The launch date for the apprenticeship levy, due in April next year, needs to be postponed unless the government backs down on its phased implementation plan, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said.

Carolyn Fairbairn told an audience of bosses that businesses were experiencing “deep frustration over the levy plans as they currently stand” during a speech in the City of London this week.

I spoke with Fairbairn, who was appointed director-general of the CBI in November last year, before her speech to discuss the CBI’s concerns about the implementation of the apprenticeship levy, and why she believes a “radical rethink” is necessary.

…this really needs to be rethought in some quite fundamental ways

The levy on large businesses, first announced by Chancellor George Osborne in the July budget last year, aims to raise revenue to help fund all post-16 apprenticeships in England. It requires all employers operating in the UK with a pay bill of over £3m a year to submit 0.5 per cent of their payroll to the levy as an investment in apprenticeship programmes.

Initially reluctant to admit that the CBI wanted the postponement, Fairbairn admitted to being concerned that “the clock is ticking”, and described the current timeline as “extraordinarily tight”.

“We are hearing from our members right across the country that this really needs to be rethought in some quite fundamental ways,” she said, adding: “delay is certainly an option”.

The CBI does want the levy system to be in place by the government’s scheduled date of April 2017.

In her speech, for example, Fairbairn called for the digital apprenticeships system, which manages levy spend, to be “ready and able to support the delivery of apprenticeship training which businesses need, in full and from the start”.

…they will reduce the number of apprenticeships

However, this is not what updated government guidance on how it will work implies, after plans were revealed for a phased delivery — and the system is not now expected to be fully operational until 2020, as FE Week reported on April 21.

I questioned Fairbairn on how these demands could possibly be met, given that we are just 11 months away from the official launch. In response, she accepted that “if that is the case, then we think there’s really no option but to have a delay — absolutely right”.

She told me that if the current deadline was to be properly met, work on the levy would have to be “really accelerated” and solutions to “a large number of unanswered questions” would need to be offered soon.

“How much funding can be spent on each apprentice? Who can it be spent on? How will the system work in the devolved nations?” Fairbairn asked, emphasising the gaps in policy that have caused concern for CBI members.

Without answers on issues such as these, she added, there is a risk of a “half-finished system” being implemented next April. And while Fairbairn told me that the CBI’s members supported the need to bridge the skills gap, she admitted that they were generally unenthusiastic about the levy as it stands.

“Did they like the idea of an apprenticeship levy of 0.5 per cent pay roll tax? No they did not,” she said. “That was a shock, and I think that it has been something really not welcomed, because it feels top-down.”

We also discussed another key topic from Fairbairn’s speech — the new Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA).

I asked her if the CBI felt sufficiently “in the tent” enough over the plans for the IfA at the moment, given the government’s initial promise that it would be employer-led.

“We think there is a long way to go to before it is really fulfilling its full role here, and it’s not yet business-led,” she said.

Currently, the only member of staff yet appointed at the IfA is the shadow chief executive officer, Rachel Sandby-Thomas, who was previously director general for skills, deregulation and local growth at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Fairbairn told me that the CBI wanted a stronger role for the IfA that includes measuring and managing the system around the levy.

“What isn’t happening [at the moment] is the involvement of the institute in the designing of the standards and the leading of the process,” she said. “One of the things we are calling for here is for the institute to be involved in the setting of measures that are about outcomes rather than just about number of starts.”

Fairbairn said the target of 3m new apprenticeship starts by 2020 was a positive ambition for the government, but that the progress of the learners must not be overlooked.

“We are calling for the institute to have a role in defining a measure that is about outcomes, that would combine the impact on an individual – maybe something about careers progress, or salary progress,” she added.

Without this, she said, the government’s ambitious target would be “insufficient” and risked the “unintended consequence of driving quantity over quality”.

I then asked her about another aspect of the CBI’s “radical rethink” — the suggestion to introduce an “allowable expenses” regime, which would let firms recover the cost of staff time and capital investment. She said that for a significant number of CBI members, who have existing apprenticeship schemes or training, the remit of the levy is “extremely narrow”.

“They’re now having to pay 0.5 per cent of payroll and they can only claim back a small part of their current apprenticeship spend,” she said.

“As a result of that, we’re hearing from quite a number of our members that they will reduce the number of apprenticeships, because particularly in sectors where there are very narrow margins they are having to find savings from somewhere.”

However, she added, the CBI’s members recognise that the levy is going happen and want to make it work well.

“What is motivating our intervention is to make it better, to make it really solve the skills gap, to really be a once in a generation change,” she said.

The Common Inspection Framework was revised by Ofsted in September 2015, which introduced short inspections for grade two providers.

In a series of provider type reports, we take a look at the grades for independent training providers (ITPs). Of the 85 published inspections since September, 61 (72 per cent) were full. In terms of grade ones, two ITPs lost it, one retaining it and one achieved at their first inspection. Just 24 per cent of the 80 ITPs saw their overall grade improve, with 44 (55 per cent) staying the same and 17 (21 per cent) falling.

When including the five ITPs being inspected for the first time, the ITPs shifted from 66 per cent to 72 per cent grade one or two, with an average overall grade of 2.49.

Here we also publish the supplementary grades where a significant number of ITPs have been assigned them.

Click on the image below to see the full results.

Former apprentices will be obliged to go back into schools to promote apprenticeships, through a new “commitment” set to be imposed on them by the government.

Skills Minister Nick Boles revealed the plan at a parliamentary sub-committee on education, skills and the economy (ESE) on Wednesday (April 27).

He told MPs that the government planned to “introduce a commitment on the part of an apprentice and of the apprentice’s employer that the apprentice will go back to their school when they’ve completed their apprenticeship and talk about the values of the apprenticeship they did”.

“Young people are more likely to listen to somebody who’s three years older than them, went to the same school and might well live too not far away from where they live,” he continued.

“I think that the messages they will get through that will do more to correct the bad impressions than any amount of government marketing.”

He added hearing from other young people about their positive experiences of apprenticeships would “probably be the most powerful thing of all”.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) welcomed the proposed apprentice commitment.

Pippa Morgan (pictured above), CBI head of education and skills, told FE Week that businesses were “keen to engage with schools to help children and young people understand the opportunities their subjects can open up”.

“Firms recognise the need to do their bit, and the need to make sure people get quality careers advice that sets them up for success,” she continued.

Poppy Wolfarth, a board member of the National Union of Students’ National Society of Apprentices, agreed changing perceptions of apprenticeships was “best addressed” by apprentices, but sounded a note of caution about the proposed commitment.

“This could be a great scheme if the schools are happy to let apprentices in and employers would allow their apprentices time off,” she said.

“However all apprentices should not be obliged to take part as they might not have the confidence or knowledge,” she continued.

She added: “The government needs to take a more direct approach to information, advice and guidance in schools and not rely on apprentices.”

Mr Boles’ comments, made during an evidence session for the ESE careers advice inquiry, come after the government announced in January that it was planning to introduce legislation to force schools to let FE providers talk to students about post-16 vocational options.

“I think it’s perhaps too much to expect every teacher to know everything about every aspect of the world of work,” he said of the legislation.

“The best way of giving people information is for them to see first-hand the full range of alternatives,” he continued.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said the department was still considering the apprentice commitment proposal and did not have any further details about it at the moment.

A spokesperson for the Federation of Small Businesses declined to comment.

Ofsted has called off its investigation into an inspector who demanded the immediate departure of his boss Sir Michael Wilshaw — after FE Week readers jumped to his defence.

The chief inspector caused widespread anger across the sector when he told the Commons Education Select Committee on March 2 that 16-to-19-year-olds should be taught in schools rather than colleges, because FE was “in a mess”.

It wasn’t just college leaders offended by Sir Michael’s remarks — one Ofsted inspector, Tony Davis, told a recent NewBubbles Leading Aspiration FE Conference that Mr Wilshaw should be removed from his post before his planned retirement in December due to the upset he caused.

His comments prompted Ofsted to launch an investigation into whether he had breached his contract when he spoke out a month later, on April 18.

However, the inspectorate has now confirmed to FE Week that it has sensationally dropped this investigation with “no further action required” less than two weeks later, right after we emailed a long list of comments posted on our website backing Mr Davis and requested a response.

Mr Davis, who has added to his criticism Mr Wilshaw in a comment piece, told FE Week: “I am delighted Ofsted will be allowing me to continue my work as an inspector.

“However, along with many other people in our sector, I cannot accept that Sir Michael should be allowed without significant challenge to give unfounded and biased personal opinions when he is speaking to government in his capacity as chief inspector.

“I am very pleased to see the strength of opposition from so many quarters to his views.”

The Ofsted spokesperson admitted that the inspectorate dropped the investigation on April 27.

He said: “We have reviewed the circumstances and concluded that no further action is required.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including Sir Michael, who was expressing a personal view, as he made clear at the Education Select Committee.”

The FE Week reader comments sent to Ofsted were strident in their criticism of the chief inspector. One, submitted by Andrew Morris, said: “At last a person is brave enough to speak plainly about the damage his powerful boss done to a great part of the UK education system.

“Quite apart from the chief inspector’s abuse of professionals and students in the FE system, his crude remarks have fuelled prejudice and ignorance more generally by placing personal anecdote above clear evidence. Congratulations Tony Davis!”

Mark Hill wrote: “It seems to me the wrong person is being investigated by Ofsted.

“If there is anyone that’s brought it into disrepute and abused their status and role with unsubstantiated comments I think an objective investigation might conclude it’s not Mr Davis.”

Another reader, going by the name Louise, said: “Thankfully there are still people like Tony Davis who have the honesty and conviction to do the right thing. Thank you for sticking your neck out, many people shy away from standing up for what is right and just. Well done Tony!”

——————————————————————————

Editorial – Getting personal

As an employer myself, it was a surprise to learn that Ofsted had decided not to take any action against one of its own employees for vehemently criticising Sir Michael Wilshaw.

But on reflection, Wilshaw’s outspoken criticism of the sector has created an unprecedented situation.

He brought Ofsted into disrepute as a witness to the education select committee, expressing personal views that did not reflect the position of the important organisation he leads.

Ofsted said in its statement, explaining why it had dropped the investigation against Mr Davis, that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I don’t think that can ever really apply though to the leader of the national inspectorate — who should always bear in mind the importance of maintaining its credibility with all of the education sectors.

It is little wonder then that inspectors who represent him on the front line feel let down, and Mr Davis was speaking up for them.

Mr Davis writes with a great deal of authority on page 14, and has shown a huge amount of guts by speaking out.

And given the special circumstances, Ofsted should also be congratulated for backing away from disciplining him.

 

Schools could soon be financially sanctioned if they sign students up to inappropriate A-level courses that they later abandon, Skills Minister Nick Boles has warned.

He made the comments at a parliamentary sub-committee meeting on education, skills and the economy on Wednesday (April 27), when he admitted concern that there is no current downside to A-level dropouts who might be better suited to more vocational routes.

Mr Boles said: “Currently there is no downside to people dropping out after a year. That is not ideal because in truth the value of the programme is to complete the two years.”

Given that funding was one factor that influenced schools’ decision-making, he said he would like to try to “build in something” to address the problem.

“I’ve spoken with colleges about this; they certainly feel that could make a difference alongside the transparency of destinations.”

From the summer, performance tables will include retention rates for school sixth forms.

Schools and colleges already receive 17.5 per cent less funding for pupils who repeat an A-level year, but there is currently no financial penalty if students drop out and transfer elsewhere.

Malcolm Trobe, interim general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, attacked the idea, and said the funding situation in education was already sufficiently “tight and complex” without putting “completely inappropriate fines” in place.

He said: “When students do decide to change programme it already causes trouble for schools and colleges.”

Mr Trobe added that good advice for young people should be the top priority for schools and government, but as students got older, it should be expected that they might change their educational direction.

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said Mr Boles’ comments were not a surprise, after a 2013 report by Ofsted found three quarters of schools failed to equally promote vocational options.

In January, the Department for Education (DfE) announced that schools must give “equal airtime” to post-16 non-academic routes.

Mr Watkin said: “It is difficult to give exactly the right advice to 16-year-olds. Most schools try to get it right, but if they get it wrong it is the other providers who have to step in and pick up the pieces, and often in more challenging circumstances.”

He recommended new structures to ensure that young people were not given inappropriate advice, but added: “My experience is that the carrot tends to work better than the stick. Talk of punishing is not helpful.”

Martin Doel, chief executive at the Association of Colleges, said: “To make informed choices for the future, young people need high-quality, impartial careers information about all post-16 education and training options, including apprenticeships and technical and professional education.

“Alongside this, the Minister is right to look at how the system can best ensure schools encourage their pupils to take the best decision for them rather than automatically enter the sixth form. This could be a combination of incentives and potential penalties.”

Following Mr Boles’ comments, a DfE spokesperson said the department was “looking to examine” the incentives to schools for students to complete a full programme.

The director general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) wants the April next year launch date for the apprenticeship levy to be delayed unless the government backs down on its phased implementation plan, FE Week can reveal.

Carolyn Fairbairn said in an exclusive interview that the CBI was concerned about “a large number of unanswered questions” and risks associated with implementing a “half-finished system”.

She will raise concerns about the “extraordinarily tight timeframe” and call for a “radical rethink”,  in a speech to business leaders in the City of London today (April 28).

A spokesperson said she will stress that “the digital system which manages levy spend must be ready and able to support the delivery of apprenticeship training which businesses need, in full and from the start”.

This goes against updated government guidance on how it will work, which revealed plans for phased delivery — with the system not intended to be fully operational until 2020, as reported by FE Week reported on April 21.

When asked yesterday whether it meant the CBI wanted the launch pushed back, Ms Fairbairn would initially only say that “delay is certainly an option”.

But she subsequently accepted concern that it would be almost impossible for the government to have a fully fledged system in place within 11 months, and added: “If that is the case then we think there’s really no option but to have a delay, absolutely right”.

Ms Fairbairn also told FE Week the CBI wanted a stronger role for the new Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA), including measuring and managing the system around the levy.

“What isn’t happening [at the moment] is the involvement of the institute in the designing of the standards and the leading of the process,” she said.

“One of the things we are calling for here, is for the institute to be involved in the setting of measures that are about outcomes rather than just about number of starts.”

Ms Fairbairn said the target of 3m new apprenticeship starts by 2020 was a positive ambition for the government, but the progress of the learners must not be overlooked.

“We are calling for the institute to have a role in defining a measure that is about outcomes, that would combine the impact on an individual – maybe something about careers progress, or salary progress,” she added.

Ms Fairbairn said without this, the mass recruitment drive risked the “unintended consequence of driving quantity over quality”.

Ms Fairbairn’s speech will also call for more flexibility in how firms can spend the levy, including on existing training.

The CBI intends to push for an “allowable expenses” regime, which would let firms recover the cost of staff time and capital investment.

“They’re now having to pay 0.5 per cent of pay roll and they can only claim back a small part of their current apprenticeship spend,” she told FE Week.

“As a result of that, we’re hearing from quite a number of our members that they will reduce the number of apprenticeships, because particularly in sectors where there are very narrow margins they are having to find savings from somewhere.”

FE Week put Ms Fairbairn’s points to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.

In response, Skills Minister Nick Boles said: “The apprenticeship levy will deliver the highly skilled workers our businesses are crying out for.

“Our reforms are about putting employers in the driving seat.

“We are working closely with businesses to determine how the levy will work for them and are giving employers the freedom to purchase the apprenticeship training that best meets their needs.

“We will also be working with businesses in the coming months on the development of the independent, employer-led IfA that will ensure employers are at the heart of driving up the quality of apprenticeship training.”

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) is balloting members over strike action to fight closure plans for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ Sheffield office — which it is feared will cause an “FE brain drain”.

The ballot was launched today (April 27), on the same morning that PCS representatives have been staging a protest against the closure plans outside of BIS’s Victoria Street office in London, with the results set to be announced on May 10.

Members are being asked to vote on whether or not they would like to go on strike.

Lois Austin (pictured above right this morning), the PCS full-time official for BIS covering the Sheffield office, told FE Week outside the London BIS office at 8am: “We are balloting because we are completely opposed to the closure of the BIS Sheffield office and the loss of many civil servants who have a great deal of experience of FE.

“The complete failure of BIS to provide a business case and proof of any savings this would lead to is a further major bone of contention.

“It is why we are urging our members to vote in favour of strike action.”

Ms Austin previously told FE Week on March 3 that widespread opposition to the plans to centralise the department’s policy-making in London had forced BIS to delay its consultation by two months.

She said: “They told us back when all this was first announced that the consultation over the closure of the Sheffield office should be completed by the start of March.

“But we’ve now been told that it will be May 2, which shows how shaken up they are by the scale of opposition to this.

“They’re saying that centralising to London will save money and improve policy decisions.

“But we asked Permanent Secretary [for BIS] Martin Donnelly for evidence of the analysis they have done to prove this and no one from his team has been able to provide this.”

The ballot announcement comes after a BIS report leaked to FE Week, called ‘BIS2020 — Finance and Headcount outline’, indicated that potential savings of closing the Sheffield BIS office through rent, rates and maintenance, rail travel, and hotel stays stood at £1.5m.

But it added that additional London salary costs could run to £1.6m per annum — meaning the controversial plan could actually cost £100,000.

A former senior employee at BIS previously warned the planned closure would amount to an “FE brain drain” — as civil servants working in Sheffield “have a huge amount of sector expertise and it looks like everyone will lose their jobs”.

The source claimed BIS had not offered sufficient resettlement packages to make moving to London a viable possibility for many Sheffield staff, and failed to take into account the number of part-time female staff, who would find moving south near impossible.

BIS confirmed that it was aware of the PCS ballot.

A spokesperson added: “We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure as much of the department’s funding as possible is focused on front line services.

“We have deliberately set ourselves challenging savings targets consistent with the spending review and we will continue to explore options in detail before making decisions.”