Ofsted should be congratulated for admitting that it got it wrong with the wording of important extracts of its report on Yeovil College.
No individual or organisation is flawless by any means, and while Elton John may have said in his famous song that ‘sorry seems to be the hardest word’ – it shouldn’t be.
Questions need to be asked though about the complaints process, if publication of reports such as this one go ahead before a decision has been made on whether the content is indeed inaccurate and insulting.
This is wrong.
It would save both the inspectorate future embarrassment and providers unwarranted upset if the rules were changed.
I sympathise with the view that reports should be published as soon as possible after inspection.
They shouldn’t be delayed unduly while concerns are considered.
But this shouldn’t be a problem, so long as there’s a strict time limit on the appeals process.
Providers are at risk of being duped into believing they need to pay thousands to become “industry-approved” before they can deliver new apprenticeships for the food and drink industry, FE Week has learned.
A body called the National Skills Academy for Food and Drink has been accused by industry figures of “misleading” the sector with aggressive sales emails and erroneous claims of being “the skills body for UK food and drink manufacturing”.
A week ago, the government announced that the Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA) would crack down on “unnecessary” income-generating behaviour.
The NSAFD, which no longer receives public funding as a sector skills council, appears to make a number of bold claims about its status and services.
The NSAFD, which no longer receives public funding as a sector skills council, appears to make a number of bold claims about its status and services
On one sales email seen by FE Week, the organisation warns that unless providers become what it calls “industry-approved” – a status attained through a payment of £5,000 – they will be “less likely to win business” with a long list of prominent employers – at least one of which claims not to be aware of its inclusion on the list.
The group claims that only “industry-approved” providers can deliver its “industry-approved apprenticeships programmes” (IAAPs), but it appears that these are no different to existing food and drink apprenticeships standards, but with more guidance on how they should be delivered.
The NSAFD also claims that its IAAPs are supported by the government, though the term itself appears to be a marketing label which is not used by any other organisation.
Similarly, the organisation’s website promotes an “industry-approved specialist network”, and says that if “providers meet additional quality criteria, they will be able to offer Trailblazer Apprenticeships and other kite-marked programme delivery”.
In fact, however, any organisation on the Skills Funding Agency’s register of apprenticeship training providers is able to offer apprenticeship standards, without the need to meet any “additional criteria.”
Bill Jermey, the chair of the Food and Drink Training and Education Council (FTC), accused the NSAFD of being “misleading”, and said it was attempting to create a “niche” for itself.
The NSAFD sales email also lists 50 prominent employers, including Branston, Aunt Bessie’s, ABP Food Group, and Dunbia, and claimed that “many of these organisations” were involved with “the development of the new food and drink trailblazer standards and the subsequent Industry Approved Apprenticeship Programmes (IAAP)”.
It continued: “The IAAPs can only be delivered by industry-approved providers, this means unless you are an active member of the NSAFD and have achieved industry-approved status (which is signed off by members of the trailblazer development groups – food manufacturing businesses) you will be less likely to win business with any of the employers listed above.
“They will choose to work with an industry-approved provider, who has gone through the necessary quality checks and CPD, than a provider who has not.”
Mr Jermey told FE Week that “the NSAFD has been making a number of misleading claims about the IAAPs, for example saying that training providers need to be industry approved to deliver trailblazers”.
This, he said, “is simply not true”.
He continued: “We very much support the IFA’s intention to curb this behaviour. It seems to be more about NSAFD making money and carving out a niche for themselves.”
At least one of the 50 companies listed, meat producers Dunbia, did not even know it was being used in the sales drive
FE Week understands at least one of the 50 companies listed, meat producers Dunbia, did not even know it was being used in the sales drive.
Bosses at the firm were so incensed at the NSAFD’s claims that they complained in an email seen by this newspaper.
Another of the NSAFD’s claims, that “many” of the 50 employers had involved in the development of the new food and drink trailblazer standards, has also been called into question, as the SFA confirmed that less than a third – 15 of the 50 – actually had been consulted.
Justine Fosh, NSAFD’s chief executive, told FE Week that, by including the list of its business members in the email, its sales team were “highlighting the people we work with, many of whom have provided us with permission to use their logos and names on our website”.
She continued: “It is correct in asserting many of the employers we are working with will opt to use industry-approved providers for the delivery of apprenticeships.
“We are very clear in all communication that there are no restrictions on any provider seeking to deliver apprenticeships – providing they are on the RoATP and satisfy the SFA then they deliver.
“Every provider is free to engage with any standard.”
However, her claims appear to be contradicted by her organisation’s own website, which clearly states that providers would need to “meet additional quality criteria” in order to be allowed “to offer trailblazer apprenticeships”.
In an attempt to justify the stiff £5,000 price-tag, Ms Fosh said that the new standards only outline “in a top-level way the knowledge, skills and behaviours required for an apprentice in an occupation” and that they “provide no guidance on the type of training that is required”.
“Industry-approved apprenticeship programmes fill this gap,” she argued.
The NSAFD had invested £1 million into its development
She claimed the concept of industry-approved programmes was cleared by the government, and said the NSAFD had invested £1 million into its development.
FE Week asked the Department for Education if the concept was indeed government approved, but it was unable to comment ahead of publication.
We also asked if any action would be taken against the NSAFD based on our findings.
A spokesperson said the IfA’s draft strategic guidance, published on January 4, was “clear on the need to challenge this kind of practice… [as] our only requirement [to run new standards] is for providers to secure approval to be on the register of apprenticeship training providers.”
Paragraph 34 of the guidance states that the DfE has “made efforts to discourage” some “behaviours” from “a few organisations involved in the development and delivery of reformed apprenticeships”.
It continues: “These are largely around trying to generate income from offering certain services which are not a necessary part of the system, or trying to secure a particular role for themselves without fair competition.”
The IfA will be expected to “discourage behaviour seeking to make a profit by delivering services that are not necessary and do not add value, and work to ensure the system as a whole is fair and consistent with the principles of the reforms”.
The example given in the guidance concerns bodies requesting for payment to include providers on a list of approved apprenticeship-assessment organisations, something the
SFA also administers at a national level. Ms Fosh denied that the NSAFD curated such a list.
FE Week understands the government is seriously concerned about a broad range of emerging sales techniques, but that current legislation contains no power to take any formal action.
National Skills Academy also owns AO for mandatory qualification
The National Skills Academy for Food and Drink recently bought an awarding organisation, making it the sole supplier of a new mandatory apprenticeship qualification – and prompting widespread concerns over lack of competition.
The NSAFD bought Occupational Awards Ltd from the now-defunct sector skills council for furniture and wood manufacturing, Proskills, in July 2016.
An article on the skills council’s website, dated November 9, claims that the purchase would “allow NSAFD to further support the food and drink industry through the awarding of industry-approved qualifications and focused end-point assessment products and services to support food apprentices”.
The ‘food and drink process operator’ and ‘food and drink advanced process operator’ standards both require a diploma in ‘food and drink operations’ at levels two and three respectively.
These qualifications, which are regulated by Ofqual, were launched in August 2016 and were only offered through OAL.
OAL’s own website (pictured) explains that the qualifications are “endorsed by the NSA for Food and Drink”, though it somehow fails to mention any link between the two organisations.
In fact, FE Week could find no mention anywhere on the site that the NSAFD owned OAL.
Bill Jermey, chair of the Food and Drink Training and Education Council, told FE Week that he was worried that NSAFD’s ownership of “an awarding organisation with no historical links to the food sector means they are looking to create a closed circle of employers and subscribing providers who are locked in to their industry-approved apprenticeship programmes”.
Justine Fosh, NSAFD’s chief executive, told FE Week that the need for “at least one assessment organisation able to assess the new industry apprenticeship standards” was the key driver for its purchase of OAL.
“The industry identified as a risk that there may be limited interest in assessing complex industry standards, as few organisations had the internal capability, and there was a risk that few would step forward,” she said.
However, a letter from Mr Jermey to the chair of the food and drink process operations trailblazer group, seen by FE Week, outlines concerns from employers, providers and assessment experts about the deliverability of the end-point assessment.
The letter also makes reference to another awarding organisation being put off bidding to become an EPA organisation because of these deliverability risks.
The market in apprenticeship sector kitemarks
Bodies charging providers for “industry-approved” status are common in many sectors, FE Week can reveal.
Mark Dawe (pictured below), the boss of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said that he had received “numerous complaints” from AELP members who have been “required to make multiple payments” to feature on various bodies’ approved lists.
Sector skills councils running “approved provider” schemes similar to that outlined in our investigation include the Tech Partnership, Cogent Skills and People 1st.
People 1st claims that members of its provider network will “have a commitment” from its employer members to “use you and your fellow accredited colleges/providers as preferred suppliers” in the hospitality and aviation industries.
Annette Allmark, People 1st’s director of strategic policy, defended the network, telling FE Week: “People 1st is frequently asked by employers ‘how can I tell if a training provider is of a good standard?’.
“Therefore, if we make recommendations, we want to know that providers will deliver a service that employers will value and help them deliver their objectives to boost business productivity.”
She added: “Our provider network is open to colleges and training providers, and is endorsed by a panel of leading employers. There is a fee to join the network, but membership is not in any way mandatory.”
Mark Dawe
Cogent Skills also runs a quality assured scheme, which gives providers “market access to high-value science industry employers”.
When asked to comment on concerns around these schemes, Alex Slater, the body’s head of business operations, told FE Week that demand “came from employers asking for quality-assured, sector-specific providers within easy reach, with the knowledge and understanding of the regulation and unique challenges presented to organisations operating in the science industries.
Some schemes may yield a genuine benefit, but there is always the fear that their aim is to create an income stream
“This saves them having to deploy internal resource on what is a significant task.”
She added: “Members rates are kept in the low hundreds, as this is a partnership that is run for the benefit of sector employers and to support training capacity around the country.”
The Tech Industry Gold standard issued by the Tech Partnership is described on its website as “a quality mark that is designed to help employers choose apprenticeship training providers who have a proven track record in delivering excellent digital apprenticeships”.
However, the IT body declined FE Week’s request to comment on its provider network.
Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager at the Association of Colleges, questions the motives of these so-called “industry-approved” programmes.
She said: “Some schemes may yield a genuine benefit, but there is always the fear that their aim is to create an income stream, with little serious thought given to ensuring investors get what they are promised.”
An awarding organisation that fell victim to a high-profile case of qualifications fraud has called on the government to set up an expert panel, amid fears that the problem has been swept under the carpet.
Industry Qualifications wants the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy to work with examinations regulator Ofqual to establish a panel to explore the issue, especially for industries that “require individuals to have specified qualifications to obtain a license to work”.
The AO had to revoke 251 level two and three door-supervision and CCTV surveillance qualifications it certificated in 2015, after Ashley Commerce College was exposed for allowing students to gain the qualifications illegally.
An undercover BBC investigation alleged that staff at the college, based in Ilford, were prepared to sit exams for students who were training to work as security guards.
The Security Industry Authority, which regulates the sector, told FE Week in May 2015 that it would be revoking a further 129 licenses awarded to security guards who had passed the IQ-certified courses at ACC, as a result of the investigation.
But IQ’s chief executive Raymond Clarke now fears the whole affair has been whitewashed by the government in the hope that it will quietly disappear, and told FE Week that there is a “risk to public safety and wellbeing” if the issue is not addressed nationally.
Since his organisation’s experience of fraud, Mr Clarke said it had been “very difficult to gain traction” with the police and the regulatory authorities to criminally prosecute those involved.
He said that the scale of the problem is currently unknown and information concerning those involved in fraud or serious malpractice is incomplete and largely inaccessible.
IQ wants the proposed panel to review the current regulatory mechanisms for recording and disseminating information on those involved in fraud, and develop proposals to “ensure such individuals are barred from future participation in qualifications development or assessment”.
It must also establish the level and nature of qualifications fraud in the UK’s qualification system, and “review the approach to the prosecution of qualifications fraud and the establishment of procedures and protocols with the police to ensure effective prosecution”.
A DfE spokesperson insisted that it was down to each individual AO to issue qualifications securely.
“Fraud is a crime and we expect all AOs to set robust procedures to ensure only those candidates who have met the right standards are awarded qualifications,” he said.
“Ensuring that qualifications have been properly issued – including licences to practice – is the responsibility of the awarding organisation, with oversight by the independent exams regulator, Ofqual.”
A spokesperson for Ofqual said that it places “paramount importance” on awarding safe and secure qualifications, but declined to comment on whether a government-backed expert panel would needed to manage fraud.
He said that the watchdog’s rules require all regulated awarding organisations to “set robust procedures”, and to make sure that their qualifications are only awarded to candidates who have met the right standard in assessments completed in the right conditions.
“As the exams regulator, we are continually vigilant about malpractice including fraud,” he said.
“We investigate and take action when necessary, and alert other stakeholders including the police and currently have a number of ongoing investigations.”
College bailouts have cost the UK a whopping £140 million, the apprenticeships minister has admitted.
Robert Halfon confessed to the House of Commons that by March the government expects to have dropped “a total of about £140 million on propping up colleges facing extreme financial difficulties”.
That money, he added during a debate on the Technical and Further Education Bill on Monday (January 9), “should have been spent on education and training priorities”.
Exceptional financial support for colleges in financial difficulty was launched by the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education in 2015.
Then in February 2016, FE Week reported that the Association of Employment and Learning Providers was claiming in a webinar to members that the cost of supporting colleges could be around £100 million.
FE Week asked the SFA about the £100m after hearing this. While an agency spokesperson would not confirm the amount directly, he did not deny that the government had told sector stakeholders, including AELP, about the bailout figure before Christmas.
Mr Halfon is thought to be the first government figure to confirm the level of cash pay outs, through a comment in Monday’s debate.
Mark Dawe, chief executive of AELP, said the minister was “right” to say that the £140 million of support funding should have gone straight to the frontline.
However, he added: “This is precisely why, despite the area reviews supposedly being the end of ongoing support of this type, we are concerned that the bill appears to be giving the government a blank cheque to continue when other options could be explored which might produce better value for the taxpayer and the learner.”
Mr Halfon also challenged colleges on their financial proficiency during the session – suggesting a lack of know-how was behind ongoing money problems rather than funding cuts.
He said: “There should be as much financial expertise as possible in FE colleges.
“When there is real financial leadership, those colleges will always be in good financial health whatever the funding pressures.”
Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive of the Association of Colleges, challenged this, saying: “Obviously there are a few cases where colleges have mismanaged their finances but these sorts of difficulties are unavoidable where we have an unpredictable funding system.
“The support is only necessary because of the funding cuts, for example the 35 per cent adult skills cut.”
He also pointed out that the minister’s £140 million figure included advances paid to colleges, without considering that some will be repaid.
The need for improved financial leadership in the FE sector is not a new idea. The Education and Training Foundation recently launched a Finance Director Training and Development Survey to gather information that will influence its work (pictured right).
It also appointed former City and Islington College principal Sir Frank McLoughlin in August, who as its associate director for leadership is designing courses for current and future principals.
Despite a number of challenges from shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden, the Technical and Further Education Bill passed through the House of Commons and now awaits its second reading in the House of Lords.
First published in October 2016, the bill sets out proposals for a new insolvency regime for FE colleges and also includes a proposal to extend the role of new vocational training policing body, the Institute for Apprenticeships, to cover technical education.
FE Week reporting was mentioned repeatedly during the four-hour debate on the bill.
Mr Marsden referred to our stories on careers, awarding organisations, the Institute for Apprenticeships, Mr Halfon’s “regular” columns for the paper, and our successful #SaveOurApprenticeships campaign.
The FE sector has paid tribute to Kim Thorneywork, the “distinguished” former chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency, who died this week.
Ms Thorneywork joined the agency in 2006 and became its leader in July 2012, but the following October she announced that she was stepping down after being diagnosed with breast cancer.
Sector leaders have spoken warmly of a woman who worked tirelessly to improve the sector, and who died on Tuesday (January 10).
David Hughes, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, worked with her during his time as a provider services director at the Skills Funding Agency in 2010.
He said: “I am very saddened at Kim’s passing. We have lost a great supporter and friend of FE.
“I worked very closely with her at the SFA and always respected her for the passion, honesty and integrity with which she approached her work.
“She really cared about FE and about learners and that shone through.”
Peter Lauener, who took over as head of the SFA in November 2014, and who also runs the Education Funding Agency and Institute for Apprenticeships, said: “Kim Thorneywork was a distinguished chief executive of the SFA who earned the respect of the whole sector through her knowledge of skills and education, and her commitment to adult learning.
“Our thoughts are with Kim’s family and friends at this time.”
Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and former principal of Oaklands College in St Albans, said Ms Thorneywork’s contribution to the sector was “greatly appreciated”.
“Building on Geoff Russell’s excellent groundwork, Kim continued to lead the SFA on a path of accountability and transparency which was greatly appreciated by the work-based learning community,” he said.
“I am very sad to hear of her passing and our thoughts are with her family.”
A chemistry graduate and mother of one, Ms Thorneywork was appointed to the lead role at the SFA after previous head Geoff Russell stepped down in July 2012.
She moved into the chief executive post from her former position as executive director of delivery, where she managed work on funding policy, investment and provider performance.
She first came to the agency in 2006, when it was still known as the Learning and Skills Council, as the area director for Coventry and Warwickshire.
Before this she had worked as an inspector for Ofsted and a science teacher at Walsall College.
When the SFA replaced the Learning and Skills Council in April 2010, she became the senior account director for the West Midlands, with a portfolio of 33 FE colleges and over 160 training organisations.
A new parliamentary campaign has been launched by the MP David Lammy to try and counter the sweeping cuts the government is making to adult education, after learner numbers fell by nearly 40 per cent since his time as skills minister.
The Labour MP has secured an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on the future of adult education scheduled for tomorrow (Friday 13), where he will launch a drive to massively expand part-time evening classes for adults who want to retrain.
According to government figures, there are around 1.5 million fewer adults aged 19 or over participating in further education than there were during Mr Lammy’s stint as minister between 2007 and 2008, when the figure stood at 3.75 million – a fall of 38 per cent.
Ahead of the debate, the MP told FE Week that he would be calling for a return to the traditional concept of “night schools”, which he wants provided either by local authorities or FE colleges.
“Working class people used to be able to do part-time courses after work to get new skills, move into a better job and build a better life for their family,” he said.
“The political class is obsessed with university but education isn’t one-size-fits-all, and I will be calling on the government to bring back night schools.”
He believes that too many people are trapped in low-paid work, and that “there is no real prospect of moving up the ladder” for those who “missed out as teenagers”.
Sue Pember, a former top civil servant for skills, welcomed Mr Lammy’s demands, saying: “I hope his debate starts a proper, in-depth, lasting conversation on how we invest in our people.”
Her new employer, the adult learning provider membership body Holex, has also previously called on the government to establish a new adult education investment strategy, setting out “a ‘grow our own’ approach to education, skills and employment from April 2017 to meet the challenges of Brexit”.
Meanwhile, Baroness Sharp, who contributed to report on colleges in 2012 that described them as “intimidating institutions” which seem as though they are “not for adults”, told FE Week that she did not believe the situation had improved.
“I felt at the time, and still feel very strongly, that we have lost sight of people being able to connect with their local college and do a course in the evening,” she said.
“At a time when we know many people are going to have to switch careers and retrain in their 30s and 40s, the opportunity to do this has reduced.”
And David Hughes, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, agreed that creating more provision for older people to help them retrain was a good idea, but warned that “it would have to be paid for”.
He said: “In addition to more direct funding from the government, another solution could be expanding FE loans which are only for level three and above at the moment.
“Retraining, or preparing to return to work, can often require lower-level qualifications.”
Advanced learner loans were introduced in 2013 for those aged 24 and above and studying at level three and four. It was then announced in November 2015 that they would be extended to 19- to 23-year-olds, but not at levels one and two.
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We want people of all ages to have access to skills and learning. Advanced learner loans are available to thousands of adults wishing to retrain, helping them to meet upfront fees and removing one of the main barriers to learning.”
Providers have been left in the dark about when procurement for adult education budget contracts will be launched for the first time, after the government admitted it has “no date”.
The Skills Funding Agency wrote to training providers in October and told them that their current AEB contracts will end this July – rather than be automatically renewed as before.
It stated that changes to contracting regulations, which came into force in February last year, meant that the SFA could no longer automatically renew contracts when they ended and instead “must procure future training provision”.
The exercise was first expected to take place this month, but the government has now told FE Week that there is no scheduled timetable for when it will happen.
A spokesperson for the Department for Education said yesterday: “There is currently no date for when this procurement process is going to be, and no date yet for when that date is likely to be announced.”
Any delay beyond January for the process is likely to cause significant issues for training providers who need to get contracts up and running for the summer.
Colleges – which contract with the SFA through a grant funding agreement – are in the clear as they are not affected by the changes.
Mark Dawe
Since hearing the news in October that there is to be a procurement process for private providers, Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, has lobbied for all providers – including colleges – to have to compete to deliver AEB provision.
At the time he said that without a tender, it would “seem the process is incredibly biased against large independent providers”.
Responding to the news that the government currently has no set date for the process, Mr Dawe told FE Week: “We have been pressing for the whole of the AEB to be put out to tender. If the delay is to organise this, we strongly welcome it.”
As previously reported by FE Week, the requirement to procure the AEB provided by private training providers is the result of changes to European Union law.
The changes were first revealed in an SFA document, Adult Education Budget: Changing context and arrangements for 2016 to 2017, published last January, which said: “In advance of 2017/18, changes to EU procurement regulations will require us to procure the adult budget provided to ITPs.
“This means that the AEB will be subject to competition as part of a procurement process.”
The new contracts would be for 2017/18 “with an option to extend contracts for a further two years, which we will review on an annual basis,” according to the letter sent to providers in October.
The change will not affect apprenticeship provision, which will be procured separately through the new register of apprenticeship training providers.
A senior Ofsted inspector has apologised after the inspectorate accepted multiple challenges to the wording of a report on Yeovil College, which included factual inaccuracies and insulting comments.
The words “college leaders have tackled the lack of pride and ambition that existed in the college” appeared on the front page of the ‘good’-rated report, which was first published in November and which has since been amended.
Principal John Evans, who took up the reins in January 2014, lodged a number of appeals to change the report’s wording, including a comment alluding to criticism of the leadership team that had been in place before he arrived, which had offended a number of remaining staff.
John Evans
Following an investigation, Ofsted upheld three of the seven complaints, as Mr Evans also explained in an exclusive expert article.
In the letter Ofsted sent to report on the outcome of the investigation, seen by FE Week, senior inspector Rieks Drijver apologised for the trouble the original report had caused the college.
In regard to the comment on lack of pride and ambition, he wrote: “On behalf of Ofsted I am sorry that you have concerns about the wording on the front page of the inspection report and that it may cause offence to managers and governors who were employed at the time.”
Ofsted conceded that the inspector’s conclusion needed to be reworded to “better reflect the leadership and management” at the college.
The wording has now been amended to read “college leaders have improved the quality of provision.
“They have created a culture in which staff work resolutely in the best interests of their learners and the college is a purposeful community.”
However Mr Evans, who is himself an Ofsted inspector, admitted that he had mixed feelings about the outcome.
“I am pleased that Ofsted has proved to be what I always thought it was – a quality-assurance organisation,” he said.
“However, I am disappointed that the initial report went public with an unfair flavour.
“I had asked to have the report suspended until the investigation was completed, as I felt the emotive words would upset many of the excellent existing staff and governors.”
Mr Evans also said that Ofsted’s assertions on low attendance in English and maths did not “reflect the situation at the time of inspection”, and that claim was also overturned.
He successfully argued that although attendance in the subjects had been low in the previous year, it had increased and was no longer a weakness in the current one.
“There was no evidence base for the assertion about poor attendance in English and maths,” he writes.
He also complained about the prominence of a separate recommendation, that there were “lower levels of success for the small group of 16- to 18-year-old learners with mixed heritage”.
The total group of mixed-heritage learners at his college was small at 22, and that the percentage difference in success rates to other groups was down to just two learners.
“This is important but hardly significant,” he said; as a result of the complaint, the mixed-heritage recommendation was also removed from the report’s front page.
An Ofsted spokesperson told FE Week that “this is still a live complaint and as such, Ofsted doesn’t comment until all stages of the complaint process have been completed.”
…………………………………………………………………
Editorial: Well done Ofsted, but…
Paul Offord
Ofsted should be congratulated for admitting that it got it wrong with the wording of important extracts of its report on Yeovil College.
No individual or organisation is flawless by any means, and while Elton John may have said in his famous song that ‘sorry seems to be the hardest word’ – it shouldn’t be.
Questions need to be asked though about the complaints process, if publication of reports such as this one go ahead before a decision has been made on whether the content is indeed inaccurate and insulting.
This is wrong.
It would save both the inspectorate future embarrassment and providers unwarranted upset if the rules were changed.
I sympathise with the view that reports should be published as soon as possible after inspection.
They shouldn’t be delayed unduly while concerns are considered.
But this shouldn’t be a problem, so long as there’s a strict time limit on the appeals process.
The government’s decision to publish today a “customer service” guide explaining what colleges can expect from area reviews – despite more than half of them having already finished – has been described as “beyond parody”.
The new “statement of customer service to institutions” says participants should expect, for example, “the timetable and milestones of the review to follow a standard pattern clarified at the start of each review”, a “clear delivery plan be communicated in advance of the first steering group”; and a “dedicated delivery team” from the Joint Area Review Delivery Unit.
But the timing of the guide’s release has been slammed, as three of the five areas reviews have already been completed.
James Kewin, deputy chief executive at the Sixth Form Colleges Association, told FE Week: “This document is beyond parody.
James Kewin
“Leaving aside the highly questionable idea that colleges are ‘customers’ in the area review process, to issue a statement of customer service just as the process draws to an end makes little sense.
“Nor does focusing on the smooth implementation of a policy that has so many obvious flaws, not least the absence of school and academy sixth forms.
“This is a distraction – the government should focus instead on reviewing the funding available to 16 to 19 year olds – that is the surest way of ensuring our members can remain sustainable and provide young people with the high quality education they deserve.”
The customer service guide also states a number of other review-related services that can be expected from DfE, which more than 160 providers who have already completed their reviews would no doubt have appreciated knowing in advance.
It said that colleges play “a central role in the review process and should expect confirmation of information required from colleges in advance of the review”.
An FE or sixth-form college adviser team can be expected, it explained, to visit each one to “gather contextual, financial and quality information, and discuss options being considered”.
It also stresses that “each adviser works to a written code of conduct that stipulates the standard for their engagement and requires each adviser to act with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality”.
The reports for the London area reviews have however still not yet been published.
The capital was split into four sub-reviews, two of which were originally part of wave two, but were put back to coordinate with the other two reviews in wave three. None of these are yet available for public consumption.
Waves four and five, which started in September and November respectively, are in the midst of being completed and are expected to be finished by the end of March.
