Learners should not be left to pay for a ladder they cannot climb.
The government needs to take responsibility for the fact that hundreds of adults, through no fault of their own, are being left with debts for cancelled courses.
The honourable thing for ministers would be to acknowledge and fix the financial assurance failings on the part of the Skills Funding Agency, and to write off the debt.
There is a precedent here, given advanced learning loans are written off for Access to HE learners who go on to graduate from university.
Clearly if the SFA can help the learner find an alternative provider then that may be a suitable solution.
But learners we’ve spoken to say the help has been patchy, and there are clearly circumstances when an alternative provider is impractical.
That’s why as part of our #SaveOurAdultEducation campaign we will call on the government to end this type of learner debt.
So if Robert Halfon is serious about his ‘ladder of opportunity’ he must make sure people are not stranded at the bottom paying for it.
Read about the experiences of learners left in the lurch by training provider John Frank Training here.
Employers in the retail, hospitality and travel sectors are actively preparing to exploit a loophole that will allow them to grade their own apprentices, FE Week can exclusively reveal.
Our findings have caused concerns that the independence of end-point assessments is being seriously compromised.
The rules, which will be upheld by the new Institute for Apprenticeships from April, normally dictate that assessments must be carried out by an independent assessor to ensure impartiality.
But an exception was granted to these three sectors in 2015 by the former skills minister Nick Boles, which FE Week understands happened against the will of civil servants.
The Department for Education told FE Week that despite the exception employers would still need to register with the Skills Funding Agency as apprenticeship assessment organisations.
However organisations are investigating a potential loophole that might save them from even applying to become an AAO.
Innovate Awarding, a registered AAO in the retail and hospitality sectors, confirmed to FE Week that it was exploring this model, “with customers where we can ensure there is no conflict of interest and the independence of the assessor can be evidenced”.
“Effectively, we would be contracting with the individual, with the employer’s consent, to carry out this work,” it added. “This will only be considered, of course, where the external quality assurer allows this flexibility.”
Speaking during a webinar earlier this month, the IfA’s shadow chief executive Peter Lauener [pictured above] appeared to be unaware of the loophole.
Asked about employers using their own staff to carry out end-point assessments, he said: “I think you can see some circumstances where there’s such niche provision that there were comparatively few experts”, adding: “I don’t think I’ve seen any arrangements like that so far”.
The AELP boss Mark Dawe, an assessment expert and former boss at OCR, urged the IfA to treat all sectors the same.
“The IfA needs to be crystal clear as to what a conflict between the employer, provider, AAO and their respective staff [looks like], and what safeguards are expected. Whatever that approach, it should be applied in the same way to everyone involved.
“In this case the AAO has the responsibility to demonstrate its independence as well as the employee’s, being free from any undue employer influence”, he said.
According to the DfE, ministerial exception was granted to the three sectors following requests from the industry, and came after careful consideration.
People 1st, the body chosen by employers to manage the external quality assurance confirmed that to date no employers in these sectors have registered as an AAO.
Instead, companies are understood to be looking at arrangements that would see members of an employer’s staff taken on by the AAO on a consultancy basis, as described by Innovate Awarding.
The AAO is then responsible for training that member of staff, ensuring the independence of the end-point assessment and quality assurance, but not the actual delivery.
One major employer understood to be exploring this arrangement is McDonalds, which was involved in the development of the retail standards.
However, a spokesperson for the fast food giant said end-point assessment of its apprentices would be carried out by Innovate Awarding, rather than its own staff.
She said: “Our independent end-point assessors are independent to the training programme we deliver and also external to the business.”
A spokesperson for Ofqual said that those AAOs which it also assures externally must do “everything possible to ensure that no one with a personal interest is assessing an apprentice”.
The Department for Education has admitted to a “loophole” in the Skills Funding Agency qualification achievement rate calculation, which until now “artificially” boosted the rate for around 10 per cent of providers.
In some cases, providers benefited by more than 20 QAR percentage points.
Figures published on February 16 in the updated January Statistical First Release (SFR) show the 2014/15 achievement rate as 71.1 per cent before closing the loop-holes, which falls 4.7 percentage points to 67 percent once recalculated. The fall was most prominent for 25+ Level three apprentices, resulting in a 7.6 percentage point fall.
The QAR is an important performance measure, as it is used by Ofsted and the SFA can stop providers delivering courses that fall below thresholds, called ‘Minimum Standards’.
On page 17 in the SFR document, the DfE describes one of three loopholes it has now closed as “inappropriate use of the planned break exclusion rule”, and admitted “some providers reported nearly all withdrawals as planned breaks and therefore received a significantly higher QAR”.
The loopholes relate to how the SFA compares learner records in several annual data returns from providers. Where learners disappear or do not have a completion status, they will now be included in the calculation and counted as a ‘fail’.
According to the DfE document, the SFA analysis “identified that approximately 10 per cent of apprenticeship providers were receiving an artificially high QAR rate for apprenticeships because of how they were using 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”.
The minimum standard threshold for apprenticeships rose for performance in 2015/16 to 62 per cent, which is now above higher level apprenticeship average of 58.6 per cent.
Steve Hewitt, MIS and funding consultant for FE Associates, said: “That’s what happens when you change methodologies. But I think in general it’s a good thing because, if there were organisations that were playing the game to exclude these learners, if there were organisations who were trying to fiddle their data, this is a loophole that has now been closed and that’s good because we all want data to be as accurate as it can be.”
The overall achievement rate for apprenticeships in 2015/16 now stands at 67 per cent, meaning just two out of three starts counting towards the governments 3m target are successfully completing the course.
The DfE document said the “impact is less pronounced” on non-apprenticeship provision.
Distressed learners left in the lurch when their training provider mysteriously went bust have pleaded with the government to write off thousands in student loan debts.
The provider went into liquidation on November 30, leaving no assets, despite recording a profit of £1.3 million in the first half of 2016.
The collapse meant that hundreds of students who had taken out FE loans to train with the London-based provider, which has outlets in the north and midlands, were left with debts but no course.
However, the SFA is refusing to let them off the loans, although it is trying to find alternative providers where learners could complete their training.
The story was picked up by BBC Radio 4’s ‘You and Yours’ programme on February 16.
FE Week editor Nick Linford told the programme that he believed the government should write the debts off under the circumstances.
Two former JFT students have now spoken to FE Week about their combined debts of £16,000.
One of these, Asim Shaheen (pictured above right), 49, who works nights as a chef, started on a level three hospitality and catering course in autumn 2015, funded by a loan for over £8,000.
The Stoke resident had only completed 50 per cent of the training when JFT went under.
Mr Shaheen first complained to the SFA before Christmas, but was referred to the Student Loans Company and then back to agency.
“No-one was taking responsibility and I was passed from pillar to post,” he said. “I just want someone to help me and the many other students affected.”
He recently got a call from the SFA, saying they could send him to South Cheshire College to complete his training.
But this just isn’t a viable option, due to extra travel time and costs, because it is 25 miles from where he lives.
“My loan should be squashed and I would be prepared to go before a judge to challenge it,” he told FE Week. “I would like to have it out with a government minister too, if they would let me. I’ve been left completely in the lurch.”
Mussarrat Bashir (pictured above left), 53, meanwhile started on a level three hospitality course with JFT early last year, which was paid for by an £8,000 loan.
She had been studying while holding down a full-time job as a training and employment coach for the YMCA.
“I was very disappointed, very shocked when JFT disappeared,” she told FE Week. “I am a single parent and really thought this would be something that could help me better myself.”
“They [the SFA] told me there’s nothing they could do about my loan, but somebody needs to take responsibility.”
John Frank
The Student Loans Company declined to comment on the matter this week, while the SFA said it had “nothing to add”.
JFT used the government’s advanced-learner loan scheme to deliver and subcontract courses in areas such as IT and health and fitness, and had been allocated £10 million in loans facilities over the last two years.
Of this, £6.4 million was paid for around 2,200 learners to complete their training with the provider.
However, up to another £464,000 of SFA funding is thought to be effectively missing, which FE Week understands should have covered another 500 learners’ loans, who are yet to complete their training.
FE Week has made repeated attempts to contact company boss John Frank without success.
A South Cheshire College spokesperson confirmed it had been contacted by the SFA, about taking on affected learners, but “there has been no further communication”.
In case you were in any doubt, the reforms to the apprenticeship system are complex.
You might think that there would be one single place that you could access to get all the information you would need, but there isn’t (unless you include gov.uk but not all the documents are on one page or even linked together). So we’ve created that one-stop shop for you.
Here is a complete listing of the relevant documents, spreadsheets and webpages that relate to apprenticeship funding, apprenticeship providers and the levy. It covers provider documents, employer-providers and employers. It’s the complete reference library.
The percentage of people passing their apprenticeship has fallen to 67 percent, figures released this morning show.
The overall achievement rate for apprenticeship frameworks fell from 71.7 percent to 67 percent in 2015/16, however this follows a change to the methodology.
Applying the new methodology to 2013/14 and 2014/15 shows overall achievement rates remain at 67 percent (see table below).
The Skills Funding Agency Minimum Standard threshold for 2015/16 apprenticeship achievement rates was set at 62 percent. The SFA say: “If a college or training organisation fails to meet minimum standards, the Agency’s approach to intervention will apply.”
See updated table 14 in the January 2017 Statistical First Release. The figures should have been included in the original January release, but were delayed following “technical issues”, as reported in FE Week.
Questions surround why publication of a ‘good’-overall Ofsted report was delayed until 90-days after the recently created FE college was inspected.
The report on Basildon-based Prospects College of Advanced Technology was published this morning, after it was inspected between November 15 and 18 last year.
Its performance is of key interest to the government and wider FE sector, as PROCAT was transformed from an independent training provider in to the first new FE college in more than 20 years back in 2014.
The 90-day gap is three times as long as the average 30 days between inspection and report being published.
Speculation has surrounding the cause of the PROCAT delay, with appeal over Ofsted’s initial judgements a likely source of delay.
When asked about this, principal Neil Bates (pictured right) said: “Any confirmation of grades comes at the end of the inspection and moderation process. You will also be aware that the process prior to publication of the report is confidential.”
He added: “We are very pleased with the judgements that have been made.
“We recognise this is our first inspection since incorporation and there are areas of the college that still require improvement, if we are to achieve our objective of being recognized as an outstanding specialist technical college.”
An Ofsted spokesperson told FE Week: “All inspection reports go through a moderation process before they are published and no judgement is confirmed, prior to the report’s official publication.”
PROCAT was rated good for effectiveness of leadership and management, quality of teaching, learning and assessment, apprenticeships, personal development, behaviour and welfare, and outcomes for learners.
The only ‘requires improvement’ headline field rating was for 16 to 19 study programmes.
The report recognised that “leaders work very productively with a range of high-profile and major employers to ensure that the apprenticeship provision is very responsive to industry requirements and skill shortages”.
Attendance levels were also said to be high, while “apprentices gain valuable knowledge and skills by working to high industry expectations and standards”.
The then-skills Minister Nick Boles visited Essex to mark the “milestone” transformation of Prospects Learning Foundation in to the first new FE college in more than 20 years, as reported in FE Week in August 2014.
His predecessor Matthew Hancock has confirmed four months previously that it was to become an FE college. The move had been exclusively revealed by FE Week the previous July.
The provider, which had just under 2,000 learners last academic year, first opened in 2007. It subsequently underwent an £11.5m expansion of its main Basildon training base.
A college group has defended itself after it appeared in the government’s largest ever list of national minimum and living wage offenders.
Lincoln College Corporate Support Solutions Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the larger group, “failed to pay £526.51 to one worker”, according to the list unveiled by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy today (February 15).
In total the list named 360 businesses, with employers in the hairdressing, hospitality and retail sectors the most prolific offenders.
Lincoln was the only college group identified in the list, through its connections with LCCSS.
But its head of communications, James Newall, told FE Week that this was down to “an isolated error that occurred, with one out of a total of around 400 corporate support solutions staff”.
He said: “The error occurred when the employee left the college and received a salary deduction, in relation to a course they had completed.
“The deduction technically took them below the minimum wage for that month. Once identified this was immediately rectified.”
Mr Newall added: “The employee was paid the money to ensure our technical compliance and then returned it to us to cover the cost of the course.
“This has never happened before and we are confident will never happen again.”
He stressed that LCCSS pays the Living Wage Foundation Living Wage, “which at £8.45 per hour, is substantially higher than the National Living Wage currently set at £7.20 per hour”.
The Living Wage Foundation is a campaigning organisation set up in 2011 to persuade employers to pay a ‘Living Wage’ – an independently-calculated recommended minimum wage to cover workers’ basic needs.
Lincoln College Corporate Support Solutions provides “business support service activities” and was incorporated in July 2011, according to Companies House.
The company’s latest full accounts, made up to July 31, 2016, showed Lincoln College Commercial Holding Limited as the “immediate parent company which owns 100 per cent of the issued share capital”.
The 360 employers who were identified underpaid 15,520 workers a total of £995,233, in cases closed since August 2016.
Excuses for underpaying workers including using tips to top-up pay, docking workers’ wages to pay for their Christmas party, and making staff pay for their own uniforms out of their salary.
As well as recovering arrears for some of the UK’s lowest paid workers, HMRC also issued penalties worth around £800,000.
Business minister Margot James said: “Every worker in the UK is entitled to at least the national minimum or living wage and this government will ensure they get it.
“That is why we have named and shamed more than 350 employers who failed to pay the legal minimum, sending the clear message to employers that minimum wage abuses will not go unpunished.”
Chancellor Philip Hammond announced in November that the national minimum wage for apprentices would rise from £3.40 per hour to £3.50 – a bigger increase than rates for most other groups – following the autumn statement.
It amounted to a 10p increase in the minimum wage for apprentices, and was higher than most other minimum wage rate increases.
For 18 to 20 year olds, the increase was from £5.55 per hour to £5.60, while for 16 to 17 year olds – it went up from £4.00 per hour to £4.05. For 21 to 24 year olds, it increased from £6.95 per hour to £7.05.
With just weeks to go before the apprenticeship levy and the apprenticeship standards come on line, we are in urgent need of a proper regulatory framework, says Graham Hasting-Evans
The government has made it clear the Institute for Apprenticeships is to be a regulatory body for two critical parts of our new skills system.
But government is less clear how this fits with Ofqual’s role as the qualifications regulator for England and how the planned external quality assurance regulatory role will work.
The IfA will drive all of the major changes in our skills system but it’s only now being created; realistically, it’s probably a year away from being fully operational.
The approach to oversight of assessment organisations appears more fragmented
So there is no newly-established regulatory framework for the reformed (trailblazer) apprenticeships starting in just a few months, or for the soon-to-emerge technical qualifications arising from the post-16 skills plan. (The DfE has announced work on writing phase one of the new technical qualifications is due to start soon, with an invitation for awarding organisations to tender in the autumn.)
Agreements between the Skills Funding Agency and employers, as well as training providers, have been prepared to control the levy but they are principally about money, not quality assurance and regulation. They are not a regulatory framework for the control of apprenticeship end-point assessments and technical qualifications.
Part of any regulatory framework has to be the oversight and monitoring of training providers and assessment organisations. Clearly Ofsted will take the lead monitoring most of the training providers and although it’s not clear about universities, one would expect a single consistent monitoring arrangement, such as that from Ofsted, would give training providers, apprentices and employers the assurance they need.
But in respect of the oversight and monitoring of assessment organisations, the approach appears more fragmented.
Trailblazer employer groups can pick one of four options for external quality assurance organisations: an employer-appointed body, such as a sector organisation like the sector skills council; a professional body; Ofqual; or the IfA – which is unlikely to be in a position to do this properly for some time.
Different trailblazer employer groups have opted for one of the four and it’s understood each option now has apprenticeship standards assigned to it, with a larger proportion being assigned to Ofqual.
This will have a detrimental impact on public confidence
Right now there is no clear advice on the way this will work, although we are told it’s being worked on. Most external quality assurance organisations are planning to make a charge, which will be borne by the apprenticeship assessment organisation and charged to the employer through the end-point assessment fee.
Ofqual will not be charging. It will use its current regulatory framework, funded by the taxpayer.
But with just weeks to go before the levy and apprenticeship standards go live, and just months away from new-style technical qualifications being written, a proper regulatory framework is needed now!
The implications of not having any controls in place are that very different regulatory rules will be developed by the various external quality assurance organisations, potentially resulting in harder regimes in some sectors and easier regimes in others. This will have a detrimental impact on the ‘apprenticeship’ brand and the public’s confidence. In addition, training providers and apprenticeship assessment organisations will have to deal with a wide range of different rules, adding to both the regulatory burden and the cost.
We have a regulatory framework for qualifications, set up under the 2009 Act, with Ofqual as the statutory qualifications regulator.
It’s called the general condition of recognition and covers both qualifications and the existing SASE apprenticeship frameworks. Similar frameworks exist in northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The GCoR works, is in place and is operational. It’s widely understood by both training providers and assessment organisations. It is focused more on ‘knowledge’ rather than ‘competency’, but does do most of the job.
So why not be pragmatic and adopt the GCoR as the short-term regulatory framework for apprenticeship end-point assessment and the new technical qualifications, until the institute is fully operational and has developed, consulted upon and finalised a new regulatory framework?
The then-skills Minister Nick Boles visited Essex to mark the “milestone” transformation of Prospects Learning Foundation in to the first new FE college in more than 20 years,