This topic contains 19 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by 
Caz 3 months ago.
-
Posts
-
Just this second received this message through Bravo FYI
Message
The government is committed to investing in high-quality apprenticeships to make sure all employers have the skills they need, and young people and adults alike across the country have a chance to reach their full potential.The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) has carefully considered the applications made in response to the recent procurement for apprenticeship training provision for non-levy-paying employers. This procurement was markedly oversubscribed, a sign of the significant level of interest from the training provider market in the apprenticeship reforms. In response, ESFA intends to pause the current competition. This will allow us to review our approach to ensure that we achieve the right balance between stability of supply and promoting competition and choice for employers. It is important that we fully consider how best to achieve these outcomes in a way that achieves the best value for employers and apprentices as we move to a fully employer-led system.
We will undertake further engagement with the market to clarify our approach, and ensure that this meets the government’s wider objectives of securing stability in the market, good sectoral and geographical coverage of provision, and a market which meets the skills needs of employers. We will issue further guidance shortly.
In order to maintain stability in the system through the start of the next academic year, in the interim period we will extend existing contracts held by all current providers until the end of December 2017. To maintain our quality standards, current providers with extended contracts will be able to undertake new starts on those contracts provided they are on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers. The ESFA will notify providers of specific arrangements shortly so that amended contracts are in place ahead of 1 May.
This will not affect training provision for existing learners. Extending existing providers contracts means employers can be confident in taking on new apprentices without disruption over the months ahead.
and not a word of thanks for the hard work in putting the ITT together!!
Great init???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The identical message has been sent for the main route PQQ, but are the levy paying employers still expected to pay??? One rule for one, one for the other?
Farcical.
-
This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by
Sue Bishop.
You know! Incredible
And this all started from a certain person saying that Apprenticeships were not fit for purpose.
It seems other things are not too?I actually don’t know what to say! I am literally speechless
We’ve all had a year to prepare for these funding reforms, not to mention the ad hoc changes along the route. We did it, and were prepared for 1st May. We marketed our wares and at the click of a finger they need more time – pfft.
And….. will contracts be extended for those training providers with existing contracts who didn’t make it onto the ROATP?
No and I can only agree with itsme
My main concern (if you’ve seen me banging on on twitter) is that it doesn’t say either way in the statement whether the May-December starts will be funded in the traditional way, or in the new 90/10 way!
If they are contract extensions, rather than new contracts, that implies they’ll continue to be on profile for grant-funded providers, but how does that square with the new funding rules? Are we really expecting the Hub to be able to deal with this level of complexity?
Hi Steve,
‘I don’t believe you have asked that’ but I expect it will only be an extension to existing contracts that allows provision under funding model 36 from May 2017 for none Levy paying employers.No apology for the inconvenience or explanation of what to tell the smaller employers who we have been prospecting to re this imminent change. With just 10 more working days to go until this was supposed to be implemented. It’s so embarrassing and very misleading. How stupid are we going to look going back to these people and telling them this decision. It’s an absolute mess.
Do the people ‘above’ read these posts?? Here’s a message if they do.
Come on, you set the rules and you make us jump through huge hoops to receive the funding that reduces year after year to deliver the same thing, yet you add a few more rules for us to meet along the way for doing so. Is this fair?
You are constantly moving the goal posts and yet you don’t actually realise the day-to-day battles we have to fight. Is this fair?
There is so much more I could say but if I start, I won’t stop.
Is it too much to ask for a standard letter that we could show these employers on your behalf? After all, this is your decision.
Thoughts? I’ve had enough.
Well, as you say “itsme”, let’s start at the top. The good old Oxford PPE degree programme. There will not be an ounce of “common sense” in the curriculum specification or whatever the fancy term might be in those “elite” circles. As for problem solving. forget it. The ripple effect, lower down the food chain no doubt plenty of headless chickens.
Have you seen the stuff from “The Institute for Government”, extract below:In our recent report –All Change –the Institute for Government argues that the UK government tries to reinvent old policies on an alarmingly regular basis. In the areas of further education, regional government and industrial strategy, this can cost a great deal to individuals and organisations across the country.
Has anyone thought about the prospect of having to resubmit a new ITT? If they are overwhelmed with submissions from more providers than they thought, won’t they up the ante? And….. by 31st December, the ITT will be over 12 months old, we’ll all have new success rates etc. THAT thought fills me with dread…….
That’s the bit that I can’t understand Sue.
I thought applications were 25% down on expectations on the first opening? so what’s that about the first line of the message ‘ This procurement was markedly oversubscribed, a sign of the significant level of interest from the training provider market in the apprenticeship reforms’.
Feel it’s a bit of an excuse.They don’t care Sue. I recall quite a long time ago giving some harsh feedback to someone at the SFA when something had gone wrong at their end and the response I got was “if you don’t like it don’t contract with us”. Clearly this may have been a rogue person who might not even work there any longer however I must say that without providers doing what we do where would they be? I am also going to add that I work for two private apprenticeship providers and recent OFSTED inspections have been “outstanding” and “good” so I feel reasonably qualified to comment!!
I am livid
It’s all smoke and mirrors. We all had to submit our profiles on 25th November. They would have known by Christmas the pot they needed to fulfil our requests. Even if they had initially said ‘you can have 50% of your profile and we’ll renegotiate following reconciliation’ it would have meant there was some breathing space. As itsme said earlier, we are made to jump through hoops, often with miniscule deadlines, and we do it. Had we been 5 minutes late with our ITT submission, we wouldn’t have even been considered. I’m wholeheartedly sick of the whole thing. I’ve 33 years in WBL and never been closer to chucking in the towel.
@steveh, We raised this question with our relationship manager, the new methodology will still be implemented from 1 May, including the 10% employer contribution.
Hi Sophie,
So how is this an extension of our current contract if the methodology is changing? And what about funding levels…the new bands??So many questions….
And now we have purdah to add a little more excitement..
-
This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.