The number of young people employed as apprentices in England is “a disaster” and Ofsted inspectors will be ensuring schools are promoting “all the options” to learners, chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw has told MPs.

Sir Michael appeared in front of the new education select committee on Wednesday (September 16), where he faced questions about the role of Ofsted.

Quizzed by MPs about the importance of destination data for both schools and colleges, Sir Michael said an “important” line of questioning for school head teachers would be about post-16 options and careers advice.

He said: “What’s really important for inspections of secondary schools is that HMI ask questions about post-16 provision, whether schools and head teachers of secondary schools are providing youngsters with all the information that they need to make good choices and not restricting that information to get youngsters into their own sixth form.”

“That’s really important and that’s going to be a big emphasis this year. We are going to be asking a lot more about careers guidance than ever before,” he added.

Sir Michael said: “The fact we’ve only got six per cent of youngsters going into apprenticeships is a disaster, and it’s really important that schools are fair on their youngsters and make sure that all the options are put to them.

“It’s a disaster area in schools. It hasn’t been focused-on in the way that it should. It should never be seen as a bolt-on or an
add-on.”

Sir Michael was joined by Ofsted’s chief operating officer Matthew Coffey, who said that Ofsted had been pushing for better use of destination data.

He said: “We’ve said for a long time how important destination data is, particularly at the end of key stage four and key stage five, in FE colleges, for example. It’s really important that colleges understand the impact of what they’re doing on a young person’s later development.

“So we have maintained this call for several years and the government is absolutely responding, to be able to develop measures that are going to be publicly available to add to the public accountability framework.”

He added that many good providers track destinations themselves, adding that “in fact a lot of FE colleges spend a lot of their resources for very good reasons, to understand the impact of the different courses and how they can improve further”.

Further education colleges offering 14 to 16 provision may have to wait until the trade union bill passes to the House of Lords before learning if tough new strike laws would apply to them.

The bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday (September 14) evening, in the face of passionate opposition from Labour MPs including new Shadow Business Secretary Angela Eagle, who called it “draconian”.

It states that strikes in “important” areas such as education of school-age pupils, aged five to 16, would need the support of 40 per cent of those eligible to vote.

But FE Week reported in July that the FE sector had been left in limbo, after the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said that it was not yet known if up to 20 colleges which can currently recruit at 14 would be affected.

During Monday’s debate, Business Secretary Sajid Javid said that the government had “consulted on which occupations within those sectors should be subject to the additional 40 per cent support threshold”.

But he did not specify when the government would respond to consultation responses, other than to say that “details of the scope of the 40 per cent threshold” would be published “by the time the bill is in committee in the other place [the House of Lords]”.

A BIS spokesperson subsequently declined again to confirm whether the 40 per cent threshold would apply to colleges offering 14 to 16 provision.

He said that this would be explained in the government’s response to its consultation on what the scope of the 40 per cent threshold should be, but could not give a firm date for when that will be published.

Ms Eagle said during Monday’s debate that “with the number of days lost to strike action down 90%in the past 20 years, there is no need whatsoever to employ the law in this draconian way”.

She also warned that “clause 3 [of the bill] ensures that the 40 per cent level of support restriction will apply to a much bigger list of sectors than the internationally recognised definition of ‘essential services’ and, ominously, allows sectors to be added by secondary legislation that is as yet unpublished.

“From listening to the Secretary of State, it appears that the government does not intend to publish it until the bill is in the Lords [at a still to be confirmed date].”

Under rules set out in the bill, a 50 per cent turnout requirement will be set for all strike action, with a separate requirement that strikes in “important” areas such as education and health have the support of 40 per cent of those eligible to vote.

At the moment, strike action can be called if a simple majority is in favour. It means that no matter how many eligible voters cast ballots, any vote share over 50 per cent in favour will count as support.

Brian Lightman, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders said: “We are fearful that the introduction of this legislation will cause resentment when the sector needs support and encouragement.”

Peter Pendle, deputy general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), told FE Week in July that the confusion over whether a number of colleges would be subject to the tougher strike rules was “another case of the government not fully thinking through legislation”.

“It would be plainly ridiculous if in FE colleges and secondary schools with students younger than 17 years old two different sets of rules applied,” he added.

It was reported in FE Week on September 2 that six more general FE colleges had been listed by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) as intending to take on learners from the age of 14.

It brought the total number of colleges “intending to deliver the programme” over the coming academic year to 20, the EFA confirmed.

The National Union of Students (NUS) has rejected calls to back the government’s prevent duty legislation, repeating its “legitimate” concerns about new duties on colleges to tackle extremism and radicalisation.

From September 21, FE institutions will be subject to the prevent duty, which requires them to put policies in place relating to IT systems, staff training, external speakers, gender segregation and other areas in order to prevent potential “radicalisation” of learners and exposure to “extremism”.

The NUS voted to oppose the rules at its conference in Liverpool in April, on the grounds that they promote mass-surveillance, “further criminalise Muslims and Black people”, include “intrusive” new measures and pose a “significant threat to civil liberties and freedom of speech on campuses”.

Business minister Jo Johnson (pictured) has written to the NUS reminding it of its “responsibilities in preventing radicalisation and challenging speakers”, but the union has rejected calls for its support and questioned its own responsibilities in this area.

A spokesperson told FE Week: “NUS believes there are legitimate concerns about the impact the counter terrorism and security act will have on student welfare.

“Criticism and debate is at the heart of the policy-making process, and so we would encourage government to listen and reflect on the legitimate concerns that exist to their agenda, rather than attacking organisations for simply not agreeing with their approach.

“As students’ unions are not public bodies, and therefore not subject to the act, it’s confusing that the government are so focused on our work.

“NUS is a campaigning organisation so our opposition to this agenda – based on both principled and practical concerns, and passed at our most recent national conference – is both valid and appropriate.”

Mr Johnson, who is the minister for universities and science, said it was important there “can be active challenge and debate on issues relating to counter terrorism” and said provisions for academic freedom were part of the prevent guidance for colleges.

He added: “It is my firm view that we all have a role to play in challenging extremist ideologies and protecting students on campus. Ultimately, the prevent strategy is about protecting people from radicalisation.

“It is therefore disappointing to see overt opposition to the prevent programme. The legal duty that will be placed on universities and colleges highlights the importance that the government places on this.”

The legislation has also come under fire from University and College Union general secretary Sally Hunt, who said the best response to acts of terror was to keep colleges as “open democratic spaces, rather than close down debate and create mistrust between teacher and student, which is what these plans risk doing”.

She added: “Universities and colleges have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their students and staff and not to allow activities which are intended to foment hatred or violence, or support for unlawful activities such as terrorism.

“However, universities and colleges rightly cherish, and must continue to promote, academic freedom as a key tenet of our civilised society. It is essential to our democracy and right to freedom of speech that views are open to debate and challenge within the law.