Proposed funding for 16 to 18 year-old apprentices will result in current rates to colleges and training providers being cut by around 30 per cent, rising to over half for those apprentices living in the most deprived areas of central London, FE Week can exclusively reveal.

Astonishingly, this compares with the funding for many learners aged 24 and over going up, particularly those living in affluent areas outside the South East and working for large employers. In one example, the proposed adult funding is nearly quadruple current levels.

The analysis for some of the most popular apprenticeship frameworks was conducted by FE Week. It is based on new proposed new ‘upper limit’ funding levels and a £1000 16 to 18 incentive paid to the provider, for apprenticeship framework starts from 1 May 2017 published by the Skills Funding Agency last Friday.

The level 2 in business administration has the highest volume of 16 to 18 starts according to government figures, and our analysis (click here) shows they face between 30 per cent (-£1,272) and 52% rate cut (£3,258). Yet an adult aged 24 or over at a large employer would be funded 34 per cent (+£506) more than their current levels.

The level 2 in construction framework has the second most 16 to 18-year-old starts so far this year, and our analysis (click here) shows they face between 27 per cent (-£2,574) and 50% rate cut (-£7,027). Yet an adult aged 24 or over at a large employer would be funded 124 per cent (+£3,322) more than their current levels.

The level 3 in ICT Practitioners is a popular framework across all ages, and in February the SFA said it was over-paying so reduced the funding levels (all other framework rates have stayed the same since 2012). Yet, last Friday this framework was classified as a STEM pathway so receives an 80 per cent uplift. As a result our analysis shows (click here) the 16-18 funding impact ranges from an 18 per cent increase (+1,529) to a 19 per cent cut (£2,410). However, the 24+ apprentice living in a non-deprived area and working at a large employer would see their funding rise £6,631 and almost quadruple from £2,369 to £9,000. 

FE Week showed the analysis to Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers. He said: “Our member providers have also been running the numbers this week and they are very concerned at what they’re looking at.  For many popular sectors, the proposed rates will undermine the prime minister’s social mobility agenda.  In fact feedback suggests that large numbers of providers will withdraw provision altogether because the rates will not be viable not only in terms of basic delivery but for offering a good quality programme for the employer and the apprentice.  All the good work in establishing the apprenticeship brand will quickly become undone.

The cuts to 16 to 18 in deprived areas and rises to adults in wealthy areas come as result of the SFA seeking ‘simplification’. It proposes removing many of the long standing variables within the current funding methodology.

The proposed upper limits are based on a ‘historical volume weighted’ [see SFA explanation at end of article] mix of current 19 to 23 and 24+ adult funding rates, and take no account of: the current additional funding for 16 to 18 apprentices (more than double the current 19 to 23 adult rate); a disadvantage uplift for an apprentice living in a deprived area (up to 32 per cent more); a delivery in the south east (up to 20 per cent more in central London) and a reduction for working with large employers (25 per cent). The highest funding levels therefore currently go to 16-18 apprentices living and working in Tottenham, classified in the SFA methodology as the most deprived part of central London.

Mr Dawe added: “The apparent removal of the location element [disadvantage uplift] is particularly alarming – again, hardly helpful for the social mobility agenda.  We want apprenticeships to grow in all areas but there is an issue with urban youth which needs to tackled.  Providers are working very hard for example to encourage employers to take on more apprentices from BME backgrounds who are underrepresented on the programme and they will find it very difficult to maintain this effort if the rates are not revised.  Officials are stressing that the consultation is genuine however so we would urge providers and their employers to share their views with AELP and respond to the government consultation.”

FE Week also sought a reaction to the analysis from the SFA. This is what an SFA spokesperson said, in full: “In future we will be putting funding in the hands of employers and the system needs to be simple for them to navigate, choose the apprenticeship training they want to purchase and negotiate on price.  That means we have to simplify some of the complex funding arrangements that currently exist, while retaining the right incentives for high quality training. 

“We know that taking on a younger person entails some extra cost to employers and providers and that’s why we propose to give them each a cash payment of £1,000 when they train a 16 to 18-year-old, or a 19 to 24-year-old care leaver or someone with an Education and Health Care Plan.  They will have freedom to use this money however they choose, for example to provide extra mentoring support in the first few months of the apprenticeship.

“In addition, for all STEM framework pathways we propose to increase the current government-funded adult rate by 40 per cent at Level 2 and 80 per cent at Level 3 and above, and then allocate these frameworks to the nearest funding band.  This uplift takes into account the fact that employers of these apprentices are currently disproportionately likely to be paying extra to providers on top of the funding provided by government. 

“Over the course of the parliament, we will phase out the current apprenticeship frameworks so that all new apprentices undertake standards.  Standards are higher quality and more rigorous and so more expensive to deliver.  This is recognised in the current funding system and we will recognise it in the new system by allocating higher funding bands to apprenticeship standards.

“We will engage with employers and providers over coming weeks and conduct further research to establish whether this proposal provides an appropriate level of support for younger apprentices.  We particularly welcome evidence-based feedback from employers and providers on the investment they currently make in supporting younger apprentices.”

Nick Linford is editor of FE Week and author of the Complete Guide to Apprenticeship Funding.

The SFA supplied FE Week with a more detailed explanation than in their document concerning how they assigned the upper limits to apprenticeship framework pathways. They said: “In the calculation we take into account co-funding for both 19-23 and 24+; this means the rates are 50% of the overall published rate for 19-23 and 40% of the published rate for 24+. We weight the rates according to the volumes of 19-23 and 24+ starts; therefore in framework pathways where there are 24+ starts the calculated rates will be lower than the 50% in the example. We also assign the pathway to the closest band, not the next band above the rate. For example; a calculated rate of £1,700 is assigned  to the £1,500 band but a rate of £1,800 is assigned to the £2,000 band.” 

As the curtain comes down on Rio 2016, FE students past and present have helped Team GB storm to a record-breaking Olympic games.

Two additional gold medals and a bronze medal over the weekend mean there have been 11 winners of the world’s top sporting prizes from the FE Sector.

Former Hopwood Hall College student Nicola Adams repeated her London 2012 success with a gold medal in the women’s flyweight boxing competition on the second to last day of the games.

Meanwhile, former Loughborough College learner Nicola White scored the all-important equaliser in the final ten minutes of the women’s hockey final – leading to a penalty shoot out that saw Team GB secure gold. 

Earlier in the games, Adam Peaty, a 21-year-old former Derby College student, had led the charge with a gold –and a new world record – in the men’s 100m breaststroke on the second day of the games.

Also setting a new world record were Steven Burke and Ed Clancy, formerly of Nelson and Colne College and Kirklees College respectively, who helped power the men’s cycling team pursuit to gold after a nail-biting final last Friday night.

Siobhan-Marie O’Connor, a swimmer from Loughborough College secured silver with her performance in the women’s 200m individual medley, after coming first in the semi-finals.

Richard Hounslow, a Harrow College student, manoeuvred his way to second place in the men’s C2 double canoe slalom race along with partner David Florence.

And Dan Norton and James Davies, representing Hartpury College and Gower College Swansea respectively, helped power the men’s rugby sevens to a well-deserved silver medal. 

As both a member of the team and its coach, Hartpury College’s equine academy coach Carl Hester had twice the reason to celebrate as team GB trotted its way to a silver medal in the team dressage on Friday.

After reaching the first round of the women’s 100m sprint, Oaklands College alumna Daryll Neita helped the women’s 4 x 100m team to bronze medal glory on Friday night.

Daniel Goodfellow, also from Loughborough College, delighted the Olympic crowd with his performance as the diving partner of Tom Daley. The pair were ecstatic, creating a picture perfect moment as they celebrated their bronze medals in the men’s synchronized 10m platform.

Also going home with a bronze medal is former Loughborough College student Sophie Hitchon, who made history on Monday night by becoming the first ever British athlete to win an Olympic medal in hammer throwing. 

Seven of Great Britain’s 12-strong women’s rugby sevens squad were also FE college students, and they fought through the heats to secure a worthy fourth place overall.

Between them Claire Allan, Abbie Brown, Heather Fisher, Natasha Hunt, Emily Scott, Danielle Waterman and Amy Wilson-Hardy represented Loughborough College, Hartpury College, Warwickshire College, Bath College, Seevic College and Worthing College.

Nineteen year old Megan Jones, currently a Loughborough student, also attended the games as a travelling reserve for the rugby sevens team.

Meanwhile, Hartlepool College student Savannah Marshall made it to the quarter finals in the women’s middle 75kg boxing.

Also narrowly missing out on a medal was Fran Halsall, Loughborough College alumna. She came fourth in the women’s 50m freestyle on Saturday by the tiniest of margins – just 0.02 of a second behind the bronze medal winner. She also took seventh place in the women’s 4x100m medley relay, with Siobhan-Marie O’Connor also making up part of that team.

Barking and Dagenham College alumnus Adam Gemili came heartbreakingly close to a medal in the 200m – missing out by just three-thousandths of a second. He was also part of the men’s 4 x 100m relay team – along with Harry Aikines-Aryeety, James Dasaolu, Richard Kilty, Ojie Edoburun and Chijindu Ujah – who secured fifth place.

Also coming fifth was Runshaw College alumna Holly Bradshaw in the women’s pole vault final on Friday. 

Former Mid Kent College student Kat Driscoll helped make history on Friday night, as team GB made it to the women’s trampoline final for the first time ever. She finished in sixth place.

Also placing sixth was former Loughborough College student Lynsey Sharp, in the women’s 800m final on Saturday night. 

And Peter Chambers of Northern Regional College helped the men’s lightweight four team to 6th place in Thursday’s finals. 

Also coming sixth, this time in the women’s 200m breast stroke, was Loughborough College’s Molly Henshaw. Earlier in the games she’d made it to second place in heat three of the women’s 100m breaststroke, though sadly it was not enough to push her through to the semi-finals and she ranked 23rd overall.

Another former Northern Regional College student Richard Chambers took to the waters in the men’s lightweight double scull, rowing his way – along with former New College Durham student Will Fletcher – to seventh place on Friday.

With the athletics now well underway, a number of FE students have had the chance to demonstrate their sporting prowess – but none have yet secured those all-important medals.

Matthew Hudson-Smith, Loughborough College alumnus, took 8^th place in the final of the men’s 400m on Saturday, while another former Loughborough College student James Dasaolu made it to the semi-finals of the men’s 100m along with Chijindu Ujah, ex-Sir George Monoux Sixth Form College student.

Another ex-Loughborough College student, Robbie Grabarz, narrowly missed out on a medal in the men’s high jump, finishing in joint fourth place. 

Also deserving an honourable mention are Martyn Rooney, another ex-Loughborough College student who made it to the first round of the men’s 400m, and Rebekah Tiler of Calderdale College who gained a respectable 10th place in the women’s 69kg weightlifting.

Former Loughborough College student Angela Hannah came 15th in the women’s K2 500m canoe sprint, while another ex-Loughborough learner, Chris Baker, came 16th in the men’s high jump.

Rachel Cawthorn, recent Berkshire College of Agriculture student, came 7th in the consolation final – or 15th overall – in the women’s K1 500m canoe sprint.

Current Loughborough College student Katie Clark secured 17th place in the synchronised swimming duets with partner Olivia Federici.

Controversially, Jack Burnell was disqualified from the men’s 10km marathon open water swimming just metres from the finish line. Until that point, he had been in fifth place.

The men’s 4 x 400m team – which included Loughborough College alumni Martin Rooney and Matthew Hudson-Smith – was also disqualified, after initially coming first in their semi-final. 

What do you think? How do you feel about the FE sector’s contribution to Team GB’s medal haul? Have we missed anyone? Share your thoughts below!

A leading think-tank has voiced concerns that the government’s apprenticeships reforms could be hurting young people’s job prospects.

In a new report published today, the Institute for Public Policy Research said that the decision to ditch a requirement for apprenticeships to include a recognised qualification could “harm young people who will need transferable qualifications in an increasingly flexible jobs market”.

The IPPR’s report, ‘England’s apprenticeships – assessing the new system’, called on the government to consider reintroducing a nationally recognised qualification as a part of all apprenticeships.

But this concern did not appear to be addressed by the Department for Education when FE Week asked for a response – despite social mobility being high up on the new prime minister’s agenda.

The move from frameworks, which do include formal qualifications, to standards, which only require an end-point assessment and don’t require a formal qualification, is a key part of the government’s apprenticeship reforms.

In today’s report, the IPPR report said that standards “work well in sectors of the labour market that consist of large employers who share a strong sense of occupational identity and are committed to training their future workforce” but less well in other sectors.

The report highlighted concerns that in sectors without larger employers or professional bodies involved in developing standards, employers could simply “rebadge as much existing and job-specific training as possible into an apprenticeship” – rather than providing apprentices with the skills they need to further their careers.

Today’s report cited an example of a level 2 retailer apprenticeship, which it said had been developed with no involvement from a professional body and was designed so that companies could tailor it to their own needs.

It said: “It is not clear how much more an apprentice in retail would learn than someone who was simply starting out in their first job in retail, and the only advantage for an apprentice is that they receive a confirmation that they have passed their apprenticeship after the independent assessment.”

Jonathan Clifton, IPPR’s Associate Director for Public Services, said: “England is in danger of introducing an apprenticeship system that would work well in the economy of the 1960s, but is not fit for a 21st-century workforce. 

“We need to create an apprenticeship system that works in a jobs market that is increasingly characterised by small firms, service sector jobs and flexible working.”

When FE Week asked the Department for Education if it shared the IPPR’s concerns, a spokesperson said:  “Apprenticeships give young people a real ladder of opportunity and the chance to earn a wage while learning the skills for a rewarding career.

“Our reforms are focused on driving up standards with more employer involvement, quality assurance by the new Institute for Apprenticeships and independent third party assessments at the end of the course to ensure they are high quality, and that students are learning the skills employers want.”

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, echoed the IPPR’s call.

He said: “The government should place a pause on standards development and conduct a full review of what the best model is. 

“In the interests of the apprentice, qualifications within the standard should be mandatory and consultation on the final draft should be better.”

Nearly all employers will only have to contribute 10 per cent to the cost of an apprenticeship from April 2017, the Department for Education has announced this morning.

The news, previously reported when leaked to FE Week, comes as part of a three week consultation which details how much colleges and training providers would be paid for apprenticeships once the levy kicks in. Click here to read in full, and here for updated guidance webpage.

This means the government will pay 90 per cent of the costs for 98 per cent of employers, those with annual wage bills below £3m and thus not paying the levy.

Despite retaining plans to introduce a mandatory cash contribution for the first time it will be hoped this generous 10 per cent arrangement (it is 33 per cent in the pilot) will address fears that small employers wouldn’t engage in the reformed apprenticeship programme.

However, Mark Dawe, chief executive at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, is very concerned about the impact of a mandatory employer fee. He told FE Week: “the insistence of a cash contribution could in our view still have a very negative impact.  Therefore AELP has asked ministers to keep the matter under review.  The requirement should be quickly phased out if our fears about the impact are realised.”

Other new announcements within the consultation include:

> A £2,000 incentive to help 16-to 18-year-olds, young care leavers and young people with an Education and Health Care (EHC) plan, make their first step into the world of work – split £1,000 to employers and £1,000 to training providers.

> Employers with fewer than 50 employees will not have to pay anything towards the cost of training a 16-to 18–year-old apprentice, young care leaver or young person with an EHC plan.

> Levy paying employers, those with annual payroll bills over £3m, will receive a 10 per cent monthly top-up. However, if their levy account is insufficient then like smaller employers, 90 per cent of their additional apprenticeship training costs will be subsidised.

> To help employers see how the levy and funding system would work for them, the government has launched a new online calculator, which can be seen here.

> A new register of apprenticeship training providers will be introduced from April 2017, details of which can be found in the consultation. Yesterday FE Week reported on one potential barrier, excluding those with an Ofsted grade four.

> All apprenticeship frameworks and standards starts from April 2017 will be funded from one of 15 bands, each with an upper limit ranging from £1,500 to £27,000.  It will then be up to employers to negotiate prices with providers. The AELP had been calling for a lower limit to the band for fears of a deflating price war, but this appears to have been ignored. Mr Dawe added: “If there is no lower limit we could now see bidding wars for employers’ custom where the price of delivering the training is the main consideration.  A very low price could have a damaging effect on quality which will certainly not be in the interests of the apprentice.  AELP will monitor this and if necessary will press for the introduction of a minimum price” 

With the change in ministers, short time before implementation and delay to the announcement, some powerful interest groups will be disappointed as they had hoped the levy would be put on ice.

Last month the CBI increased their opposition by shifting from demands for changes to telling FE Week they wanted an outright delay.

Robert Halfon, the newly appointed Apprenticeships and Skills Minister said today: “We need to make sure people of all ages and backgrounds have a chance to get on in life. Apprenticeships give young people – especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds – a ladder of ‎opportunity. That’s why we continue to work tirelessly to deliver the skills our country needs. The apprenticeship levy is absolutely crucial to this.

Our businesses can only grow and compete on the world stage if they have the right people, with the right skills. The apprenticeship levy will help create millions of opportunities for individuals and employers. This will give our young people the chance they deserve in life and to build a highly-skilled future workforce that the UK needs.”

Responses to the consultation are via a survey which must be submitted by 5 September and “final funding proposals will be confirmed in October 2016.”

A number of universities have breached the A-level results embargo and confirmed student places ahead of results day tomorrow.

One university also released grade information directly to students, triggering UCAS to launch an investigation into the universities’ automated systems, which is blamed for the error.

A-level grades can be released to students from 6am tomorrow and university place information can be tracked on UCAS from 8am, but publication ahead of the official release time is strictly forbidden.

Place confirmations from the universities, which have not been named, went to students with a conditional grade offer, meaning the students could make assumptions about their achieved grades.

A UCAS spokesperson told FE Week: “Regrettably there have been a small number of process errors, typically where universities’ automated systems have released communications to prospective students ahead of results day.

“In each case the provider concerned has informed UCAS immediately and swift action has been taken to correct the errors. The majority of these imply applicant status rather than achieved grades.

“However, in one case we believe a very small number of students may have had access to their results.

“We take these matters very seriously and, as you would expect, we have immediately alerted the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) and the regulators of these errors. These cases are currently under investigation and a full report will be made to the regulators and awarding bodies in due course.”

A JCQ spokesperson said exam boards take security of results “extremely seriously” and they were “concerned” to learn of the breach.

JCQ, which represents all of the exam boards, is now in talks with UCAS to gather all of the details of the error and understand how this can be avoided in the future.

The spokesperson added: “There is, of course, a balance to be had between providing universities with results a few days early so they can prepare admissions and maintaining the security and fairness of these results.”

The man in charge of Ofqual’s vocational arm, Jeremy Benson, has decided to leave the exams regulator after nearly six years, in light of the recent skills plan.

Mr Benson, who joined Ofqual in 2010 as director of strategic management and then became executive director for vocational qualifications in 2014, said he is moving on as one phase of reform concludes and another begins.

It follows the announcement of the government’s vision for technical education in the recent skills plan, which will see a radical overhaul of the post-16 vocational qualification system by replacing 20,000 courses with “15 high-quality routes”, based on the recommendations of Lord Sainsbury’s independent panel, and the creation of the institute for apprenticeships.

Phil Beach, Ofqual’s director of strategic relationships for general qualifications, has today been appointed interim executive director and will take on Mr Benson’s responsibilities until a permanent replacement has been found.

Sally Collier, who was appointed as Ofqual’s new chief regulator in March, said: “I would like to thank Jeremy for the significant contribution he has made to establishing Ofqual and the groundwork done in preparation for the important reforms being made by government to the vocational qualifications landscape and our role in regulating it.

“We all wish him well for the future.

“We have begun the process of identifying a replacement. In the interim, Phil Beach, director of strategic relationships, will lead our vocational qualifications directorate.”

Mr Benson, who previously held roles in qualifications policy at the Department for Education and City & Guilds, is now weighing up his options and taking some personal time before deciding on his next step.

Today’s long-awaited release of proposals for widespread apprenticeship reform include plans for a new register of apprenticeship training providers.

The government wants the new register to work alongside the existing register of training organisations. Providers will have to meet strict criteria to be included on the register, which will then be used by employers looking for training for their apprentices.

The guidance issued by the government emphasises the desire of ministers to put employers in the driving seat, and has some big ramifications for subcontractors and other “middle men” in the contracting process, along with colleges or independent providers which have had less-than-favourable run-ins with Ofsted or the Skills Funding Agency (SFA).

Here are some of the key points from the government guidance…

Inadequate providers will escape a ban from the register if their apprenticeship provision is rated above a grade four

Following FE Week’s revelation last night that inadequate-rated providers will be removed from the register, the government has clarified that this will not apply to those which are given a grade four overall but whose apprenticeships provision is given a better rating.

There are a lot of reasons why a provider could be removed from the register

The government says it will remove providers from the register is they or any of their directors, governors, senior employeers or shareholders meets any of the following criteria…

Ongoing investigation relating to suspicion of fraud or irregularity, or possible failure to comply with conditions of funding under an existing funding agreement or subcontract.

Withdrawal of funding following the failure to comply with a Notice of Withdrawal of Funding, or failure to remedy a serious breach of contract within the last three years.

Information from awarding bodies identifying significant irregularities in the award of qualifications within the last three years.

Previous activities have resulted in significant repayment of SFA or government funding within the last two years (£100,000 or 5 per cent of contract value, whichever is the higher). This also includes funding paid to a subcontractor to deliver education and training services funded by the SFA.

Failure to repay funding due to the SFA or other government body, in excess of £50,000.

Failure to repay funding due under a subcontract to deliver education and training services funded by the SFA in excess of £50,000.

Two or more instances where the SFA or its agents has audited the provision of a lead provider and identified issues of non-compliance. This is non-compliance with conditions of funding within the last two years.

Early termination of a funding agreement or a subcontract to deliver education and training services funded by the SFA within the last three years.

This also applies to providers which have key personnel who were previously a director, governor, senior employee or shareholder in “another organisation where one or more of the above criteria apply”.

New standards for quality of apprenticeship delivery could be introduced

The government is working with the Institute for Apprenticeships in looking to introduce “standards associated with the quality of a provider’s actual delivery”, which will enable the DfE to remove from the register any providers which fall below those standards.

Ministers also want to “explore the role that employer feedback can play in informing a provider’s status on the register”.

Smaller subcontractors will have to be on the register

Any organisation wanting a role in delivering apprenticeship training from next May will have to apply to be on the register.

At the moment, subcontractors which deliver less than £100,000 of SFA-funded provision each year do not need to apply.

Howerver, managing agents, intermediary bodies, consortium leads, brokerage organisations or “any other similar entity that does not itself deliver education and training to apprentices” will not be eligible to join.

The government claims this is being done to foster direct relationships between employers and training providers.

In fact, the whole subcontracting system is changing

Following hints from SFA boss Keith Smith last year that subcontracting in its current form could become a thing of the past, a plan to shake up the system has indeed been put on the table.

The government claims that the current model of providers funding other providers to deliver a number of apprenticeships, often to employers that the original provider has no relationship with, is “redundant”.

The DfE is proposing that providers be able to supplement their own delivery by bringing in expertise from supporting providers to deliver parts of apprentices, but the expectation will be that the main provider delivers “significantly more than half of each apprentice’s training” and maintains the relationship with the employer “at all times”.

Employers who want to provide their own apprenticeship training to staff won’t have to prove they’re meeting some employment law 

The government has said the route for would-be employer-providers would require them to meet “the same quality criteria”, but that other criteria would be “proportionate and appropriate”.

For example, the DfE would not ask employer-providers to “confirm details of legislation they will be complying with through their employment of the apprentices”.

The government hasn’t specified which specific pieces of legislation the document is referring to.

Some larger businesses wanting to become providers could be subject to a financial health test

At the moment, employers with an annual turnover of more than £100 million and whose funding from the SFA is less than 5 per cent of that turnover are exempt from the test.

But the government is considering a reduction to these thresholds because “they will exceed the turnover of many levied employers”.

The proposals have prompted a mixed reaction…

A spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said: “We understand that the government is on a mission to substantially reduce the amount of subcontracting within the sector but the full implications of today’s proposals need very careful consideration before they are given the green light.  In particular, the idea that a provider should be responsible for at least half of the training of every apprentice on its books looks like a misguided approach to addressing the overall issue.  

“We also want to see consistent criteria applied to different types of provider, such as good financial health.  Good finances are a strong indicator of the quality of leadership and management which is likely to have a heavy bearing on the learner experience.”

Stephen Evans, deputy chief executive at Learning and Work Institute, said: “The clear emphasis on quality in today’s announcements is welcome. Learning and Work shares the views of many employers who believe apprenticeship quality is just as, if not more, important than quantity. However, I challenge the view that an Ofsted grade alone is the most effective measure to use for the purposes of the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers – measures of quality must be timely and rounded which is why we’ve called for an Apprentice Charter, designed by employers and Apprentices.”