All is not well in the world of training providers

Training providers feel vulnerable, unrepresented, unsupported, unprotected, exploited and undervalued. That is the inevitable conclusion from the conversations I have had over the last few weeks with a range of providers across the country, says Peter Cobrin, who runs the Apprenticeships England Community Interest Company

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Over the past year companies have folded, others have got close. The media, ranging from Panorama and  the Daily Telegraph through to FE Week have tried to lift the lid on practices ranging from the possibly illegal through to the ethically questionable.  What concerned me was the apparent absence of a coherent analysis, and clearly Government agrees with me, hence the various reviews and investigations.  The problem is, to adapt the joke about economists, if you laid all the conclusions of these reviews end to end, you still wouldn’t reach a conclusion!

Part of the problem is that these reviews – Holt, the BIS Select Committee and I’ll wager Richards as well – start from a flawed position. This is known as the “something must be done” syndrome.  This is compounded by the confusing and conflicting agendas of the Departments of State covering this sector.  Clearly DfE and DBIS are at odds over key areas that impact on apprenticeships — the information advice and guidance (IAG) services offered to young people, the role and value of vocational learning, embedding employability skills within the curriculum are three examples.  Holt got short shrift for his well-made comments on the crisis in IAG and was understandably angry at this.

Meanwhile, back in the world of front-line apprenticeship training, what words am I hearing? Try vulnerable, unrepresented, unsupported, unprotected, exploited and undervalued.

What words am I hearing? Try vulnerable, unrepresented, unsupported, unprotected, exploited and undervalued.”

Let’s look at each one of these:

Vulnerable: training providers sit at the end of a complex chain of legislation, government agencies and prime contractors — an environment where any change impacts directly, and immediately on its day to day activities and its very survival. Contracts for training delivery are, quoting one provider, “totally one-sided and one would have to be mad to sign one”.  Yet they are regularly and uncomplainingly signed. This was an issue raised by a very surprising source, Elmfield Training’s CEO, Ged Syddall at the Apprenticeships England Conference in Leeds.  He was very critical of the lack of transparency and one-sidedness in the contractual relationship between prime and sub-contractor.

Unrepresented:  repeatedly I was told that training providers lack a voice.  This came as a surprise to me given the role of the AELP and the existence local training provider networks.  The former was regarded, again quoting one provider, a “big boys club” and therefore unwilling or unable to intervene when problems arise, the latter purely a conduit for information “from above”.

Unsupported and unprotected: given the lack of a voice, it is hardly surprising that when things go wrong, there is no “emergency support” for a training provider?  Where is the “999” number that provides 24/7 help?  Every provider I met said that this is clearly a major issue that NAS and the SFA must address.  I had hoped that after a conversation with the SFA’s Geoff Russell at the DBIS Select Committee in May, that this issue was resolved.  I was told that he would ensure that contractual disputes were resolved at local SFA level.  However, one training provider I met with was told by the SFA that “we don’t get involved in domestic disputes” when confronted with non-payment of £300,000 from his prime.  There is clearly is a need for a mechanism for identifying and resolving such a dispute and blaming cutbacks at the SFA is of no use at all  — nor is relying on the informal good offices of, for example, Apprenticeships England, or FE Week’s investigative prowess.

More next week when I look at issues of exploitation and the undervaluing of training providers and make some recommendations.

More Reviews

You’re never too young (or too old) for honest self-appraisal

Learners must understand their strengths and weaknesses to find fulfilling avenues for their talents - and so do we

JL Dutaut

8 reasons we shouldn’t use the term ‘provider’ – and what we could say instead

The term ‘provider’ is problematic and we need a new and better one to replace it in our lexicon...

JL Dutaut

How colleges can foster safe engagement with the Israel/Palestine conflict

The legal framework is complex but can help colleges strike a difficult balance between freedom of speech and ...

JL Dutaut

Reclassification one year on: Capital, control and confusion

It’s been twelve months since colleges were returned to the public sector and colleges must learn to live with...

JL Dutaut

Adults need a different approach to English and maths than the one that failed them

The current model is sacrificing the skills they need in the name of the qualifications we want them to...

JL Dutaut

We must redefine post-Covid learners to embrace and celebrate their skills

Too much of our post-Covid narrative is about what learners have lost rather than what they have gained

JL Dutaut

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. I agree and very well put. It does concern me the cattle college era we are in as many go to complete a course that is not representative to what jobs are out there and some offer qualications that offer little value unless it accompanies work experience, hence the greatness of apprenticeships.

    It is very fustrating schools take very little responsibility for NEET targets, employability or enterprise unless it means a financial incentive or extra GCSEs to boost their status.

    It would make sense to include an ‘Employability Boot Camp’ as part of the National Citizen Service provision which have a better impact to the project and give tax payers a better understanding to what they are funding.

    With the new online careers service about to be launched this will help the cause however for those who are hard to reach this will have a negative impact as I see many lacking basic IT skills.

    • Don’t expect the online careers service to work miracles!! However your point about schools’ responsibility is 100% right, especially as we now have a regime at the DfE that speaks about continually about “schools’ responsibility”. Pity the DfE isn’t more prescriptive about what they should be responsible for!!