Apprentice hopefuls face GCSE barrier

Colleges and training providers who “rigidly” demand higher grade GCSEs for the most basic of apprenticeships have come in for criticism from government vocational training adviser Professor Alison Wolf.

An apparently growing number of adverts for intermediate apprenticeships are asking for maths and English GCSEs of at least grade C or D, FE Week research has found.

The restrictions would have closed the door on career opportunities for the 40 per cent (249,164) of 2011/12’s GCSE cohort who failed to achieve A*-C in English and maths.

Professor Wolf, author of a landmark independent government review of 14 to 19 vocational education in 2011, called on providers to take a broader view of applicants’ abilities.

The King’s College London academic told FE Week: “Maths and English are enormously important to people’s lives and prospects, but of course are not the only things that matter. In selecting young people for increasingly popular apprenticeship places, it is surely crucial to look at all the relevant skills and experience each applicant can offer, not use just one or two criteria as a rigidly applied filter.”

Sector standards setting bodies and the Skills Funding Agency impose no such GCSE requirement for apprenticeships.

However, by law all intermediate apprenticeship frameworks require that learners without level one (equivalent to GCSE grade D to G) maths and English pass them during the course, typically as functional skills qualifications.

Roger Francis, business development director at functional skills specialist Creative Learning Partners Ltd, said he was “very concerned about what appears to be a growing trend”.

“Young people who desperately need this type of opportunity are being excluded,” he said.

“For a qualification designed to encourage diversity and inclusivity, this is very disturbing.”

He added: “I can’t help but feel some providers may be going down this path to avoid delivering functional skills which they find challenging and financially unrewarding.

“It would be tragic if learners were missing out on the opportunity to raise their skill levels… simply because a number of providers were unable to find a successful delivery model.”

Former Dragons’ Den investor Doug Richard proposed an A*-C grade GCSE requirement (or equivalent level two), in his independent review of apprenticeships last year, but said it should be needed in order to pass the apprenticeship. However, he also warned there was a risk “some employers or providers will ‘cherry pick’ those learners who already have level two”.

He added: “We must make sure that training in maths and English continue to be free and easily available.”

Westminster Kingsway College and Intraining, owned by NCG (formerly Newcastle College Group), have several roles with the A*-C GCSE requirement on the National  Apprenticeship Vacancy Matching Service, but said this was due to employer expectations.

However, FE Week has found several examples where it appears the requirement came from the provider.

Sheffield College and College of North West London require grade D maths and English within their published progression policy for apprenticeships.

Sheffield College described its entry requirements as “a general guide”.

The College of North West London said: “We do not generally enrol people onto apprenticeships without at least a GCSE grade D in maths and English… as our experience shows [these] apprentices are far less likely to succeed.”

————————————————————————————————

Editorial: Questionable barriers

It did not take long searching the government’s apprenticeship vacancy website before I found numerous adverts for level two frameworks with A* to C GCSE English and maths requirements.

The adverts range from a high street bank and supermarket to local cafes and even colleges employing their own apprentices.

In fact, at the time of checking there were 64 level two retail apprenticeship adverts with this criteria alone.

I was both surprised and shocked.

Some colleges have defended the practice, saying ultimately they will support all young people in need.

But with these barriers, and therefore no application possible, who would they have to support?

And worst case scenario, the young person is left believing this is a national requirement so does not look for an alternative provider.

Just yesterday one young person tweeted: “I want an apprenticeship but you need English and maths so slight problem.”

This tweet brings home the fact there are young people being excluded from gaining work and training, for being underqualified.

Imagine yourself as a young person in that trap.

You can’t get onto an apprenticeship to learn and gain qualifications without already having achieved them.

Before this becomes an even bigger problem perhaps the sector standards setting bodies need to determine not only the framework contents, but also restrict the use of inappropriate pre-entry requirements?

Nick Linford, editor of FE Week

———————————————————————————————————–

Listen to the recording of Nick Linford and Doug Richard being interview on BBC Radio 4 Today programme at 6:50am on September 6, 2013

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/109524061″ params=”” width=” 100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

College turns down 16 to 18 traineeships

A York college that will be running traineeships for 19 to 24-year-olds has said no to putting the programme on for 16 to 18-year-olds because of a lack of government funding, FE Week can reveal.

The 2,000-student Askham Bryan College was rated as good by Ofsted early last year and so can run the government’s flagship youth unemployment scheme.

But bosses at the specialist land-based college told the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) that while it would offer the programme for the 19 to 24 age group, it would be turning away 16 to 18-year-olds because it did “not have the funds”.

It comes after FE Week reported in June how most colleges were missing out on the little extra government cash being dished out for traineeships.

The Department for Education (DfE) transferred £12m to the SFA to pay specific providers, through their 16 to 18 apprenticeship contracts, to run the programmes.

But the ring-fenced funding is available to providers who only hold contracts with the SFA and nothing with the Education Funding Agency.

The vast majority of those who can access the funding is therefore most likely to be independent training providers — and not colleges such as Askham Bryan.

Its principal, Liz Philip, said: “Askham Bryan College would be delighted to run 16 to 18 traineeships but we are heavily over-recruited in 13/14.

“Unfortunately, we therefore do not have the funds to offer these programmes for 12 months but anticipate doing so when the funding lag has caught up with growth in recruitment.

“We are offering traineeships to adults where the funding lag does not apply.”

Nobody from the DfE was available for comment.

However, Junior Shadow Education Minister Tristram Hunt accused the government of “not getting the sector ready” for the scheme.

“This is an extremely disappointing turn of events,” he said.

“This is supposed to be the government’s flagship scheme for getting young people ready for the high quality apprenticeships that we need in order to rebalance the economy and boost our competitiveness, but the government has simply not done enough to get the sector ready.”

The traineeship scheme, which started last month to help young people gain work-related skills and attitudes, can only be offered by providers with an Ofsted grade one or two inspection result.

An agency list of the 756 eligible providers revealed that four colleges turned down the 16 to 18 offer, but said yes to the older option.

However, Dan Shelley, vice principal for enterprise, employment and skills at Sussex Coast College Hastings, said there “should be room” in all eligible providers’ budgets for the programme.

His college has an Ofsted grade three inspection result and so cannot run
traineeships despite the education watchdog giving it a grade two for apprenticeship provision.

He said: “I would urge all colleagues in the sector that are eligible to deliver traineeships to do so, and show how we can expertly implement these exciting bridging opportunities between education and the world of work.

“There should be room in all eligible providers’ budgets for this provision and it would be a real shame if providers did turn down any opportunity to deliver traineeships.”

Two in every three colleges using zero-hour contracts, research suggests

Nearly two out of every three colleges have teachers on controversial zero-hour contracts, research from the University and College Union (UCU) has suggested.

It asked 275 colleges about the contracts and said that around 61 per cent of the 200 who answered employed teaching staff on contracts that offered no guarantee of work.

The government is currently investigating use of the contracts amid criticism they create uncertainty in the workforce, leaving staff without sick or holiday pay, and for making it difficult to get tenancy agreements, credit cards or loans because it is impossible to show a regular income.

But proponents of the contracts argue they allow for flexible working patterns and mean employers can take on more staff.

However, Simon Renton, UCU president, said: “Our findings shine a light on the murky world of casualisation in FE.

“The extent of the use of zero-hour contracts is difficult to pin down, as various groups have found, but their prevalence in our colleges leads to all sorts of uncertainty for staff.

“Without a guaranteed income, workers on zero-hour contracts are unable to make financial or employment plans on a year-to-year, or even month-to-month basis.

“Employers cannot hide behind the excuse of flexibility — this flexibility is not a two-way street and, for far too many people, it is simply a case of exploitation.

“Their [zero-hour contracts’] widespread use is the unacceptable underbelly of our colleges.”

The contracts have already come under fire from Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

He said in July: “Families have to plan to pay bills – everyone has to plan for what their income is and what they are going to pay out. That can cause very intense insecurity and anxiety indeed.”

The Association of Colleges (AoC), which drew up legal advice to help colleges respond to UCU questioning on zero-hour contracts, defended the agreements saying they benefited colleges and staff.

Emma Mason, association director of employment policy and services, said: “We know zero-hour contracts suit some staff, for example professionals who wish to teach for a small number of flexible days every term but do not want to be full-time teachers or exam invigilators whose work is of a seasonal nature.

“Colleges do not restrict people on zero-hour contracts from working elsewhere. In fact, colleges benefit from engaging industry professionals who can ensure training reflects current occupational standards.”

Nevertheless, the UCU’s research – which used the Freedom of Information Act to approach FE colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – comes ahead of the results of an investigation into zero-hour contracts by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

“We are encouraged that both the government and the opposition have said they will be looking at zero-hour contracts, but neither side has yet said anything that will give the thousands of people subjected to these conditions much hope,” said Mr Renton.

However, the UCU’s research came in for criticism from the association, a month after it sought positive examples of colleges’ zero-hour contracts following talks with BIS about its investigation.

“The UCU data does not cover all FE staff — it analyses the proportion of teaching staff employed on zero-hour contracts across the colleges that responded to the FOI request,” said Ms Mason.

“The figures do not cover all colleges and include estimations of headcount, so do not represent a true picture.”

She added: “While the UCU data gives an indication of the use of zero-hour contracts for teaching staff, it does not provide evidence of poor employment practice.”

The UCU is due to lead a debate on the zero-hour contracts at the TUC Congress in Bournemouth on Sunday.

Skills Funding Agency warnings on the rise

The number of notices of concern slapped on colleges rose by 25 per cent in 2012/13 from nine notices in 2011/12.

Notices of concern are triggered by inadequate Ofsted results or fears over the college’s financial health or controls.

A Freedom of Information request by FE Week has uncovered that that as of May 15 there were 22 colleges under one or more notices of concern.

Bicton, Great Yarmouth, Stockport, Bracknell and Wokingham, Kensington and Chelsea, K College and five unnamed colleges, were issued with financial health notices.

Financial control notices were also issued to five unnamed colleges, along with Lambeth, Macclesfield, Bracknell and Wokingham, Kingston and K College.

Ofsted ‘inadequate’ inspection results led to notices for Lambeth, Macclesfield, City of Bristol, City of Liverpool, Worcestershire and one unnamed college.

City of Wolverhampton College is the only one currently under a notice of concern for all three.

Stockport College, Kingston College and Great Yarmouth College all said they expected their notices to be lifted soon.

Kensington and Chelsea, Liverpool and City of Wolverhampton College said they had made “significant improvements” since being issued with notices.

Lambeth College said the inspection notice had now been lifted, but the college had been issued with a financial health notice in June.

Bristol described the notice as procedural and “fully expected”.

K College said it had completed an LSIS-run structure and prospects appraisal and accepted the recommendations.

Bicton College, Macclesfield College, and Stafford College declined to comment, and nobody from South Worcestershire College was available for comment.

Parliament debate on apprenticeship funding reform

Proposals to use the tax system to fund apprenticeships won tentative approval in a House of Commons vote organised by FE Week.

More than 120 people from across the FE and skills sector attended the debate on the government’s three proposed apprenticeship funding reforms, with the option of employers recouping the costs of training through the PAYE system emerging victorious.

It claimed the biggest minority, with 27 per cent of those who voted saying ‘maybe’ the PAYE option should be adopted.

At the start of the debate, 22 per cent of voters had wanted ‘no change to the current funding system’.

The event, sponsored by Pearson and hosted by Shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden, took place in the House of Commons’ largest committee space — room 14 — on Wednesday, September 4.

Figures of SME take-up remain quite stark — that sets the challenge for government.”

Votes were cast electronically at the beginning and end of the debate on reform options and whether employers should make a cash contribution for 19+ apprenticeships.

At first most of the voters — 33 per cent — thought employers shouldn’t pay towards apprenticeships, but at the end 36 per cent thought they should.

Speakers included Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, Neil Carberry, director of employment and skills at the Confederation of British Industry, and Michael Davis, chief executive of the UK Commission of Employment and Skills.

David Phillips, managing director of colleges and work-based learning at Pearson, and Nick Linford, FE Week editor, made up the rest of the panel along with Ann Konzolik, executive director of business development at Northwest Kent College. She replaced Alice Barnard, chief executive of the Peter Jones Foundation.

They explored the reform options of direct payment to employers, payment through the tax system (PAYE) and payment to providers.

The options were put forward by the government after an independent review of apprenticeships by former Dragons’ Den investor Doug Richard. He pushed the idea of incentivising employers by paying them for taking on apprentices.

Mr Marsden introduced the debate telling delegates: “The most important thing is that we are having this discussion.

“It’s worth remembering how we got here in the first place — the government felt compelled to do the Richard Review because of concerns over quality of training programmes which coincided with the government’s expansion programme when they axed Train to Gain in 2010.

“Also the Holt review looked at how to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in accessing the apprenticeship scheme because many of them felt unable or unwilling to access the scheme in its present form.

“Figures of SME take-up remain quite stark — that sets the challenge for government,” he said.

He said he didn’t see how the three systems put forward “directly addressed” how to get more SMEs to access the scheme, adding: “That should be at the forefront of the process.”

“I’m disappointed that there’s no mention of funding being distributed by a regional or sectorial approach — that might be how SMEs would like to get on-board,” Mr Marsden said before adding that the Labour Party were in the middle of doing their own report on apprenticeship funding reform.

Mr Davis started the debate, pushing hardest for the PAYE system.

“All businesses are familiar with the PAYE system,” he said.

“We have been up-and-down the country and had unanimous support from businesses for funding through PAYE.”

He likened the proposed employer payments to statutory maternity pay, however, Mr Segal dismissed the comparison, saying apprenticeships had multiple rates and would not involve one straightforward payment.

Mrs Konzolik claimed that paying employers directly or through the tax system, could create problems for what she coined “roving apprentices”.

All businesses are familiar with the PAYE system”

“If the apprentice decides it isn’t quite right for them to work in one particular organisation and they want to move on, who picks up the tab in terms of the employer contribution?” she said.

Mr Linford added that one problem already identified by the government of the tax system method could be that many SMEs were so small their PAYE bill would not be enough to cover their apprenticeship incentive.

One audience member suggested that while larger firms with over 1,000 employees could get on-board with the PAYE, perhaps SMEs should be exempt, but Mr Segal did not agree, saying two systems would be “too complicated”.

Further, he said direct funding was not likely to “drive quality”.

He added: “We are not in disagreement that the system needs reforming, but we do not think the system is broken.

“Employers are already owning this system, but clearly we want them more involved — we’ve got to get them back involved in developing the apprenticeship frameworks as government has had too heavy a hand in that.”

Mrs Konzolik said she never had any difficulties getting businesses to pay providers for apprenticeships and Mr Carberry backed her, saying: “The biggest bit of feedback I get off businesses is if something is free, then what is wrong with it? If the price is right, businesses will buy.”

The government’s consultation on reforming the apprenticeship funding system opened two months ago and closes October 1.

Responses to its consultation should be sent to apprenticeships.consultation@bis.gsi.gov.uk by the closing date. Visit www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-radical-plans-to-shake-up-apprenticeship-funding for further details.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) publication Funding Apprenticeships through Pay As You Earn (PAYE) puts forward the argument that employers should be paid through the tax system.

It would bring simplicity, familiarity and flexibility, as employers would be able to start training apprentices throughout the year, according to the UKCES.

It argues that a change in the tax system would be a long term benefit and bring stability to the apprenticeship scheme, adding that changes to tax reach all businesses and making it easier to take on apprentices.

The Edge Foundation, a charity which promotes vocational education, published Apprenticeship Funding: Heading the Wrong Way? in June.

The charity argues that employers should not make any financial contribution towards apprenticeship training, instead it should be fully subsidised by the government.

At present, only 22 per cent of employers make contributions, according to Edge.

It uses research commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which suggests that if the state subsidy is reduced to zero, apprentice numbers will fall by 85 per cent.

The alternative, argues Edge, is directing public subsidies to where they would achieve results.

Underpaying apprentice bosses face increased name-and-shame threat

Underpaying apprentice bosses will be publicly named and shamed under government plans to make it easier to clamp down on rogue businesses.

Employment Relations Minister Jo Swinson has announced new rules as part of efforts to toughen up enforcement of the National Minimum Wage (NMW).

The clampdown, which will come into effect from October when the apprentice NMW goes up 3p to £2.68 an-hour, will strip back restrictions on naming employers who break the law.

It comes in addition to financial penalties, of up to £5,000, employers already face if they fail to pay adequately.

“Paying less than the minimum wage is illegal. If employers break this law they need to know that we will take tough action,” said Ms Swinson.

“This is why I’m making changes so it is easier to name and shame employers who break the law. This gives a clear warning to rogue employers who ignore the rules, that they will face reputational consequences as well as a fine if they don’t pay the minimum wage.”

In 2012/13 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) identified 736 employers who had failed to pay the NMW leading to the recovery of £3.9m in unpaid wages for more than 26,500 workers.

According to the Low Pay Commission (LPC) annual report this year, data from the 2012 Apprentice Pay Survey indicated that more than 27 per cent of apprentices were paid less than their applicable NMW rate last year, compared with 20 per cent in 2011.

Non-compliance, it added, appeared most prevalent among employers of young apprentices — 40 per cent of all 16 to 17-year-old apprentices were thought to be paid less than £2.65 an-hour, and 25 per cent of all 18 to 20-year-old apprentices were thought to be on less than £2.65 an-hour.

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Minimum wage offenders are particularly prominent among apprentice employers. Despite representing a tiny fraction of the workforce, apprentices make up a quarter of all national minimum wage non-compliance cases.”

She added: “The significant minority of employers who dodge the minimum wage have not only ripped off young apprentices, they are also tarnishing the apprenticeship brand that government, unions and employers have so worked so hard to revitalise in the last decade.

“The government must clamp down on these minimum wage rogues before they do any more damage.”

Joe Vinson, NUS vice president, said: “The government’s own research, published last year, shows a fifth of apprentices were paid below their applicable national minimum wage, and non-compliance is particularly shocking in some sectors.

“A third of those doing apprenticeships in construction and almost half of those in hairdressing were paid less than the minimum wage.

“A clampdown on those companies who are breaking the law by failing to pay the minimum wage is of course to be welcomed, but the minister must not overlook the clear evidence of failure to comply with the apprenticeship minimum wage.”

Originally, employers had to meet one of seven criteria before they could be named. The minimum amount of NMW owed to workers had to be at least £2,000 and the average per worker at least £500 before an employer could be referred to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills from HMRC for naming. The revised scheme removes these restrictions.

The move follows the LPC’s recommendation this year for “a communications campaign and a targeted enforcement initiative to ensure that the apprentice rate is known to employers and apprentices, and that infringers are caught, punished, and wherever appropriate, named.”

The new naming and shaming policy applies to all workers, including non-apprentices.

Sir Geoff Hall quits as foundation chief – Peter Davies to ‘pick up the baton’

Sir Geoff Hall has quit as interim chief executive of the Education and Training Foundation after just three months in post, FE Week can exclusively reveal.

The foundation, the FE sector’s new self-improvement body, told FE Week that the former principal and chief executive of New College Nottingham and chair of the Information Authority, who was knighted for services to FE in the New Year Honours 2012, was leaving while the hunt for a full-time chief executive was ongoing.

Sir Geoff Hall

Peter Davies, who had been project leader in the foundation’s early stages, is expected to take over as interim chief executive later this month.

“It has been a great privilege to help set up the foundation and I am delighted to have played my part,” said Sir Geoff.

“In the last few months we have established, registered and launched the new organisation; appointed a very strong board; agreed deliverables and impact measures; and created a robust organisational structure.

“A number of strong interim appointments have been made to move the organisation forward, and good progress is being achieved towards building the permanent team. ”

“The foundation is now in the delivery phase after a period of set-up, so this is the right moment to hand back the baton as the organisation becomes operational.”

Officially launched on August 1, the group formerly known as the FE Guild is seen as a replacement for the Learning and Skills Improvement Service, from which a number of staff moved via Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment), or TUPE.

But it came under fire for its hiring policy with a warning of “sycophantic nepotism” after it emerged that no advertising had taken place for some senior roles.

Nevertheless, David Hughes, interim chair of the foundation board, thanked Sir Geoff for his efforts.

“He has done what we asked him to do in helping set up the Foundation quickly and I’d like to thank him very much for his positive contribution and support in this key phase of the organisations’ development,” said Mr Hughes.

“I am also very pleased to welcome Peter back to the foundation, and know that he will make a significant contribution in the role while we complete the recruitment of a new permanent chief executive and a new permanent chair.

“Peter did a great job in the initial consultation phase that led to the establishment of this new organisation and has a very strong understanding of what the sector wants and needs from us.

“I am very confident that his understanding, experience and skills will help us greatly to start delivering support to the sector and to deliver our programmes of work.

“We need to move quickly at the same time as focusing on the impact everyone rightly expects us to make.

“We always knew that the set-up phase over the summer would be tough. Having to let the TUPE process finish before being able to start permanent recruitment severely limited the resources we had to get things done.

“There are three vital priorities for this next phase: we will ramp up our communications and engagement with the sector; we will start recruiting into the permanent roles; and we will to start using the resources we now have to deliver support and change in the sector.”

Peter Davies

Mr Davies, who spent 35 years in the Royal Navy before becoming principal at adult education college City Lit in London before retiring in 2011, said he was looking forward to returning the foundation.

He said: “I am really delighted to return to lead the foundation and continue the very good progress that has been made under Sir Geoff.

“I was heartened during the development stage by the goodwill and strong sector support we received and I am sure this will be as vital as ever.

“I am especially looking forward to hearing how the sector thinks the organisation is doing and whether it is steering the right course.”

Serving the apprenticeship time

It’s just over a year since the minimum duration rule was applied, meaning most apprenticeships would have to last at least a year. Phil Hatton looks at whether the rule offers the quality assurance it was hoped for.

I was one of the two authors of the first NVQ back in 1987, which really changed the face of the old style time-served apprenticeships and the way they have subsequently developed.

That first level two NVQ was supposed to be the equivalent of five GCSEs and got away from the concept of annual end-of-course examinations. It was designed for delivery anywhere and wasn’t confined to the classroom.

Therein lies the current problem for this and previous governments who have shared an obsession with large scale growth in the number of apprentices, regardless of what the apprenticeships were in or who the apprentices were.

The mistake that those in government have made is to think that using ‘time-served’ rather than ‘quality of delivery and learning’ is a magic potion to ‘root out poor delivery’.

Some adults taking apprenticeships have already developed substantial amounts of work skills which can accelerate how quickly they demonstrate their technical competence.

They will usually take longer to pass functional skills and other written tests such as technical certificates because they are out of the habit of studying.

However, if the decision has been taken to fund adults with previous experience as apprentices, they should not be forced to take a year by slowing-up their progress and diminishing their enthusiasm for learning, when nine months would do.

Not everything labelled ‘apprenticeship’ should be an apprenticeship

This ‘never mind the quality, think of the duration’ approach does not solve the problem of shoddy provision or work to ensure excellence in delivery, especially if the apprenticeship product is not equitable.

The real crux of the matter is not the time taken to deliver an apprenticeship, but the inequality between the different frameworks.

We are not talking about functional skills, but the heart of the apprenticeship, the vocational qualification.

That first NVQ was not time-bound, but the brightest apprentices took 18 months and most two years to achieve it (anything less and you knew there was something ‘dodgy’ occurring).

That ‘five-GCSE’ equivalent has now completely gone out of the window for a level two apprenticeship.

The simple truth is that not everything labelled ‘apprenticeship’ should be an apprenticeship.

An example that comes up frequently at conferences is the ‘security guard’ apprenticeship.

I had previously inspected excellent provision where training in the main area was delivered in three to four days and people got jobs. Now, even with some beefing up to make a framework, can that be worth the ‘five GCSEs’?

Providers have said they will have longer periods between visits to employers to stretch the delivery time out. Does that sound like quality delivery?

Proposals to get employers involved in designing qualifications already exists — in NVQs

Ofqual and the late QCA have not done the FE sector any favours by allowing the explosion in inequitable level two qualifications. Perhaps the term ‘traineeships’ should have been saved for the lesser content frameworks?

Post Richard Review, the proposals to get employers involved in designing qualifications already exists — in NVQs.

There is a reluctance by lead training organisations to help niche employers, such as newer engineering technologies, develop qualifications because of the low numbers who will need them.

The model of employer development being proposed sounds too much like an earlier failure, when colleges developed thousands of bespoke qualifications validated by other colleges.

But why learn from previous mistakes such as Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) direct NVQs (where TECs quality assured small providers and received countless inadequate inspection judgements) and franchising? These could have informed the rules for ensuring robust subcontracting?

My plea is for the Skills Minister, Matthew Hancock, to not rely solely on those who want to see increases in numbers engaging in apprenticeships, but to see engagement in apprenticeships that will mean something to employers and eventually offer a real alternative to university for our young people.

Phil Hatton, FE improvement consultant at Learning Improvement Service Ltd and former Ofsted HMI