the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

Derbyshire-based Positive Outcomes Ltd has a current Skills Funding Agency contract worth more than £11 million, but failed to make it onto the list published by the agency on Tuesday.

According to its most recent Ofsted inspection report, published in June, it had around 4,700 learners, the majority of whom were apprentices.

Its chair was Geoff Russell, who was SFA’s first chief executive and ran the agency from its inception in April 2010 until July 2012.

But this afternoon FE Week was told by a former member of staff that the provider had closed and that all staff had lost their jobs.

Kelly Ball, joint managing director at Positive Outcomes, then released a statement to FE Week from the provider’s board confirming the news.

‘’Unfortunately, after 20 years of trading, it is with deep regret that Positive Outcomes has had to file for administration with immediate effect.

“The board of directors have worked tirelessly to avoid this outcome. Our intention was to find a suitable buyer for the business. However, this unfortunately was not possible, resulting in the board having no alternative but to cease trading.

“Our priorities during this time are the learners and employers. We continue to work closely with the Skills Funding Agency to ensure a smooth transition to other providers with minimal disruption to them.

“We would like to take this opportunity to thank our dedicated staff who have been the company’s biggest asset over many successful years. We wish them well’’.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We are working to ensure learners’ programmes are not disrupted following our termination of Positive Outcomes’ contract. We will work with employers through the  National Apprenticeship Service to ensure a smooth transfer process.”

The provider, which had offices in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Nottingham as well as South Normanton, Derbyshire, offered apprenticeships and work-based learning.

Today’s news comes after Positive Outcomes was issued with a notice of serious breach from the SFA for financial control, dated November 17. 

However, the provider would not be drawn on the reasons behind the notice.

Former chief executive Chris Longmate stepped down in January, after eight years in the role.

Kelly Ball and Ryan Longmate were both promoted to joint managing director in 2011.

Exclusive: New Ofsted chief ‘worried’ about apprenticeship register

The new chief inspector at Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, has spoken to FE Week of her concern following publication of the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

In a wide ranging interview on March 17, Ms Spielman was asked about the impact RoATP would have on Ofsted’s resource, given it represents a near doubling of the number of providers that might need to be inspected.

“We have very limited information but it’s clear there are a lot of would be new entrants, a lot of people with very limited experience and potentially quite a lot of fragmentation,” said Ms Spielman.

“What that will actually translate into in terms of who gets contracts and actual starts providing apprenticeships, isn’t entirely clear. I suspect that a lot of those registrations will be optimistic things that may never translate into actual learners on the ground.”

There are current 793 apprenticeship providers in scope for inspection as they have an allocation with the Skills Funding Agency for starts until May.

Whereas, RoATP is already nearly double the size, with 1473 organisations given the green light from May (1303 training providers and 170 employer providers).

This is likely to quickly rise to over 2000 providers, given the SFA RoATP application process will take place four times per year, starting for a second time next week.

So when pressed on this prediction of over 2000 apprenticeship providers, against a backdrop of ongoing budget reductions at Ofsted, Ms Spielman said she and Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills, were “worried”.

“It is a huge challenge and we are only at the start of the conversations [with the government] because there is nothing yet to inspect. So this is about setting up for the future.”

“This is not about something we are having to deal with this week, this month or even later this year – it’s further away. But yes, we have that statutory obligation to inspect. What that translates into and the resource requirement, that’s the essence of the conversations that Paul Joyce has with DfE.”

Mr Joyce added: “I am worried about the number of providers that we may have to inspect. I’ve had conversations with the DfE about our resource. They are aware of the potential increase in providers and therefore the additional resource or the different ways of working that we will need to do. So those conversations are ongoing.”

More from the interview, including answers to questions about new grading structures and plans for individual college campus inspections, will be published in the next edition of FE Week.

 

Less than 50 per cent of inspected UTCs ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’

Less than half of the university technical colleges visited by Ofsted have received ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ grades, exclusive FE Week analysis has revealed, in another blow to the ailing project.

The education watchdog has now visited a total of 20 UTCs, but only nine of these, or 45 per cent, were judged to be good enough for higher grades.

In fact, just one – UTC Reading – was actually rated ‘outstanding’ during an inspection in May 2015.

This drags the Ofsted results of UTCs well below those of sixth form colleges, general FE colleges and independent training providers – even though the previous chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw warned UTCs last July that they needed to be doing “significantly better”.

At the annual conference of the Baker Dearing Trust, the organisation founded by the former education secretary Lord Baker to facilitate the growth of UTCs, Sir Michael said: “If the UTC movement is to survive and prosper, then radical improvement is necessary.

“If this doesn’t happen, politicians will come to the conclusion that the model is flawed.”

If this doesn’t happen, politicians will come to the conclusion that the model is flawed

The Ofsted annual report for 2015/16 was also unsympathetic.

“Inspection outcomes to date have not been strong and the potential of these institutions has not yet been realised,” it found.

SFCs have fared best in Ofsted’s books, with 77 out of 89 (87 per cent) rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ according to data for all open and funded providers up to February 28, 2017.

286 out of 346 (83 per cent) ITPs achieved a grade one or two, while for FE colleges the figure is 140 out of 206 (68 per cent).

The most recent Ofsted report into a UTC, the engineering-focused UTC Swindon, produced an overall ‘inadequate’ rating last month. It received grade fours for effectiveness of leadership and management, quality of teaching, learning and assessment, outcomes for pupils, and 16-to-19 study programmes.

It will now join the FE-backed Activate Learning Education Trust, with backers including Banbury and Bicester College, City of Oxford College, and Reading College.

Proportion inspected rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’

Energy Coast UTC, which is based in Cumbria and specialises in construction and engineering in the energy sector, was also rated in February, receiving ‘requires improvement’ across the board.

And in September 2016, UTC Cambridge, which focuses on biomedical and environmental science and technology, was also branded ‘inadequate’ overall.

These new figures seem to suggest UTC performance is dipping; at the end of 2015/16, 15 UTCs had been inspected, of which eight, or 53 per cent, had received grades one or two.

During 2015/16, just one grade four overall rating was given, to UTC Plymouth, with grade threes going to Buckinghamshire UTC and UTC Lancashire.

And of the 48 UTCs currently open, 32 still have yet to receive a visit from Ofsted at all.

FE Week put its findings to the Baker Dearing Educational Trust.

Charles Parker, the trust’s CEO, conceded: “The Ofsted inspection grade is a key performance indicator for a UTC as with every other school.

No one should underestimate the challenges for our principals and their staff of starting up much-needed technical schools

“So far, we have not done as well as we should have liked, but no one should underestimate the challenges for our principals and their staff of starting up much-needed technical schools for 14- to 19-year-olds in the current English education system.

“In all cases, where we have been judged less than good, necessary changes have been made and rapid progress is evident.”

There has been more bad news for UTCs however, with the announcement this week that plans for a new one in Guildford have been abandoned.

A post on the UTC’s website from its trustees said: “It is with regret that we post this message to inform you of the cancellation.

“Unfortunately the Department for Education is no longer supportive of the project.”

Burton and South Derbyshire UTC failed to open in September 2016, after government approval for the project was withdrawn “following low pupil recruitment numbers”.

Two more UTCs are scheduled to close in August this year: Daventry UTC, following a financial notice to improve from the Education Funding Agency in April, and the Greater Manchester UTC, as a result of recruitment problems.

These closures follow four that have already shut: Black Country UTC, Hackney UTC, UTC Lancashire, UTC Central Bedfordshire.

Royal Greenwich UTC and Tottenham UTC are both converting to schools, starting in September.

Latest grade four

UTC Swindon was the latest to receive a damning grade four Ofsted verdict, after inspectors visited in January this year.

Criticisms included the “inadequate achievement” and “weak progress” of pupils in years 10 and 11 in maths, science and engineering, partly due to poor feedback that did not explain how to improve work.

Leaders were said to be making “insufficient use of the wide range of engineering-based industrial partners”, and failing to deal with “significant weaknesses in the quality of teaching, learning and assessment in order to raise pupils’ achievement”.

The governors were said to be “supportive” of school leaders, but were not challenging them “robustly enough to improve the quality of teaching and raise pupils’ achievement”.

More than half of apprenticeship standards still have no assessor

Too many uncertainties in the new apprenticeship system is fuelling the acute lack of assessment organisations for new standards, according to the boss of their industry body.

FE Week research has revealed that more than half (87 out of 162) of the apprenticeship standards approved for delivery by the Skills Funding Agency still do not have an approved assessment organisation, despite ongoing concerns from sector figures.

Responding to these findings, Stephen Wright, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, told FE Week that the current apprenticeship system contains “too many uncertainties”, and that awarding organisations are likely to be “cautious” about engaging in any assessment that might “compromise their reputation”.

“With the high development cost and the memory of previous failed initiatives it isn’t surprising that many awarding organisations have taken a wait-and-see approach,” he said.

The lack of clarity around external quality assurance and external assessment could also discourage awarding organisations from coming forward, he claimed.

Implementing the reforms to apprenticeships will require a high level of development and investment

Earlier this month, the awarding giant OCR pulled out of delivering final apprenticeship exams altogether, potentially sending out a negative message to others in the sector.

“Implementing the reforms to apprenticeships will require a high level of development and investment, and OCR has recently decided that, unfortunately, we will not now be pursuing or developing any new apprenticeship standards that incorporate changes in assessment,” said a spokesperson for OCR at the time.

Terry Fennell, the chief executive and responsible officer at the specialist awarding organisation FDQ, told FE Week that there was a range of issues contributing to “a worrying time for awarding organisations”.

He agreed that the environment is “uncertain”, and that assessors may not want to “pioneer” services and would “probably wait until the market is more stable”.

Mr Fennell pointed out that cost remains a grey area, as there is “still much uncertainty in relation to fees that we can charge”.

He also warned that the EPA at best lacked “sufficient detail” for some standards, but at worst was “virtually undeliverable from an assessment organisation’s perspective”.

Graham Hasting-Evans, managing director of awarding organisation NOCN, said: “There are risks as well as opportunities in the AAO market, and trying to link EPA charges to training costs does not help.

“Government needs to encourage the IfA’s employer groups to engage with potential AAOs as early as possible in the development, so that their knowledge and understanding is incorporated at the beginning.”

The environment is “uncertain”, and that assessors may not want to “pioneer” services

Commenting on FE Week’s findings, a Department for Education spokesperson said: “We continue to make good progress in growing the number of AAOs on the register and are taking action to ensure there is always EPA provision by the time apprentices complete their apprenticeship.”

Back in October, FE Week reported that some AAOs applying to the register were being turned away because their plans for EPA were inadequate, after the interim chief executive of the IfA, Peter Lauener, told the parliamentary subcommittee on education, skills and the economy that the SFA had “knocked back quite a lot” of applications.

His comments followed FE Week research which revealed there were at the time no approved AAOs for over 40 per cent of learner starts on new standards.

This revelation provoked Dr Sue Pember, who stood down as the civil service’s head of FE and skills investment in February 2013, to label the situation “diabolical”.

But in November, Mr Lauener told a roomful of delegates at the AELP Autumn conference that the shortage of approved end-point assessors was not a serious problem. He accepted that the situation was “not ideal” but insisted it was “manageable”.

No funded qualifications for over a third of approved standards

More than a third of the apprenticeship standards that the government has deemed ready for delivery involve no funded qualifications other than a final assessment, exclusive FE Week research has revealed.

While the standards have end-point assessments in place, they will not provide apprentices with the chance to accumulate qualifications as they go along – as was the case with the previous apprenticeship frameworks.

This structure was designed to allow apprentices to build up their achievements, meaning that if they were unable to finish the full apprenticeship, they had still gained qualifications (or partial recognition in the form of units) from it.

It was also considered beneficial when a learner chose to change sectors, as it broke down the course, making transferable skills clearer to employers.

But the apparent lack of qualifications within new apprenticeships standards has raised concerns in the FE sector over the transferability of current training, and how well its quality will be measured.

Every standard “should include or itself be a recognised qualification”

Mark Dawe (pictured), AELP’s chief executive, told FE Week that he believes every standard “should include or itself be a recognised qualification”.

“The omission of qualifications from standards will adversely affect the portability and transferability of apprenticeships, make it difficult to make comparisons between standards of level and breadth, and present difficulties in inspecting for quality,” he said.

“There is a serious question about whether we have the right assessment with a need for skills and competency to be measured throughout the apprenticeship, rather than placing so much reliance at the end point.”

AELP has already recommended that the government’s Technical and Further Education Bill, which is currently moving through the House of Lords, be amended to take this into account. Mr Dawe said he was “encouraged to see both MPs and peers agreeing” with the proposal, even though “ministers still remain unpersuaded”.

Andy Walls, head of vocational policy at the Joint Council for Qualifications, agreed that embedded qualifications were valuable for apprentices.

“The evidence shows that learners benefit in their careers from obtaining a recognised qualification as part of their apprenticeship,” he said.

“Although it is right that employers decide the requirements of their sector’s apprenticeship standard, we want to see learners gaining the advantage that a recognised qualification brings.”

Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager at the Association of Colleges, acknowledged that end-point assessment “does represent a change from the old system”, but said from her perspective the new approach could still be effective.

“In some industries, taking qualifications alongside an apprenticeship will still be important but for others the EPA is sufficient and the apprenticeship itself is the qualification,” she said.

The previous system was overly complex

“Providers need to continually challenge the rigor of the EPA system, so that we can be confident that apprenticeships remain high-quality, nationally recognised qualifications.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said the government’s apprenticeship reforms remain focused on “quality”.

“The previous system was overly complex with a huge number of qualifications that tested incremental progress, but did not necessarily demonstrate that an apprentice was competent at the end of their apprenticeship,” she said.

“We have therefore introduced new apprenticeship standards which are developed by employers themselves and rigorously checked.

“We have also taken steps to protect the term ‘apprenticeship’ from misuse helping us to achieve our target of three million apprenticeship starts by 2020 and providing excellent value for money.”