‘Collusion’ banned in tough new EPA guidance

The government has fired a warning shot at organisations seeking to undermine the independence of final apprenticeship exams with the release of new guidance this month that specifically prohibits “collusion”.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has acted after an FE Week investigation earlier this year found employers in three sectors preparing to exploit a loophole that would allow them to grade their own apprentices.

The new conditions for organisations on the register of end-point assessment organisations are stark.

“You must not collude with other EPA organisations, providers, employers or any other organisation in the delivery of end-point assessment,” states the guidance, released on September 5.

It defines collusion as organisations entering the register “with the express intention of delivering end-point assessment to each other’s apprentices” or “circumventing the requirement both for the employer to select the EPA organisation and for separate and independent assessment”.

“We will view such reciprocal arrangements as deliberate collusion which will not only undermine the independence of end-point assessment but also limit open competition in the EPA organisation market,” it warns.

EPA rules dictate that exams must be carried out by an independent assessor to ensure impartiality.

This normally means that the person who does the assessment must work for an organisation separate from both the company employing the apprentice and the training provider.

But, as FE Week reported in February, an exception granted by the former skills minister Nick Boles in 2015 allows employers in the retail, hospitality and travel sectors to assess their own apprentices, provided they can show the assessor is independent from the apprentice.

The Department for Education told FE Week that any employer wishing to do so would need to be on the register of assessment organisations.

However, we found evidence that certain employers had sought to circumvent this rule.

One established assessment body admitted it was in talks with employers about taking on members of the employer’s staff as consultants to carry out assessments.

Other bodies which may have less-than-robust processes for ensuring an independent assessment are also understood to be exploring this model.

Stephen Wright, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, warned that the new guidance was “full of requirements that are open to interpretation”.

He suggested that organisations were not being given enough time “to properly digest” the guidance, as they “are required to sign a statement of compliance within less than three weeks”.

He hit out at the “complete lack of consultation” on the new conditions, which he said had led to “confused interpretation, contentious clauses that need proper discussion and a timescale that is far too short”.

He claimed that the regulatory burden for assessment bodies had “exploded” in the past two years.

“There is only so much regulation that an organisation can bear, and the real risk is that good assessment organisations will withdraw from situations where they can provide excellent assessment but just can’t keep up with the regulatory demands,” he said.

A DfE spokesperson said: “As part of the administration and operation of the register of end-point assessment organisations, the ESFA reviews all applications received in line with the criteria set out in the pre-application guidance.

“In terms of organisations who are on the register, as indicated in the conditions, the ESFA will collect information on the end-point assessment organisations on a regular basis in order to build a profile of their activity and ensure they are operating within the conditions.”

Ofsted watch: Major retailer ‘requires improvement’

A major retailer has failed to improve its in-house apprenticeship provision beyond a grade three, in a less than positive week for the sector.

Halfords, which delivers training to its own apprentices in retail, management and warehousing, was rated as ‘requires improvement’ across the board in a report published September 13 and based on an inspection in early August.

The employer provider’s board was deemed “slow to respond to the recommendations of the previous inspection” in 2016, which also resulted in a grade three rating, and “to recognise the subsequent decline in performance”.

Managers were criticised for “weak” planning of functional skills delivery, and for failing to improve the “quality of teaching, learning and assessment quickly enough” or to “monitor apprentices’ progress and achievements in sufficient detail for them to take swift actions for improvement”.

As a result, “too few” apprentices completed their courses on time, or improved their English and maths.

But the report noted that apprentices’ progress and achievements were improving due to “recent management changes and the appointment of new and experienced assessors”.

Another employer provider, Select Service Partner UK Limited, also received a grade three this week – down from its previous grade two – in a report published September 13 and based on an inspection in early August.

Senior leaders at the firm, which operates catering and retail outlets in airports and train stations, were found to have “limited understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the apprenticeship programme” and to have failed to “recognise that for too long, too few apprentices have completed their qualification”.

And workplace managers “do not involve themselves sufficiently in the planning and coordination of training”, and “as a result too many apprentices make slow progress”, the report said.

But inspectors also found that: “Apprentices develop good technical skills and knowledge because well-qualified trainer assessors match learning closely to apprentices’ individual job roles”.

Adult and community learning provider Blackpool Unitary Authority also dropped from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’, in a report published September 8 and based on an inspection carried out at the end of June.

Tutors at the provider, which delivers mainly non-accredited courses, were criticised for not setting “sufficiently challenging targets on non-accredited courses to ensure that learners make the progress of which they are capable”, while learners were not given “useful and appropriate guidance” to help them to move on to other learning or work.

Learners’ attendance on the majority of courses was found to be “too low”.

But learners on accredited courses “progress well and achieve their qualifications”, the report said.

As previously reported by FE Week, community learning provider North Liverpool Regeneration Company Limited dropped two grades from good to inadequate in a report published September 8, and based on an inspection at the end of June.

The provider, which delivers apprenticeships in construction and childcare, was slammed as having “no strengths”.

Among the failing identified in the report were “ineffective” safeguarding, “poor” monitoring of subcontractors and the “large majority” of apprentices not being employed – “which is a key principle of being an apprentice”.

“Leaders and managers have failed to maintain the strengths and address the key areas for improvement identified at the previous inspection, leading to a decline in the standards of education and training,” the report said.

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Halfords 11/08/2017 13/09/2017 3 3
Select Service Partner UK Limited 11/08/2017 13/09/2017 3 2

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
North Liverpool Regeneration Company Ltd 04/07/2017 08/09/2017 4 2
Blackpool Unitary Authority 05/07/2017 08/09/2017 3 2

 

 

MP blasts stalled merger as a ‘hostile takeover’

An MP is demanding urgent action from both the education secretary and the FE commissioner over fears that their local college might be forced into a “hostile takeover”.

A merger suggested in the area reviews between Barnfield College and Central Bedfordshire College seemed to have fallen by the wayside after “regrettable” comments by the latter’s chair in March.

James Crabbe’s remarks on ITV local news were seen as a power grab by his merger partners, which soon withdrew from talks.

But the merger may still be on the table –though not everyone is happy about it.

Kelvin Hopkins, the MP for Luton North, home to one of Barnfield’s campuses, has written to both Justine Greening and Richard Atkins urging them to prevent the merger from going ahead.

“Barnfield College has been making tremendous strides, and all of this could be undone if this hostile takeover were to go ahead,” he said.

At one point, the two colleges had been “seriously committed” to “exploring the potential” of joining forces, according to the report into the south-east Midlands area review, which ended in March.

The colleges had been carrying out a feasibility study into the possibility of a merger, and a final decision was to have been made by July 31.

But a statement on Barnfield’s website, dated April 23, said it had withdrawn from the study as a result of Professor Crabbe’s comments.

“We felt very strongly that he criticised Barnfield College and appeared to us to position themselves as the takeover partner,” a spokesperson for the college told FE Week.

While Barnfield does “recognise that the learners of Luton and Dunstable would be better served by one college”, she said the merger wouldn’t move on “until we see genuine moves for equal collaboration.”

Despite this, a spokesperson for the 3,500-learner Central Bedfordshire College, which was rated ‘good’ at its most recent Ofsted inspection in March last year, insisted this week that it is still “committed” to a merger and the recommendations made in the area review report.

She denied the link-up would be a “hostile takeover” as it would “only take place with the agreement of both boards of governors”.

“We are confident that both boards will act in the best interests of the communities they serve,” she said.

Barnfield College, which has 6,500 learners and was rated ‘requires improvement’ at its most recent inspection in April 2016, has had a troubled history.

It was subject to intervention by the FE commissioner, who first visited the college in January 2014 after the Skills Funding Agency assessed it as ‘inadequate’ for financial control.

Sir David Collins was back at the college less than a year later, following an ‘inadequate’-overall rating from Ofsted in that November.

But his involvement ended in September 2015, when he decided the college had “fully addressed all the areas of concern” identified in his first visit.

In their April 2016 report, Ofsted inspectors noted that the leadership team had taken “decisive action” to turn the college’s fortunes around.

Tim Eyton-Jones, Barnfield’s principal, told FE Week at the time that his ambition was for the college to be rated ‘outstanding’ within two years.

This is the 17th merger recommended by the area reviews to get into difficulty, out of a total of 52 proposed through the process.

Other college mergers to fall through recently include one between North Shropshire College and Reaseheath College, which collapsed last month amid accusations that the government was unwilling to provide the necessary funding, either through the ESFA or the Transactions Unit, which processes requests for cash from the restructuring facility.

ESFA row-back on plans to increase apprenticeship performance threshold

The government has today scrapped plans to increase by three percentage points the apprenticeship minimum standard achievement threshold.

The minimum standard is an important performance measure as the Education and Skills Funding Agency “monitors delivery against that minimum standard, which could trigger intervention to support improvement”.

The ESFA: “calculate how many of the apprenticeships or education and training aims delivered by a provider are below the minimum standard thresholds. If this is more than 40 percent of the total cohort for apprenticeships or education and training the provider will be in scope for intervention.”

In the case of Learndirect, it was revealed during their Judicial Review against Ofsted that 70 percent of their apprentices were below the minimum standard threshold.

As a result, Learndirect were given a Notice of Serious Breach on  14 March. Two days later Ofsted called to say they would be visiting the following Monday, which resulted in a grade four result.

A total of 25 providers were slapped with a Notice of Serious Breach or Concern for apprenticeship minimum standards in 2015/16, according to the ESFA list.

The threshold in 2015/16 was 62 percent and in February 2017 the DfE said: “For the 2016/17 academic year, this expectation will rise to a minimum of 65 percent.”

Today, the government reversed that plan and said they would keep it at 62 percent for 2016/17.

The cautious move is likely to be influenced by not wanting to make things any harder to achieve the 3 million apprenticeship starts target.

The ESFA may also have been concerned about national fall in the apprenticeship achievement rate, following the closure of what the DfE statisticians called “loop-holes”.

As FE Week reported in February, the 2014/15 achievement rate was 71.1 per cent before closing the loop-holes, which fell 4.7 percentage points to 67 percent once recalculated. 

According to the DfE document, they “identified that approximately 10 per cent of apprenticeship providers were receiving an artificially high achievement rate for apprenticeships because of how they were using three loopholes in the methodology”.

The DfE said some gained a significant advantage of more than 20 per cent in their apprenticeship achievement rate, while other providers “were able to avoid falling below the minimum standard threshold which was 55 per cent at the time”.

As FE Week reported at the time, the Learndirect achievement rates fell significantly once recalculated, and a Notice of Serious Breach followed.

For the first time the new apprenticeship standards will be included in the achievement calculation.

Today’s guidance reads: “In 2016 to 2017 we will calculate minimum standards for apprenticeships (all ages) for both frameworks and standards, regardless of how they are funded by us (framework funding for starts before 1 May 2017 and standards under the trailblazer pilot funding methodology). Apprenticeship starts from 1 May 2017 will be excluded for the 2016 to 2017 calculations, but included in the 2017 to 2018 calculations.”

All 2016/17 minimum standard thresholds (below) remain unchanged from 2015/16.

Is Gibb to blame for functional skills reform?

The government, apparently under the influence of the schools minster Nick Gibb, is ploughing ahead with reforms to functional skills in English that run contrary to the advice it has received.

The public consultation on reforming the English and numeracy qualifications, which are set to be introduced in September 2019, opened earlier this week, but even the people tasked with developing this content appear to disagree with the proposals.

The qualifications were developed by the Education and Training Foundation on behalf of the Department for Education, following a year-long consultation with employers, providers, practitioners and learners.

But some of those involved in that earlier consultation have told FE Week that their views – and those of other experts – have been roundly ignored, while there has been general dismay at the minister’s insistence that phonics be included.

Unusually, even the ETF has hinted that it’s not happy with what’s now being consulted on.

“We recognise that the DfE has proposed some changes and additions to the content that we submitted to them last year, which is why it is important that as many people as possible submit their views,” a spokesperson said.

Ministerial obsession with phonics must not infect post-16 provision in the same way it has primary schools

This sentiment was echoed by Stephen Evans, the chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, which was contracted by the ETF in partnership with Pye Tait Consulting to work on the reforms.

He told FE Week that functional skills would only be successful “if practitioners, providers, and learners are listened to”.

“We hope as many people as possible will respond to this consultation and that the government will listen,” he said. “A high-quality functional skills route needs flexibility and to be built around the needs of learners and how best to meet them.”

The addition of phonics – a method of teaching reading that involves sounding out words – into the proposed English content is almost certainly the work of the DfE.

Mr Gibb has long been a passionate advocate of the approach, but not everyone agrees with him.

Jill Stokoe, an education policy adviser with the National Education Union, was part of the ETF’s functional skills expert advisory group, and told FE Week that it was “absurd and bewildering that a phonics curriculum is proposed”.

Many people taking functional skills have additional needs or learning disabilities, and she believes phonics is “not often an appropriate pedagogical approach” for them.

“Ministerial obsession with phonics must not infect post-16 provision in the same way it has primary schools,” she said. “One size does not fit all.”

The DfE’s current recommendations are “worryingly at odds” with the conclusions reached by Ofqual in a review it carried out in 2015.

That review, the first since functional skills were introduced in 2010, was “clear that the qualifications were not fundamentally flawed”, she pointed out.

“Although the functional skills qualifications weren’t broken before, if these proposals are accepted in their current form, they certainly will be,” she warned.

Mike Ellicock, the chief executive of National Numeracy, a charity that works to improve adult and child numeracy, also took part in the ETF consultation.

He told FE Week that he was unhappy with both the proposed subject content and the way it had been developed.

“After a muddled, opaque process and then a long delay, it would appear that the focus on functionality has been lost and we now have an atomised tick-list of skills,” which he warned could risk “functional skills maths being the least functional of any maths curricula”.

Sixth form colleges’ cash crisis exposed

Two sixth-form colleges have such severe financial problems that their very futures are threatened, after shocking reports were published this month.

Advisers for the sixth-form college commissioner Peter Mucklow visited St Mary’s Sixth Form College, in Blackburn, and Brooke House Sixth Form College, in London, in March after both were hit with financial notices to improve – although the reports have only just been made public.

The report into St Mary’s determined that it “cannot continue as a standalone college” due to financial difficulties attributed to falling student numbers and long-term debt, in a situation exacerbated by an “absence of leadership” since December.

The 1,000-learner SFC was rated ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted in May and emerged from the Lancashire area review asked to identify a “financially sustainable solution” such as a merger or academisation by April 28.

This deadline was not met “due to the extent of the leadership and management challenges at the college” resulting from “an unfortunate set of circumstances”.

Its previous principal Frank Dixon was involved in an accident two months before his planned retirement, his replacement withdrew before taking up the post, while the acting principal took immediate early retirement on health grounds shortly after.

If current trends were allowed to continue, the college would be at risk of running out of cash

An interim principal has subsequently been appointed, but the leadership vacuum meant “the college has yet to develop an effective recovery plan for financial sustainability post 2016/17”.

Mr Mucklow urged the college to “urgently appoint an effective senior leadership team” to focus on securing St Mary’s future – including producing an “effective financial recovery plan immediately”.

He wanted “commissioner-led comprehensive options review” carried out as soon as possible “to support the identification of long-term strategic options for the corporation to consider in autumn 2017”.

A spokesperson for St Mary’s pointed out that the report, including the recommendations, was now six months old.

“Under the guidance of the interim principal and external agencies, the college has made good progress in all areas of recommendation, and looks forward to working with valued partners in the future,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mr Mucklow demanded an immediate recovery plan for Brook House SFC, also given a grade three by Ofsted, after a meeting of governors revealed “surprise” at the size of its 2015/16 deficit.

“If current trends were allowed to continue, the college would be at risk of running out of cash during 2017 to 2018, and could not continue operations without an overdraft facility,” the resulting report warned.

The 1,350-learner SFC has been relying on a £500,000 overdraft facility for operational purposes which was due to be reviewed by Barclays Bank in July this year.

“This underlines the imperative for a review of the college’s strategic options to be conducted by autumn 2017,” the report added, casting doubt on its sustainability unless “active measures” were taken to ensure student numbers hold up, and that the college could meet its costs.

Governors and senior leadership were told to improve oversight and management of financial control “immediately”, and to carry out a review of their own roles and the structure of the senior team, to “ensure the leadership and management of the college is efficiently and cost-effectively organised”.

Brooke House came out of the central London area review with a recommendation to remain standalone, although it was asked to “improve its financial position and its quality against an improvement plan agreed with the Department for Education’s funding agencies”.

DfE launches its FIFTH consultation on apprenticeship funding reform

The Department for Education has put out yet another survey on how reforms to apprenticeship funding are affecting employers and training providers today – the fifth such consultation in four years, under four different ministers.

Described as a “short” questionnaire, the DfE is asking 32 questions on the impact of the apprenticeship levy.

This latest call for feedback follows consultations held in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, but it’s the first since the massive funding reforms launched across England in May.

There has been much concern in the sector about the slow take up of apprenticeships since May, particularly among the young.

As a result, the ESFA wants to use quick feedback to inform its decisions on any significant changes to rates, formulas or eligibility from April next year, or even before.

“We are implementing apprenticeship reforms to continue to improve the quality of apprenticeships for all, providing the skills that employers need to reach our commitment of three million starts in England by 2020,” the DfE said.

“Throughout the reforms we have regularly gathered feedback from employers, providers and their representative bodies. This survey offers a further opportunity to comment on apprenticeship funding policy and how it is working for you and your organisation.”

The four skills ministers presiding over the consultations have been Matt Hancock, Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and now Anne Milton.

The survey will run from today until October 3. You can complete online here.

——————————————————————————–

Questions in the survey include (paraphrased below):

  • Is the £1,000 additional payment for 16- to 18-year-olds “sufficient?”
  • What effect does the transitional measure of a 20-per-cent uplift to the funding-band rate when an apprentice is under 19 years old have on your ability and desire to work with apprentices who are under 19?
  • To what extent do you agree or disagree that there are additional costs associated with working with apprentices from a disadvantaged area?
  • When buying or selling apprenticeship training have you ever agreed a price that is higher or lower than the funding band maximum?
  • We currently uplift the funding available for STEM frameworks by 40 per cent for level two apprenticeships and by 80 per cent for apprenticeships at level three and above. Before the levy’s introduction, employers tended to contribute a larger amount to the costs of training for STEM frameworks. Does this increased funding make a difference?
  • How do you think we should manage the STEM uplift for frameworks in future?
  • If there were an apprenticeship available as both a standard and a framework, which would you choose? And what are the factors that would influence your decision?
  • Is 10 per cent a suitable non-levy employer contribution rate?
  • As an employer, does your organisation expect to make use of the 10 per cent top-up to the levy funds in your account?

College caught on camera touting for rival’s learners

A college has been snapped touting for students right outside a rival’s campus – enflaming tensions sparked by a recent merger.

Sunderland College’s advertising van, emblazoned with the words “Sure you’ve made the right choice? It’s not too late to change your mind”, was parked at a junction outside the main campus of its neighbour East Durham College on Thursday morning.

Sunderland merged with Hartlepool Sixth Form College just a few weeks ago, stoking fears that competition to recruit FE learners in the region would become increasingly aggressive.

East Durham’s principal Suzanne Duncan told FE Week that she was “really disappointed” by the van’s appearance outside her college.

Sunderland College however insisted that it had been parked there by mistake.

“An error was made by a member of staff and this is not a practice that the college endorses,” she said. “When were made aware we moved the van.”

Both colleges took part in the north-east area review, which ended in February.

The ensuing report recommended they both stayed independent, albeit “working with neighbouring colleges on a collaborative curriculum offer and participating in shared service company”.

But Sunderland opened a consultation on a proposed partnership with Hartlepool SFC before this report ever even saw the light of day.

That plan came as a surprise to many, as Hartlepool had come out of the Tees Valley area review with a proposal to merge with its closer neighbour, Hartlepool College, and FE Week has been unable to find anyone to explain the rationale.

Even Darren Hankey, Hartlepool College’s principal, admitted to FE Week that he had no idea what prompted the SFC’s change of heart.

A report by the SFC commissioner Peter Mucklow, who visited Hartlepool SFC in March after it was hit with a financial notice to improve, noted that there had been a “lack of progress” on the proposed merger between the two Hartlepool providers, and urged the SFC to take “decisive action”.

“Hartlepool Sixth Form College should proceed with the proposed merger with Sunderland College as a matter of urgency,” he wrote.

But the revised plan upset both Mr Hankey and Ms Duncan, who argued that a merger between two colleges in different areas would increase competition for learners – even though the area reviews had been established to encourage providers to work together.

They insisted that the area reviews had been designed to rationalise provision, especially given the decline in the number of teenagers in the area, which already had a crowded post-16 market, particularly in Hartlepool.

Sunderland’s principal Ellen Thinnesen told FE Week at the time that the merger decision would be taken in the best interests of the college.

“Any decision relating to merger with a neighbouring college will be strongly informed by Sunderland College’s resolute position on ensuring maximum value for public investment, greater specialisation – in this case sixth form provision, reduction in duplication, and most importantly keeping the needs of all young people at the forefront of decision making,” she said.

Should we focus on our college merger or Ofsted?

Once a month, Dr Sue, director of policy and external relations at Holex, answers your questions, backed by her experience as principal of Canterbury College and in senior civil service posts in education and skills.

Question One: Area review intervention

I have just spent 18 months in area review meetings. Although we had already managed a successful merger, we were still encouraged to play a full part, but this distracted us from our implementation plan and we have lost ground. Do you know if others feel the same and has the initiative met its goal?

Answer: I’m afraid many governors like you feel that there has been an opportunity cost, that they have been distracted from implementing their plans and, in some cases, capital plans have been put on hold. The government expected the area reviews to “enable a transition towards fewer, larger, more resilient and efficient providers, and more effective collaboration across institution types”, but while we may end up with fewer colleges, whether they are more financially resilient has yet to be proven.

Although the reviews are complete and each area has been left with an action plan including a list of expected mergers, many of these plans are unravelling.

In retrospect, it may have been too ambitious to try and take a country-wide blanket approach. The original problem of financially unstable colleges could have been addressed through a targeted approach. I also think we will regret that sixth forms were not included in the equation because at some stage that will have to be addressed.

 

Question Two: Conflict of interest

Our merger has raised an unexpected issue. We have inherited two senior management teams and wanted our new chief executive to lead a restructuring of the senior staff. But due to staff changes made at the last moment in our merger partner organisation, the CEO’s spouse is in scope of the senior leadership restructuring. What advice can you give?

Answer: I take it that the promotions made just before the merger were appropriate and in scope of any terms of engagement which had been agreed. If you are satisfied they were, then you must make sure the process of selection for the new roles is as clear and transparent as possible.

You haven’t said whether these are senior post-holder roles, if they are then it will be for governors to lead the selection process. The CEO will have a perceived conflict; there could be a financial interest and therefore they cannot take part in the selection process or in agreeing any terms of redundancy if the spouse is unsuccessful. There will also be line management and performance appraisal issues which will need to be handled by another, for instance the deputy chief executive.

To ensure there is no animosity, you need to talk the situation through with the chief executive, explaining this is about protecting reputation and ensuring appointments on merit. For fairness, the same conversation should be had with the spouse.

 

Question Three: Post-merger Ofsted

We are just about to merge and are working through our risk assessment. As we will not be visited by Ofsted for three years, it has been hinted that we don’t need to focus too much on quality measures but instead on merger transition issues. I am not comfortable with that approach. What is your view?

Answer: Merging two colleges is extremely time-consuming and to get the efficiency gains that are expected, it is important to have an agreed management implementation plan. As governors, your role is to set the strategic direction, monitor quality and ensure the expected practice is implemented, as detailed in the Ofsted inspector framework.

The guidance explains that “a newly merged college will normally be inspected as a new provider within three years of the merger. And, any newly merged college may receive a monitoring visit or support and challenge visit to assess risk. This is more likely where previous provision has been graded as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’ or is giving cause for concern. Also, if there are concerns arising from other sources this may lead to an earlier full inspection.”

Therefore, this is a vital role which cannot be put on ice because of merger issues. It is important you find the time to undertake the same level of scrutiny that you have previously.