£500 to hire a young apprentice

PBD has just launched a scheme which makes great business sense to companies looking to invest now in the skills which will be needed for the economic recovery.

In a drive to encourage businesses to hire young apprentices, we are offering an ‘achievement bonus’ of £500 to the employers of the first 25 young people aged 16 to 18 signed up for apprenticeships in Business & Administration or Customer Service.

What’s more, we will help to recruit the candidate free of charge, using the government’s Apprenticeship Vacancies database.

Janet Dawson, PBD’s Training Director, explains that the £500 bonus is payable to the employer as soon as the young person successfully completes their apprenticeship with PBD.

“Free recruitment, free training and a fully qualified apprentice, with £500 at the end – that’s what we call an effective fiscal stimulus!” says Janet.  “And, with youth unemployment at record levels, companies can show their commitment to the local community at the same time.”

PBD’s free training is delivered by a team of friendly expert assessors, supported by state of the art e-learning and e-portfolio systems.

Apprenticeships can be delivered in almost any type of organisation and the minimum apprenticeship wage is £2.60 per hour.

Call us on 01440 731731 for more information.

EYFS top up for school TAs

Headteachers are worried that,from January 2012, the only full and relevant qualification will be the level 3 Diploma for the Children and Young People’s Workforce – although those holding other currently recognised qualifications will be able to keep their status.

The Level 3 NVQ in Supporting Teaching and Learning in Schools, which is held by many school based teaching assistants, is NOT a full and relevant qualification although, at the present time, the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) accepts it as such for school staff working in the EYFS.

CWDC recommends those holding this qualification who work with younger children to ‘upgrade’ to a full and relevant early years qualification by completing the Level 3 Certificate in EYFS Practice. 

Most awarding organisations have stopped offering the Level 3 Certificate.  PBD, however, is still registered to deliver it.   With PBD, candidates can achieve the Certificate in just a few months, at very reasonable cost and with no disruption to working time.

For more information, contact Ross or Janet on 01440 731731

Slow down, you move too fast

Now here is a classic example of what happens when a policy is not properly thought through.

In the old days, the quality of training was judged by measuring the inputs – how much time did each learner spend on their learning?  Learning was further broken down into “guided” learning, where a teacher was physically present, and “other” learning, such as self study.  The former was regarded as preferable – not because it was better but because it was seen as easier to verify.

People who have spent longer than I have in vocational training tell me that this spawned the creation of reams of paper timesheets, each bearing details of hours and minutes spent on guided learning and religiously signed by learners and assessors.  These timesheets would keep auditors happy for hours, concentrating on whether they were internally consistent and ignoring the fact that they were often wholly fictional. 

This attitude lives on in the approach to CPD taken by organisations such as IfL, which require annual declarations of compliance which can be sample checked by yet more auditors in order to verify that someone attended a course at a particular time and place.  What these records cannot do, of course, is tell the auditors whether the person was concentrating, or even awake, at the time.

Elsewhere, however, I thought that the old fashioned input approach was history, and that the world had now moved on to measuring the quality of the output – what  learners actually know, and what they can do.   The concept of “guided” learning is, in any event, hopelessly outdated in the age of e-learning and virtual classrooms – and although log-in records are much less easy to fabricate than paper timesheets, they still don’t tell you what was happening in the learner’s head while they were logged in.

And then came the ASCL Act 2009 (the Act), which introduced a minimum guided learning hours requirement of 280 hours and empowered sector Skills Councils to set higher requirements for individual frameworks.   And the whole timesheet industry looked like kicking off again.

To be fair, the problem was not in the Act, but in the guidance which was issued with it.  Although this made it clear that guided learning could encompass a range of modern methods which didn’t require a teacher’s physical presence, it was silent about the records of guided learning which providers would have to keep and which auditors would expect to see.

Crucially, the guidance failed to make it clear that, in borrowing the 280 hours which the 2008 Education and Skills Act (the 2008 Act) had laid down as an entitlement for under 19s, the Act had also borrowed the concept of how guided learning hours can be acquired.  Section 9(2)(b) of the 2008 Act says (my italics)

For the purposes of this Part, a person participates in a particular number of hours of guided learning by—

(a)  participating in actual guided learning for that number of hours, or

(b)  completing a course or courses which can reasonably be expected to be adequate to enable persons completing it or them to achieve any standard required to attain an accredited qualification to which that number of hours of guided learning has been assigned.

In other words: if, in the course of an apprenticeship, the learner completes a qualification to which at least the required number of GLH has been assigned, evidence of that qualification is definitive evidence of compliance with the GLH requirements.  Recording of individual hours for the specific purpose of demonstrating compliance is therefore superfluous – although in a college, for example, there may well be other, internal, reasons for doing so. 

After some prompting, the guidance has been changed to make it quite clear that providers are not expected to maintain time records of guided learning and that SFA auditors will not be examining this aspect.  Providers do, however, have to prepare a learning plan for each learner, indicating how they propose to deliver the required number of hours – whether the minimum of 280 or the higher figure for the individual framework.

As David Way, the SFA’s executive director of apprenticeships, confirmed to me in a recent email:

“if a learner completes a qualification within a framework and is awarded the qualification by the awarding organisation, then for the purposes of SASE compliance they will have met the qualification GLH as stated in the framework regardless of whether they actually undertook the GLH assigned to the qualification”.

So common sense has prevailed?  Well, not quite.  At least one sector skills council, CWDC, does not yet seem to be in the loop.   If an apprentice completes in less than the average expected time, CWDC will refuse to issue a completion certificate unless the provider supplies evidence that they have completed the required number of GLH. 

Two key skills questions for you:

1.  Communication

If a qualification certificate has to be submitted with every application, and this certificate provides definitive evidence that the GLH requirements have been met, what additional evidence is required to show that the GLH requirements have been met?

2.  Application of number

If all claims below the average completion time are to be rejected, what percentage of claims would you expect to be accepted?

The extraordinary idea that a learner should not be allowed to qualify more quickly than the average is not only based on a total misunderstanding of averages, it is also mad.  There are at least three reasons why a learner might complete more rapidly than others:

(a)   The provider has cut corners on quality

(b)   The learner has prior experience or knowledge which gave them a head start

(c)    The learner was more intelligent/committed, and/or the provider was better/more efficient than others

You do not deal with these situations in the same way, by forcing all learners to take the same time.  In the first case, you find out which providers are offering (or routinely delivering) guaranteed completions of a level 3 diploma in a few months, and setting Ofsted or the awarding organisation loose on them.  The SFA already deals with the second case by imposing a funding discount, so that providers cannot claim thousands of pounds merely for accrediting someone’s existing skills: but it doesn’t penalise the apprentice.  And the apprentice or provider in the third case would normally be seen (except perhaps by a diehard proponent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution) as someone to be applauded, not held back.

Watch this space.

More news from the asylum

My last post looked at some of the problems that have been created by the insistence that apprentices should apply for their own completion certificates.  It gets better….

Let’s start by looking at where this requirement comes from.  Sections 3 and 4 of the ASCL Act 2009 contain an innocent looking provision saying that a certificate will be issued to a ‘person who applies’, provided they provide such information and evidence as the certifying authority requires.

I originally thought the Sector Skills Councils were just being overzealous in interpreting this as meaning that the application must be made by – rather than on behalf of – the apprentice.  It turns out, however, that it is deliberate.  NAS wants to “put responsibility and power in the hands of apprentices” by giving them “ownership” of the application process.  However, it does recognise that, in practice, training providers will “facilitate” this process on the apprentice’s behalf.

Quite how requiring someone to sign a form themselves, rather than asking their training provider to do it for them, consitutes a transfer of power and responsibility is not entirely clear.  Down here in the real world, we all know that many learners will sign any form that is put in front of them.  Even with the army of checkers who will now be employed to verify these forms for the planned 360,000 apprentices to be recruited each year, it will be impossible to tell if a signature is genuine, or whether the form was really signed after completion or signed at the start of the process but left undated.

Why is this such a problem?  Simply that it introduces more paper and more delay at a time when all the rhetoric is about reducing bureaucracy.  Not only that but, in many sectors, the apprentice’s real goal is not the framework certificate but the underlying skills and qualifications.  An early years worker, for instance, who has completed a level 3 diploma, is now eligible to act as a room leader or deputy.   Although s/he may have achieved the diploma as part of a framework, it isn’t the framework certificate that really counts and, if too many obstacles are put in the way of getting it, people will simply not bother.  This will damage not only the provider’s success rate statistics, but also the achievement figures which NAS has to report to ministers.

But at least the new rules introduce clarity and consistency along with the paper?  Well,  let’s see.  PBD deals with four different SSCs. 

• TDA, who manage the learning support framework, either haven’t picked up on the signature point at all or have decided to take a very pragmatic approach.  Their claim form requires only the provider to sign.
• CfA, who look after business and customer service, take – as you might expect – a businesslike and customer focused approach.  The apprentice does not have to sign the claim form but the provider does have to confirm, on the form, that it holds a signed authority to act on the apprentice’s behalf.  
• CWDC used to follow the CfA approach but now requires the apprentice to sign saying “I hereby request my certificate”.  This is the hard line, literal approach and cannot be faulted, except that it makes a nonsense of the idea of providers ‘facilitating’ the claim.  The CWDC form is quite simply a claim by the apprentice, with the provider’s role limited to one of countersigning to confirm that the requirements have been met.
• Which leaves SkillsActive, who operate the frameworks in playwork.  With typical playfulness, the SkillsActive approach goes straight for the worst of both worlds by requiring the apprentice to sign the actual claim form, after completion, to say “I authorise the provider to claim on my behalf”!  

And if you think all this is crazy, wait for my next post on guided learning hours.

Kafka is alive and well….

Imagine telling your elderly parents that they can’t give you a power of attorney to act for them when the time comes, but must wait until they are actually incapable of acting.   Or having to write a cheque for each mortgage payment, instead of signing a direct debit mandate at the start.  Or wanting someone to vote for you at a meeting, but still having to go to the meeting in order to authorise the appointment.     Try to think of any area of law or business life where you are allowed to delegate authority only at the point where it is ready to be used.

Now take a look at paragraph 161 of the new Apprenticeship Funding Guidance.

One of the changes introduced by the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is that an apprentice will be responsible for requesting from the Certifying Authority their Apprenticeship Completion Certificate.  In practice, the Agency recognises that providers will do this on behalf of the apprentice.  It must be noted that this authority cannot be given by the apprentice to the provider at the start or during the Apprenticeship as it must be done after all the components of the Apprenticeship Framework have been completed.

First, there seems to be a missing sentence before the one in bold (otherwise “this authority” makes no sense).   Presumably, this would say something like “Before providers request a certificate,  they must hold a written authority from the apprentice”.

More importantly, what is the point of the sentence in bold?   It’s reasonable enough to say that the apprentice must have completed the framework before claiming a certificate.  But what possible purpose is served by saying that he or she can’t give the provider authority until after completion?   Providers are already required to get learners to sign documents at the start of training, so this is the logical time to collect the authority.  Why can’t the apprentice  sign a form at the start which says “I authorise Provider X to request a completion certificate on my behalf once all the components of my Apprenticeship Framework have been completed”?

It’s a small point, but an important one.  The “Certifying Authority” seems happy to accept applications and authorities bearing signatures which could have been made by anyone (see my post on electronic records).  But I guarantee that, before long, they will reject someone’s certificate application because the authority has the wrong date on it.     Chasing around for signed authorities after completion is time consuming, expensive and risks failing to obtain the certificate at all if the learner has moved or changed career in the meantime.   And if this happens, the provider’s success rate, and possibly its ability to obtain future funding, is jeopardised.

So I asked the SFA.  Without naming names or publishing actual emails, the dialogue went like this.

PBD       What is the statutory authority for this new rule?

SFA        It’s required under the Regulations made under the Act

PBD.      No it isn’t.  Neither the Act nor the Regulations say anything about giving providers authority to claim certificates

SFA       Well, the Act says that apprentices have to apply for their own certificate after completion.  And we accept that providers can facilitate this.

PBD       Yes, but that isn’t the point.  The application has to be made after completion, but why can’t the authority to make the application be given earlier?

SFA        We are working with the Sector Skills Councils to see how providers can apply for certificates as simply as possible and in a way which complies with the Act

PBD       But you’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.  The Act doesn’t try to prevent apprentices from providing an authoritybefore they have completed their framework.  Please answer my question.

SFA        The wording was agreed with colleagues in BIS.  We are working on a streamlined electronic system.

PBD       That still doesn’t answer the question.

A few months ago, Vince Cable set out five priorities for the SFA in 2011/12.  One of these was “to support a simplified funding and performance management system, which recognises our commitment to free Providers, reduce bureaucracy and the costs for the sector, and enable Providers to be held to account by the communities they operate in.”

Not a great start.

Electronic evidence

In 2008, with a widely spread team of assessors signing up new learners, we started to get fed up with the number of our ILRs which were getting lost or delayed in the post. We took the decision to set up the ILR as an electronic document and equip assessors with signature pads so that the signed form could be emailed to the office. This also fitted in well with our use of e-portfolios, as data could be imported directly from the ILR without having to re-key it at the other end.

Naively, I decided to run this past the auditors at the LSC (as it then was). I wrote to the audit managers in all three regions where we had a contract, and waited for the responses – which never came. I then tried Coventry, only to be told flatly that electronic signatures were unacceptable. Apparently, only a “wet” (i.e. ink) signature could provide the necessary evidence of the learner’s existence, and satisfy the LSC that the provider was not claiming funds for a fictitious learner.

I thought about this. All that a signature proves is that someone signed the form. Would the LSC accept ILRs in the names of D. Duck or M. Mouse, merely because they bore a signature? When a bank takes on a new customer, it first undertakes elaborate ‘money laundering’ checks to prove existence. Only then does it ask for a specimen signature (or issue a PIN) which can be used to validate future transactions.

In the world of training, the LSC had no such prior relationship with the learners whom it was being asked to fund. Rather than inspecting signatures which told them nothing, auditors would be better off using the details on the ILR to contact learners and ask them about their training. If there were a significant number of non-responders, or anomalous answers, the boys could be sent in.

But the mindset persisted, not only that signatures amounted to valuable evidence, but that only paper and ink would do. I have heard accounts of funding being clawed back after audit visits, not because a learner had been found to be fictitious, but simply because the form had not been ‘properly’ signed by the learner. In this context, a signature pad was regarded not as a different kind of pen, but as an instrument of the Devil. Like many people who are afraid of the fraud potential of electronic transactions, the LSC failed to grasp that almost every electronic fraud has its exact parallel in the paper world.

Not being someone to take no for an answer – especially when it is downright illogical – I continued to argue the point. This culminated in a 2009 meeting with the CEO and the Director of Audit, where I took along a laptop and a selection of ILRs, both paper and electronic. Some were genuine and others were fabrications, and it rapidly became apparent that, whatever methods might be available to tell them apart, the signature was not one of them.

It was agreed that we had a point. However, the SFA was not yet ready to give carte blanche for the use of electronic records and so, in an attempt to square the circle, we were shoehorned into a pilot project, where our small company of ten staff took its place alongside giants like Burger King and Ford! And so began a comical period of audit visits and huge IT control questionnaires which were completely inappropriate to our set up and which neither we, nor the auditors, had any idea how to adapt to our circumstances. Proprietary systems such as our e-portfolio software – and even the PICS database used by hundreds of providers and colleges to interface with the SFA’s own systems – were investigated at length, even though these same systems are largely ignored by auditors in providers where they exist alongside  manual files and paper/ink forms that can be inspected and ticked.

Eventually – probably as a result of sheer exhaustion –we were given permission to dispense entirely with paper systems. Although this was welcome, it was something we had never asked for. But our success took a different turn when, in April, the SFA announced a general policy of accepting electronic evidence, including signatures, from 1 August 2011. Its subsequent briefing note confirmed that, as a result, it would be discontinuing the approach of accrediting individual providers like us. Unfortunately, however, its choice of words “the Agency will not provide certification for paperless systems” led many providers to conclude that the policy of accepting electronic evidence had been abruptly reversed.

According to the SFA, only 10% of providers either use, or have expressed an interest in, electronic records and this is therefore still seen as a minority issue. I suspect the figure would be very much higher if e-portfolios were included, but no matter: the fact is that this is a completely circular argument. If 90% of providers are still using paper, this is not necessarily because they believe it to be easier or better. It is much more likely to be because they are aware of the suspicion which SFA auditors have for ICT and have decided to play safe. In the last week I have heard this view reinforced at a conference by a senior SFA official who advised providers who are planning to scan their ILRs to keep the paper forms in a drawer ‘just in case’ their auditors won’t accept PDF files.  Among the providers I have talked to, electronic evidence is one of the hot topics – perhaps ranking just behind guided learning hours, on which I plan to post soon.

Despite the eminently sensible approach now being developed at the top of the SFA – that as long as evidence for the existence, eligibility and achievement of learners is reliable, it doesn’t matter what format it takes – it remains to be seen how this will play at the sharp end. Ideally, SFA will start the audit process by looking at the data from funding claims to identify indicators of risk and by contacting learners on a sample basis to confirm the information submitted. Targeted, follow-up audit visits can then be carried out by fewer, better auditors – people who are prepared to ask challenging questions and assess the answers with an open mind. This is broadly the approach now being taken – albeit with some inconsistency – by Ofsted, as well as by all the large private sector audit firms. However, if decisions on the acceptability of  electronic records are going to continue to be left to the discretion of individual auditors, many of whom are wedded to paper documents, we are not out of the woods yet.

I set out below the SFA’s guidance note as I would like to have seen it written.

ALTERNATIVE BRIEFING NOTE AS SFA COULD HAVE WRITTEN IT

Guidance Note 7 advised that from 1 August 2011 providers will be able to hold evidence to support funding claims in an electronic format. This briefing note provides further information and practical guidance, for both providers and auditors, about the application of this policy. It is made in the context of the contractual relationship between the Agency and its providers and does not displace obligations to other agencies or regulators. For example, providers delivering European Social Fund (ESF) funded programmes will need to demonstrate compliance with the relevant co-financing beneficiary guidance and requirements.

General principles
The use of electronic records is permitted, not required.

There is a general requirement for providers to establish adequate controls over the completeness, accuracy and security of data. The Agency will seek to be pragmatic and reasonable in its acceptance of evidence in support of funding. That evidence should be capable of demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Agency’s auditors, the existence, eligibility and achievement of all learners for whom funding is claimed. Provided the evidence is robust and reliable, auditors will not be prescriptive about the form which it takes.

In many cases, electronic evidence has the potential to provide greater assurance than its paper equivalent (for example date and version controls, or verification that the contents of a file have not been altered since creation). In general, however, the same audit considerations apply regardless of the format of evidence, and auditors will not expect electronic evidence to satisfy a more demanding test merely because it is capable of doing so.

Whether learner data is held in paper or electronic format, providers must comply with current data protection legislation.

Because the Agency is now making electronic evidence generally acceptable, there is no longer a need for the approach previously piloted, under which individual providers applied to have their systems certified for this purpose.

Some commonly occurring specific situations are discussed below.

Online data capture
It is acceptable for data concerning learners (e.g. the information on an ILR) to be captured electronically or on paper. Auditors will be concerned with the completeness and accuracy of such information rather than with the means of capture.

Scanned records
It is acceptable for evidence to be retained in the form of scanned documents rather than original paper documents. Providers who wish to do this are responsible for implementing reliable controls over creation, indexing, storage and retrieval, just as they are in the case of paper records.

Electronic portfolios
An e-portfolio is, essentially, a means of storing evidence and controlling the work flow between learners, assessors and verifiers. The Agency takes the view that the method by which portfolio evidence is stored is largely a matter for the provider and the awarding organisation. From an audit standpoint, an e-portfolio may provide a convenient repository for scanned documents and may also provide a source of evidence, in its own right, that learners remain actively engaged in learning.

Auditors will apply the same considerations to the contents of e-portfolios as they do to the contents of paper portfolios. If, for a specific purpose, auditors need to place reliance on an aspect of the e-portfolio software (e.g. access controls or the reliability of date stamping) they may ask the provider to supply or obtain relevant evidence. In the case of proprietary software, in order to minimise duplication and promote consistency, the Agency will maintain, and make available to both auditors and providers, details of products which have been successfully evaluated in this way.

Signatures
In some circumstances, it is possible for a signature to be compared with a pre-existing, independent signature of the named individual, in order to establish its authenticity (for example, specimen customer signatures held by banks, or a digital signature issued by a competent authority). In these circumstances, the holder of the independent signature will normally have undertaken prior identity checks to confirm the individual’s existence.

Unless these conditions are met, a signature on a document provides no evidence that the named person actually signed the document, or even that the person exists. In addressing learner existence, therefore, the Agency’s auditors will focus attention on the provider’s systems for recruiting, and maintaining contact with, learners. Auditors will also contact learners themselves on a sample basis, in order to verify their existence as well as to confirm details from funding claims.

The evidential value of a signature is chiefly to demonstrate that the person making it accepts responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the document signed. For that reason the Agency still expects documents such as the ILR, ILP and learner agreement to be ‘signed’ by the learner and, where appropriate, by the provider and/or employer. The format of the signature does not matter – the test is whether it can be shown to have been made by the person named. A graphical signature (however captured, and whether stored in paper or scanned form) can be compared visually with other examples: in the case of an electronic signature there may be software controls, such as the use of secure passwords or PINs, which provide authentication. Auditors will take a pragmatic view of such matters in the light of perceived risk and will not expect different levels of assurance from different forms of signature.

Playwork qualifications

Before Christmas, I posted about the new QCF Playwork qualifications launched recently by SkillsActive. I explained that, faced with a choice between creating a fourth pathway for the Diploma for the Children and Young People’s Workforce (CYPW) – to sit alongside early years, learning support and social care – and developing an entirely separate qualification, SkillsActive had taken the latter course and gone it alone. This left us with the strange situation of having a diploma which was aimed at those working with children and young people of all ages but which excluded playwork.

SkillsActive’s stated reason for doing this was that it wanted a course based on the Playwork Principles of self directed play. It felt that the CYPW Diploma did not meet this requirement. There is considerable hostility within parts of the playwork community to the Early Years Foundation Stage, and still more hostility to the idea that settings, such as out of school clubs where some of the children are aged five, should be obliged to explain to Ofsted how their activities deliver the EYFS ‘curriculum’ rather than simply allowing the children to play.

The legal position governing qualifications is slightly murky. For settings on the Early Years Register, which are subject to the EYFS, all managers and 50% of other staff are required to have a ‘full and relevant’ early years qualification, at level 2 or 3 as appropriate. Settings on the Childcare Register, working with older children of five and over, fall under a slightly different regime which refers simply to a qualification ‘in a relevant area of work’. These may appear similar, but there is an important difference. If you want to know if a qualification is ‘full and relevant’, you simply look it up on the database maintained by the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC), which is definitive. Whether another qualification is in a ‘relevant area’, however, is a matter of judgement.

This potentially creates a problem in settings which cater for both under and over fives and which are therefore on both registers. Playwork qualifications are clearly ‘relevant’ to playwork, but could not be accepted by Ofsted for early years as they were not ‘full and relevant’. Early years qualifications, similarly, risked being deemed as in an area not ‘relevant’ to playwork. To clear up this confusion, Ofsted has issued guidance which says that, in the absence of a definitive list of qualifications for the Childcare Register, it will accept any full and relevant early years qualification.

At the time I wrote my original blog post, therefore, the situation was that an early years qualification – including the CYPW Diploma – was acceptable for both early years and playwork, whereas a playwork qualification was acceptable only for playwork. Furthermore, the new level 3 playwork diploma – comprehensive as it undoubtedly is – is going to be time-consuming and expensive to deliver, not least because of the expectation of a massive 18 hours of observation.

Putting all this together, I suggested that, in its attempt to preserve the purity of playwork qualifications, SkillsActive had shot itself in the foot. Not only would the new playwork diplomas be difficult and expensive to deliver: but their holders would be limited to playwork, while those holding the CYPW Diploma would be able to work across the whole children’s sector. How much better and more flexible, I argued, to have created a specialist playwork pathway within the CYPW Diploma.

Last week, the situation took an even more bizarre turn with the announcement from SkillsActive that CWDC has approved the new playwork qualifications as ‘full and relevant’ for working in early years settings. This, of course, changes the rules significantly: it is now the playwork qualifications which are recognised as of right across the age range, whereas early years qualifications depend on Ofsted’s judgement to be accepted in play settings for older children.

CWDC’s website is silent about this, almost as if it would prefer the decision not to be widely known. I have so far been unable to discover the thinking behind the view that a qualification which makes no reference to the EYFS, and which has no content on child development, should be a suitable basis for running a toddler room in a nursery. Doubtless, this is not the intention – and most nursery managers would think twice before employing a playworker in this role. But the point is that the rules would now allow this. If the government were prepared to rely on the good sense of nursery managers instead of the rules, there would be no need for Ofsted.

And, speaking of government, what is curious is that it is inconceivable that CWDC should take such a potentially controversial decision without ministerial approval. It is, after all, only a month since the government announced that, from 2012, it will no longer fund CWDC’s workforce development activity and will bring its key functions into the Department for Education. Does this, I wonder, signify a growing view within government that, outside formal schooling, children are children and that neither the EYFS, nor the Playwork Principles, are important enough for the distinction to be worth preserving?

As a training provider, I am more than happy to deliver both the CYPW Diploma and the Playwork Diploma. PBD is already doing so: in fact we have just extended our eQual Learning range to provide e-learning materials aimed specifically at Playwork. But, as a citizen and taxpayer – and regardless of the government’s future intentions for the EYFS – I stick to my view that a single qualification for the Children and Young People’s Workforce, providing a common core of knowledge and accommodating specialisms in both early years and playwork, would have been the sensible way forward.

PBD’s response to the government consultation on Skills Funding

Jessica Ward
Further Education and Skills Investment Directorate
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET

30 September 2010

Dear Ms Ward

A Simplified Further Education and Skills Funding System and Methodology: Consultation

I am pleased to submit the response of People and Business Development Ltd (“PBD”) to the above consultation.

By way of background, PBD is a work based learning provider operating nationally and specialising in early years and playwork. We hold a Skills Funding Agency contract for apprenticeships, currently worth some £800k p.a. in addition to a small Train to Gain contract.

We are leaders in the use of e-portfolios for maintaining assessment evidence and we have recently developed eQual Learning, a suite of interactive e-learning materials aimed at the new QCF qualifications. We are the smallest provider to be approved by the Skills Funding Agency to maintain electronic records for audit purposes and we are members of the Technology Exemplar Network.

We are accredited as a training centre by City and Guilds and the Institute of Leadership and Management. We are also recognised under Investors in People and accredited under the Matrix standard for information, advice and guidance.

Summary

In general, we strongly support the changes which have already been made to simplify the structure of funding, streamline contract management and target compliance efforts at things which matter. We also welcome the proposed direction of travel as outlined in the consultation document.

We believe that the single most important further reform which can and should be made is a move to outcome based funding. This will largely eliminate the need for on programme payments, which constitute the main driver of contract management, accounting and audit bureaucracy.

Such a change will also make it possible to adopt a greatly simplified version of the recent Banks proposals, which we think stray too far into commercial relationships between providers and employers and which will be difficult and costly to police effectively. We argue for a system where there is a maximum government contribution for each qualification but where provider allocations are based, not on the level of employer contribution secured but on a form of ‘Dutch auction’. Provided this is implemented in parallel with outcome based funding, the quality of training delivery will be protected and innovation and efficiency encouraged.

In terms of general efficiency, we support a move towards minimum contract values but we urge a measured approach. There are two reasons for this. First, the consolidation of existing providers into fewer, larger, groupings has the potential to damage quality and incur additional cost in policing consortium arrangements. Secondly, a move away from on programme payments towards outcome based funding will significantly reduce the Skills Funding Agency’s contract management and compliance burden and may remove much of the imperative for minimum contract values.

Given that the largest impact on contract management costs will come from removing the very smallest contracts, with only a limited marginal benefit from further increases in the threshold, we recommend a relatively low initial threshold of £500k p.a. The impact of this should be thoroughly assessed before ‘raising the bar’ higher.
We now address a number of specific consultation questions. We have not attempted a comprehensive answer to all questions as some of them are outside our experience or not relevant to the specific circumstances of our business.

The Wider Further Education and Skills Landscape (questions 1 and 2)

We entirely support the core principles and the resulting system as expressed in the consultation document.

Outcome Based Funding (question 12)

We are addressing this question out of sequence because it underpins much of what we have to say in relation to funding policy. We strongly support the principles set out in paragraphs 35 to 40 of the consultation document.

We believe that most of the present accounting complexity, bureaucracy and administration cost in the funding of workplace learning is directly attributable to the system of on programme payments.

For every individual learner in the system, there is a potential mismatch each month between the cash paid, and the amount earned, to date. This, in turn, creates a need for audit effort to detect (and, where necessary, make recovery for):

• payments made for learners who do not exist

• payments made for learners who are ineligible

• payments continuing to be made for learners who have ceased to participate

• manipulation of planned end dates

• subcontracting arrangements involving excessive contract skimming.

In addition, contract managers must focus regularly on cumulative monthly payments in order to monitor the extent to which providers are delivering, or falling short of, their contracted volumes.

We propose a radical change (as foreshadowed in paragraph 40 of the consultation document) under which providers receive most or all of the attributable funding on achievement.

This will greatly simplify contract management. First, it will no longer be necessary to monitor success rates, since providers who underachieve will simply not be paid. Secondly, it will not be necessary to monitor providers’ ongoing progress against profile. Instead, providers can be given an incentive to do this themselves by combining the message ‘use it or lose it’ with the power to trade surplus contract value between themselves. Payment to a provider in excess of its agreed MCV will be possible only where the provider submits a contract note as evidence of having acquired additional contract value, which can be matched to the corresponding contract note submitted by the seller. A market driven mechanism such as this is likely to be very effective at ensuring that the overall budget is delivered in each year.

From an audit viewpoint, payment on achievement will, at a stroke, remove incentives to invent learners or manipulate dates. The audit issues will be considerably simplified: since quality control is the function of the awarding organisations and payments are made only on production of a certificate, auditors will be able to confine themselves to making sample checks on the genuineness of certificates and the eligibility of learners. This can be done centrally without the need for any visits to providers to inspect documentation supporting claims for work in progress. Furthermore, the number of auditable transactions will be significantly reduced.

Because payment will be based entirely on achievement, providers will no longer be paid anything for early leavers. While this may be initially unpopular with many providers, the likely response will be for providers to ask for some upfront payment from the employer or the learner (possibly refundable on completion).

The proposed system may create cash flow problems for providers but these will generally be limited to two situations: the initial, transitional year when funding is suspended before a ‘pipeline’ has been established; and when faced with a significant expansion of activity. These can be mitigated – and the change to an achievement based funding model facilitated – by a system of short term advances to providers to cover the cash flow deficit caused by the change, much as an employer might do during the first month of changing its payroll system from a weekly to a monthly basis.

The actual pattern of cash flows while the system is phased in may therefore be little different to the present. The key difference, however, is that the advances will no longer be linked to training delivery but will simply be ‘banking’ transactions. Advances will be repayable on an agreed basis from earned achievement payments and can command a commercial rate of interest. It will also be possible to impose minimum quality standards for negotiating an advance, with new or high risk providers required to provide additional security if they wish to apply.

A move to a system of payment on achievement begs the question ‘achievement of what?’ In principle, we support the idea that what really matters is not the achievement of a qualification but the delivery of a successful outcome, such as a learner securing employment or promotion, increasing productivity, starting a new business etc. However, we consider that the difficulty in defining, and reliably measuring, such outcomes is such that, for funding purposes, it will be preferable to regard the achievement of a qualification as a proxy for the outcome. There is no point in instituting a simplified system for targeting scarce public funds at policy outcomes, if those outcomes are either so warm and fuzzy as to be unmeasurable, or so precisely defined that complexity is re-introduced by the back door. At least, with qualifications, there is clarity about what has been achieved and a reasonable measure of positive correlation with the outcomes which are their ultimate goal.

As to the pricing model options set out in paragraph 43 of the consultation document, we favour the first, QCF based model where price is linked to the size of qualification, with the ability to use higher or lower rate bandings to reflect its supply or strategic importance. Our only concern is that treating awards, certificates and diplomas as discrete but homogeneous entities is a very blunt instrument. For example, a qualification which just meets the 37 credit threshold for a diploma may involve only half the work and cost involved in a larger diploma of, say, 74 credits. It would be both unfair, and liable to distort the market, if these were treated equally. Since the number of credits involved in a qualification is already available as a continuous variable, we propose that the price should be a simple function of the credit value of the qualification and the price band (uplifted / standard / lower) which applies.

We consider that these principles are equally applicable to post-19 apprenticeships and we see no need for a separate approach as floated in paragraph 47 of the consultation document.

Funding Policy (questions 3 – 10)

In the light of the foregoing discussion, we now turn to the questions of funding policy.

In relation to question 4, we would strongly echo the feedback from the sector as described in paragraph 16 of the consultation document. A funding envelope for the whole spending review period will enable providers and colleges to plan staffing and recruitment and to target investment in promotion and in delivery systems such as e-learning. The abrupt ‘stop go’ changes in funding policy (and in the machinery of government) of recent years are not helpful and a period of stability – even against a background of budget reductions – would be welcome.

For training deemed as requiring co-funding, government currently assumes an employer contribution and bases its own funding rates on this assumption: providers are encouraged, but not required, to collect the contribution. As long as there are providers prepared to absorb the employer contribution and provide training free to employers, there is strong competitive pressure on other providers not to break ranks. This, in turn, creates a modern variant of Morton’s Fork: if you collect the contribution, you lose business; and if you don’t, government will conclude that you are overfunded and will cut funding rates further.

We support the principle, set out in the Banks Review, that it is necessary to change the culture which regards training as a free service, fully funded by government. Not only is such a culture incompatible with the need to reduce and target government spending: it also devalues the service which training providers are perceived by employers and learners to provide. We accept the recommendation that government should define and publish a maximum contribution for each course, based on a proportion of the national funding rate.

The Banks solution is at first sight ingenious: a transparent system of course pricing on the part of providers, clearly published maximum funding rates, and a system where government matches the price paid by employers up to the published maximum, but not beyond.

We believe this is almost right but that the matching principle is over complex and liable to failure. In the first place, by insisting that an actual contribution is collected, it would amount to government intervention in commercial relations between providers and employers. Secondly, it would encourage providers to find ways to charge employers an upfront amount which will maximise the government’s contribution, while returning some of the funds to employers later in the process. And thirdly, it will be difficult for auditors – without a significant extension of their remit and powers – both to detect such schemes and to distinguish them from other arrangements with similar effect but entirely legitimate intentions.

For example, a provider might charge employers 50% of the published rate up front and claim the full maximum contribution from government under the matching rules, while entering into an unrelated agreement with the employer that, for every young apprentice who completes within their planned end date, a terminal bonus will be paid. This would be a bona fide policy to incentivise employers to recruit and retain young learners and support their training: since the retrospective payment is contingent on results which may or may not happen, it cannot be said to be flouting the matching rules. However, to define rules which can unequivocally distinguish between evasion, avoidance and unintended consequences, and then to expect Skills Funding Agency auditors to police them effectively, risks compromising the whole system.

We argue for a simplification of the Banks proposals. Government should publish maximum funding rates – which could be varied, as an instrument of policy, to incentive more difficult outcomes. Allocations to providers would be based on a form of ‘Dutch auction’, with those providers offering the lowest rates receiving allocations first. Providers should then be free to negotiate with employers as they see fit.

It is essential that this proposal is to be seen in the context of the move towards outcome based funding outlined above. Without it, there would be a serious risk to quality. Providers who followed a ‘lowballing’ strategy to win business would have an incentive to compromise on quality in order to reduce costs, while continuing to collect on programme payments. If, however, payment is based on results, this incentive disappears: reducing quality will simply defer receipt of funding. But providers will have a major incentive to develop more efficient ways of helping learners to achieve the awarding organisation’s standards in the minimum time.

Minimum Contract Levels

As indicated above, we consider that the system of on programme payments is directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of the accounting complexity, bureaucracy and administration cost in the present system of funding. If this is changed, we believe that the effect on the contract management process will be so profound that most of the current drivers for minimum contract values will disappear.

Having said that, it cannot be sensible for the Skills Funding Agency to manage almost 1,400 separate contracts, the smallest 43% of which account for only 4% of the total funding. The chart overleaf represents the table in paragraph 53 of the consultation document in even starker form.

In our view, this makes a good case for introducing a lower limit of £500k, which will reduce the number of contracts under management from 1,361 to 779. It does not, however (and here we must declare an interest as a provider with a contract in the £750k – £1m range!) make such a strong case for a further extension.

Any policy change which tends to drive smaller, niche providers into the arms of profit driven consortia has the potential to damage quality, even if the Skills Funding Agency decides to take a detailed (and costly) interest in the internal arrangements of such consortia. For this reason, we advise that the impact of any initial move to a £500k threshold should be thoroughly assessed, in terms of its impact on quality as well as the cost savings generated, before any further increase is contemplated.

Finally, whatever decision is taken on this matter, we urge that the Skills Funding Agency is flexible about the kind of contract arrangements which it will accept and that it gives clear messages to providers, well in advance of any change, of the intended direction of travel. With two years notice, it will not be difficult for providers to find ways of co-operating so as to reduce contract management costs while preserving their independence. With only a few months notice, the only winners will be the large consortia operating in a government-created buyers’ market.

In conclusion

I hope this response is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like any further information or explanation of any of the points made.

Yours sincerely

Ross Midgley MA LLB FCA
Director

eQual Learning launched

After months of preparation, today sees the launch of eQual Learning – a suite of interactive online courses specially created for the new level 3 Diploma (mandatory in apprenticeship frameworks from tomorrow).

The new e-learning suite is based on a Moodle platform and is packed with videos, lectures, PowerPoint presentations, podcasts, quizzes, reading material, web links and a wide range of engaging interactive animations.

The knowledge for the Diploma is delivered in five themed courses:

• Promoting positive outcomes
• Working together to protect children
• Development and learning
• Safe environments
• The role of the professional

As well as using eQual Learning for our own learners, we plan to make it available to other training providers, colleges and employers. Access to all five courses starts at £79 per student, making this a really attractive option either as a complete set of courses or as a complement to existing activities. Because of the flexibility of the Moodle platform, users can add their own branding and even content.

Many so called ‘e-learning’ courses are little more than online textbooks, so we wanted to create something genuinely interactive and multi-media, which caters for a wide range of learning styles. Students will work through the material at their own pace, in their own time; and, at the end of the course, there are links to the set assignments, which can be added to the learner’s portfolio, whether paper or web based.

A showcase of sample material from several courses can be accessed online at www.equallearning.co.uk. Please do click and have a look!

The new apprenticeship framework

Changes_to_the_CCLD_Apprenticeship_Frameworks_in_England_260810CWDC has now published details of the revised apprenticeship framework including the new Diploma, which becomes effective on 1 October.  As expected, no further registrations including CCLD NVQ and technical certificates will be accepted after that date, even though these qualifications survive in theory until the end of the year. Key skills remain as an alternative to functional skills until 31 March 2011

Remember – you read it here first!