The chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers has called on the government to scrap its GCSE resit policy, as results out today show huge numbers of learners aged 17 and over failed their GCSE English or maths.

Figures released by the Joint Council for Qualifications showed that almost 122,500 learners aged 17 or above did not get at least a grade C in maths, while 93,000 failed to secure at least a C in English.

Mark Dawe called today’s results a “body blow” for the learners who did not make the grade.

“Surely this is evidence enough that hitting students over the head with the same form of learning and assessment is not the way forward.  

“Functional skills, designed to develop core maths and English skills but with the learning contextualised and relevant, is proven to engage and motivate these learners, particularly those who have been turned off these subjects by their school experience. 

“Maths and English are the most vital skills for economic and social mobility but these results show that repeating the same exercise doesn’t work and a more learner and employer focused approach with functional skills should now be embedded post 16.”

Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, echoed Mr Dawe’s remarks.

He said: “The government must consider creating a qualification that is more fit-for-purpose in developing English and maths skills that complement technical and professional studies, motivate students and meet the needs of employers, a requirement that was recognised in the recent report by Lord Sainsbury [Technical education reform: the case for change].”

Today’s figures show that, while the number of learners aged 17+  taking GCSE English and maths has risen significantly, the proportions achieving at least a grade C in those subject has slumped.

Just 34,486 – or 26.9 per cent – of the 128,201 learners aged 17+ who took GCSE English this year got at least a C.

And of the 173,628 learners aged 17 or above taking GCSE maths, only 51,220 – or 29.5 per cent – achieved a C or above.

In comparison, last year 35.1 per cent of the 97,163 learners aged 17+ achieved a C or above in English, while 35.8 per cent of the 130,979 GCSE maths learners aged 17+ got at least a C.

The JCQ said the rise in numbers taking the exams was “largely the result of government policy in England requiring all 16-19- year-old students to study the subject [English and maths] until they achieve at least a grade C.”

The fall in the proportion of 17+ learners making the grade was reflection of this increase in numbers, it said.

In 2014 the government made it a condition of funding that all 16 to 19 year olds who did not already have at least a grade C in GCSE English or maths should be enrolled in courses in these subjects.

In 2015 this was changed to require all of those with a grade D in those subjects to do to a GCSE course, rather than an equivalent ‘stepping stone’ course.

Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw has repeatedly hit out at standards of English and maths provision in colleges, and caused an uproar by suggesting that all 16 to 19-year-olds should be educated in schools

In March he told MPs at an oral evidence session of the Education Select Committee: “Youngsters who don’t do very well at 16 often don’t do very well two years later, particularly in English and maths where the results are pretty poor.”

FE Week asked the Department for Education if it was going to change its policy in light of today’s results, but had not received a response at the time of going to press.

The former minister for HE has slammed the Prime Minister for “shafting” the future of working class kids in his constituency, after seeing FE Week research into proposed apprenticeship funding cuts.

David Lammy said the impact of potential funding cuts for 16 to 18 year-old apprentices would be “devastating” for young people in deprived areas like his own area of Tottenham, where unemployment rates are already almost double the national average.

He said: “I have one question for the government in response to these cuts: why are you shafting working class kids?”

Mr Lammy added the cuts would “hugely undermine” the government’s target to create 3m apprenticeships by 2020, and “entirely contradict” Theresa May’s promise to boost social mobility.

Exclusive FE Week research from August 19 found that the government’s 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.

In comparison, the funding for many learners aged 24 and over will go up, particularly those living in affluent areas outside the South East and working for large employers.

The analysis was based on new proposed new ‘upper limit’ funding levels and a £1,000 16 to 18 incentive paid to the provider, for apprenticeship framework starts from May 1, 2017, published by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) on August 12.

As a result of current factors such as additional funding for 16 to 18 apprentices and a ‘disadvantage uplift’ for apprentices living in a deprived area, the highest funding levels at present go to 16 to 18 apprentices living and working in Tottenham.

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.

These changes will mean Tottenham and other central London areas will be hit the hardest by a reduction in funding for this age group.

Shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden echoed the concerns of David Lammy in his own response to FE Week’s research, describing the government’s decision as “a major strategic blunder by the department and its funding agency”.

He said: “If you had designed something deliberately to produce perverse incentives in the apprenticeship programme, you couldn’t have done it more brilliantly.

“There’s clearly been no thought given to the equality implications or indeed the crucial issues in terms of getting more small employers to take on young people in this age range.”

Considering the impact on his own constituency, Mr Marsden added: “For somewhere like Blackpool, where I would love to see many of my smaller employers taking on apprenticeships, this is going to be a huge disincentive.

“I would suggest that they [the government] need urgently to re-examine the impact of this — they should have had proper impact assessment and the minster, Robert Halfon, who probably has had little oversight of this, needs to address the disastrous and presumably unintended consequences of this urgently.”

FE Week contacted the Department for Education (DfE) to enquire whether an Apprenticeships Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) had in fact been carried out.

A spokesperson confirmed that the relevant EIA had been completed, but added the DfE was unable to say when it will be published.

FE Week also spoke with the Association of Colleges (AoC), which appears to be calling for more consultation on the proposed rates.

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive for the AoC, said: “The proposals put forward by the SFA relating to the apprenticeship funding suggest that they are trying to simplify a complicated system, but under an impossible timeline.

“Usually when the government is changing a funding formula, it takes its time and works through all the options and we would ask them to do that on this occasion.

“We urge all colleges to get involved with this consultation to ensure their voice is well represented.”

The analysis was also previously shared with Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, who again recommended that providers and their employers respond to the government consultation.

He said: “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.”

He added: “The apparent removal of the location element [disadvantage uplift] is particularly alarming – again, hardly helpful for the social mobility agenda.  

“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.”

A damning inadequate Ofsted rating has been handed out to a not-for-profit organisation that subcontracts out all its Education Funding Agency provision.

The report on Greater Merseyside Learning Providers’ Federation returned grade four ratings in all headline fields.

The organisation, which subcontracts its provision to 15 EFA-funded work-based learning providers that deliver traineeships and study programmes on its behalf, was previously rated good-overall by the inspectorate in May 2013.

The first of Ofsted’s key findings was that the federation’s “safeguarding is ineffective — managers do not require subcontractors to report safeguarding incidents to them promptly and systematically”.

The board was also criticised for failing to “focus closely enough” on monitoring the quality of subcontractors’ provision.

The report, published yesterday (Thursday), added: “Several directors are employed by subcontractors which results in a lack of impartiality and objectivity.”

Inspectors also found that managers at the federation, which had an EFA allocation of almost £2.1m in 2015/16, failed to “set individual performance targets for subcontractors relating to the quality of teaching, learning and assessment”, or “achievement of learning goals”.

While managers had “invested significantly in activities to improve the provision”, inspectors found the impact of these activities had not been properly checked.

Concerns over learners’ achievements, attendance and progression were also highlighted.

Inspectors complained that “too many” were not achieving their qualifications.

“Learners are unable to improve their work because teachers do not provide sufficient constructive feedback on its accuracy and quality,” the report added.

English and maths attainment was further criticised, with Ofsted noting that “managers place too little importance on the need for learners to improve” in these areas.

But inspectors praised its commitment to “recruiting young people who are not in education, employment or training”, and for the support it gave to “enable learners to overcome barriers to learning”.

The subcontractors, all based within the Liverpool City Region, include Alder Training, Alt Valley Community Trust, Jelli Studios, JM Education, Joint Learning Partnership, Mactac Training, and Maritime and Engineering College North West, and Mode Training Limited.

The others listed in the report are North West Community Services Training, Progress Sports Limited, Riverside Learning and Education Centre, Street League, Training Plus (Merseyside) Limited, Ellesmere Port-based TTE Training Limited, and Young Persons Opportunities Project.

James Glendenning, chief executive of the federation which employs seven full-time members of staff, told FE Week: “We are of course extremely disappointed with the Ofsted report and post-inspection we have taken swift and immediate action and put a robust improvement plan in place.”

The Department for Education was still unable to confirm ahead of publication whether or not the EFA would be terminating its contracts with the federation, following the inadequate rating, despite the enquiry being lodged yesterday morning.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has revealed to FE Week that it will release its latest report on apprenticeships when parliament returns in the the week commencing September 5.

The findings of this new study will coincide with the close of the government’s fourth consultation into the reforms, while the Public Accounts Committee will also scrutinise apprenticeships as part of its early autumn programme of work this year.

According to the NAO website, its latest research aims to “examine the management of the apprenticeship programme by Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS)”, particularly in light of the government’s plans to improve productivity and introduce 3m new apprenticeships by 2020.

It will also assess whether BIS has effectively facilitated the delivery of high quality skills training to meet the needs of businesses, employees and the economy.

The study exploring quality concerns around government management of apprenticeship reforms was initially announced in November 2015.

At the time, Stewart Segal, then chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, told FE Week: “Given the NAO’s previous findings about the programme’s excellent return on the government’s investment, it’s important that the reforms both for funding and standards build on what has worked well.”

At the Association of Colleges, Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager, said: “Apprenticeships are an essential part of post-16 education and training as they provide a dual learning, both on and off the job.

“We hope the NAO will have a good look at the management of reform and the growth of the programme.”

The NAO published its previous report on the topic in February 2012 , focusing on ‘Adult Apprenticeships’ and looking into “whether the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is obtaining value for money from the Apprenticeships programme”.

FE Week drew out conclusions from the report, such as the findings that adult apprenticeships offer good value for money, but there was a need for the government to focus its resources on industries which offer the best economic returns.

It criticised both BIS and the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) for not targeting the qualifications, frameworks or age groups that have the biggest impact on the economy.

The NAO found through the study that the funding rates used to pay training providers for delivering an apprenticeship was not based on robust information, and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and NAS had set tariffs without “reliable evidence” to support estimated training costs.

The NAO said both the SFA and NAS were unable to judge the extent to which providers were generating profits or losses as a result of inaccurate rates.

It also reported that BIS had failed to assess the level of additionality (the extent to which public funding results in training that would not otherwise have occurred) being delivered by the apprenticeship programme.

Finally, it found that a growing number of adult apprenticeships were being delivered in under half a year.

If the upcoming NAO report into apprenticeship reforms criticises the speed of change, it will add weight to the Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) call for a delay to the implementation of the levy. 

In an exclusive article for FE Week earlier this month, Neil Carberry, the CBI’s director for employment and skills, said the only way to create a system that delivers “three million opportunities – not just three million starts” was by delaying its introduction.

Mr Carberry said: “Enough people within government know what a project timeline in trouble looks like – and the levy system is one of those.

“On the digital service, cross-border issues with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and many more concerns.

“In truth, it is highly unlikely that the structures and rules necessary to make the system work on day one can be delivered effectively on the current timelines,” he said.

Exclusive FE Week research into the apprenticeship reforms revealed on August 19 that 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.

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!