What employers need to help improve apprenticeship completions 

Our new report, published this week, Enabling Better Outcomes: A wider view of apprenticeship success, has revealed that while employers overwhelmingly see the value in hiring apprentices, there are too many barriers to supporting apprentices to complete their apprenticeship programmes.

Crucially, we found that financial barriers hinder the progress of apprentices, as businesses – particularly SMEs – do not have the necessary funds to offer competitive pay, or time off, for apprentices to complete other elements of their apprenticeship.  

Employer perspectives 

This report is the second in our series looking at apprenticeship outcomes and destinations. Our 2022 report looked at apprentices’ perspectives, while this new release provides unique insights into the employers’ views on apprenticeship completions. 

To conduct this research, which was produced in partnership with Learning and Work Institute (L&W), we surveyed over 800 employers to better understand what leads to successful completions, and the challenges they face.

We found that almost all employers view apprenticeship completion as important but only 1 in 3 report completion rates of over 75 per cent, against the government’s target of 67 per cent by 2025. 

Employers told us that the number one barrier they face is the ability to arrange time off for apprentices to study, finish assignments, or complete off the job training. Financial support was raised as crucial to helping apprentices complete their programmes, as it helps cover off-the-job training time and can be used to help apprentices with direct costs, such as transport or childcare.

Employers also suggested their relationship with training providers posed additional challenges due to poor communication and lack of support, as well as lack of staff capacity to line manage apprentices and the ability to pay apprentices competitive rates. 

Importantly, we found that employers who place more value on completion believe apprentices gain better soft skills, industry knowledge and experience, and become more productive employees. 

Unsurprisingly, these employers experience higher completion rates, something that indicates completion is a value not just in itself, but because it has wider business benefits. 

This wider set of positive impacts underlines how apprenticeships play a crucial role in facilitating access to employment, bridging skills gaps, achieving economic growth, and, consequently, generating additional opportunities for the future.

Creating a system that supports employers  

We recommend several policies that would create a system that enables employers to support their apprentices to complete their programmes. 

As a starting point, the Department for Education should convene a stakeholder group to look at what can be done to help employers provide sufficient off-the-job training. Through close collaboration with businesses, additional support and guidance should be published on how this can be achieved, with a particular focus on SMEs, who in particular struggle with the costs of providing this. 

Internally, employers need to reflect on their organisational culture and take steps to create an environment that facilitates more pastoral support for apprentices. A key part of this should be more time being made to train line managers, who in turn can then more thoroughly support apprentices and drive completion rates. 

Additionally, the relationship between employers and training providers needs to be strengthened to support more apprentices. Both parties should be encouraged to consider enabling more three-party meetings – between apprentices, training providers, and employers – throughout apprenticeships, given the evidence this makes a strongly positive difference to apprentices and the prospects of completion. 

We know that high-quality apprenticeships benefit people, employers, and our economy, and are an integral part of the Government’s skills policy in England, but these ambitions cannot be realised unless we expand apprenticeship opportunities and raise completion rates. 

As ever, policymakers, employers, and training providers must work in tandem to create an environment that supports employers to support their apprentices to complete their programmes. Working together, we can see excellent results that will bring benefits to the individual, businesses, and the wider economy. 

The report, Enabling Better Outcomes: A wider view of apprenticeship success, can be downloaded here.

Legal explainer: Sexual misconduct and workplace sexual harassment

There have been a couple of recent changes in law to which colleges will need to adapt. The first change comes as a result of a recent case about sexual misconduct between students. The second relates to a new law covering sexual harassment in the workplace.

These two changes are separate (one covers students and the other covers staff), but they do cover similar topics and colleges need to be ready for both.

Student sexual misconduct

There has been a recent case about the investigation into reports of sexual misconduct made by two students about a fellow student. The students studied at a higher education college, although the findings apply just as much to further education colleges.

The judgment concluded that the college was negligent in the conduct of its disciplinary process and in its treatment of the two reporting students in the course of that process, causing them psychiatric harm. As a result, the students were awarded damages. 

What does this mean for colleges?

This case does not create a new duty of care. It applies the ordinary principles of a duty of care, albeit for the first time in the context of an education institution’s disciplinary proceedings for sexual misconduct.

There is no duty of care to prevent harm generally (self-harm or harm by third parties). The duty relates to matters that are within an institution’s reasonable control or matters for which it assumes responsibility.

The lesson of this case is that, if a college mishandles the disciplinary process in cases of alleged sexual assault, it is reasonably foreseeable that it is likely to cause or exacerbate psychiatric harm that often follows such an assault. If a person is left exposed to harm that arises from making a report or because they are unsupported, that harm is likely to make a college vulnerable to a successful claim.

Although every case is very much determined by its specific facts, this is an important reminder for colleges to review their practices. Serious sexual-misconduct cases can have significant consequences for both reporting and responding students and, if badly handled by institutions, can result in liability for the college. Does your college have policies and procedures in place to deal with such a situation?

Sexual harassment in the workplace

In the context of employment law, the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 comes into force in October 2024. This means that all employers, including colleges, will be under a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. If employers fail to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, then the Equality and Human Right Commission can take enforcement steps, plus any successful tribunal claim will be subject to a compensation uplift of up to 25 per cent.

What does this mean for colleges?

Colleges must understand what their obligations will be and put in place the correct policies and procedures to ensure that they can show they have taken such steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. This includes providing specific, tailored training to line managers and senior staff who are responsible for ensuring compliance with those policies and procedures.

Clear and unequivocal statements as to a college’s ‘zero-tolerance’ policy and approach to harassment should also be set out, perhaps by way of clearly displayed signs or notices. Colleges might also wish to consider having a central register of all harassment complaints raised, so that they can keep track of any areas with particular issues or trends and so that they can ensure they are addressed quickly. However, that would need to be carefully executed considering data protection rules.

The cost of getting it wrong could be extensive, with no cap on compensation in discrimination claims, plus the potential 25 per cent uplift on that compensation when employers fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

UCU staff up the ante in pay dispute with own bosses

Staff at the University and College Union have escalated a pay dispute with their bosses and accused them of “prioritising the pay of senior management”.

Talks broke down last week between Unite, the union representing over 200 UCU employees, and UCU management to the point where the union has demanded a meeting with UCU senior officers including president Justine Mercer.

UCU has offered staff a five per cent pay rise backdated to August 1, 2023, plus a 3.5 per cent pension-related uplift from January 1, 2024, a London weighting increase to £5,400 and a one-off non-consolidated £1,200 payment.

Employees have rejected the offer, instead demanding the percentage increases be translated into a flat sum for all staff, a compromise that a Unite UCU spokesperson told FE Week wouldn’t cost UCU any more than its offer.

“Clearly our employer’s priority during the cost-of-living crisis is to bolster senior manager pay at the expense of lower-paid staff,” the group said in a tweet last week.

A Unite UCU spokesperson told FE Week: “To resolve this dispute, we have tabled a compromise counter-proposal, which will not cost UCU a penny more than it has already offered; but it would redistribute the money already identified in a way which prioritises those on the lower part of the pay spine – those staff hit hardest by the cost-of-living crisis.”

Pressure is mounting on UCU bosses to resolve the dispute, especially as the ballot to vote for UCU general secretary and the national executive committee (NEC) begins next week. General secretary Jo Grady is standing for a second term and will compete against three other nominees.

UCU represents around 120,000 people working in universities and colleges. The union often attacks so-called “greedy” university and college bosses as it represents lecturers and other staff in their fight for higher pay and better working conditions.

UCU employees have been fighting bosses’ workplace policies as far back as last March, when Unite submitted their pay claim on behalf of UCU staff. 

Unite also launched a dispute over UCU’s failure to agree a hybrid working policy, as well as members voting to strike over colleague redundancies in September, and a dispute over UCU managers forming their own union.

Unite also reported UCU to the health and safety executive (HSE) – a safety regulator – last summer over concerns that the employer was not risk assessing the level of work-related stress of staff.

The HSE investigation found in November the employer breached health and safety law by not carrying out risk assessment at an organisational level, opting for individual stress risk assessments for employees who report work-related stress.

A UCU spokesperson said: “UCU staff do an incredible job for our members, and in return they rightly receive some of the best pay and terms and conditions in the whole trade union movement. 

“We are committed to ensuring that members are satisfied, and we remain hopeful that the 2023/24 pay round will be agreed as soon as possible, despite Unite members rejecting a consolidated pay offer worth 8.5 per cent as of January 2024, and a non-consolidated payment of £1,200. This equates to an in-year salary increase of around 11 per cent (excluding London allowance) for those on a midpoint salary.

“UCU met with Unite last week, where we offered to reconfigure how the non-consolidated amount is paid and look forward to resolving this pay round.”

A Unite UCU spokesperson said: “As a trade union UCU should model the values and the practices that it wishes to see all employers uphold. It is deeply disappointing, therefore, that UCU as an employer has disregarded the key trade union value of solidarity by prioritising the pay of senior management at the expense of lower paid staff.

“It is now up to UCU as an employer to do the right thing by agreeing to our compromise proposal. Any other response would be contrary to the interests of UCU staff and contrary to the interests of UCU members.”

Union representation of union staff members is not out of the ordinary, nor are internal disputes at unions.

Unite also represents employees of the National Education Union (NEU). Last November, members voted for strike action, rejecting the employer’s five per cent pay offer.

Meanwhile, one of the UK’s largest unions, GMB, was found to be institutionally sexist by an independent inquiry in 2020. Last year, another inquiry found sexism, bullying and a “mafia-like” culture was pervasive at Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association rail union.

Council spending on post-16 SEND place creation just 1% of total pot

Councils have spent just one per cent of a grant pot earmarked for creating tens of thousands of new specialist education places on post-16 providers, new data has revealed.

Of the £1.55 billion used by local authorities from the high needs provision capital allocation (HNPCA) grant to date, £20 million has gone towards post-16 learners.

From the 20,000 SEND places this funding creates, only 160 will be for young people with SEND in post-16 education.

The grant was announced by the Department for Education in 2021 when ministers committed £2.6 billion to spend over three financial years, from April 2022 to March 2025. By the start of 2024, £1.55 billion had been distributed. The remainder will be handed over in the 2024-25 financial year.

SEND experts said the level of spend on post-16 places “wasn’t a surprise, but it was disappointing”.

Matt Keer, SEND specialist at the Special Needs Jungle website which obtained the data through a Freedom of Information request, told FE Week: “With FE, the SEND system rarely misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and it’s happened again with this capital grant.

“Young people with complex special educational needs often have few local choices when they reach 16. This funding will make very little difference to their situation.”

Clare Howard, chief executive of specialist college membership organisation Natspec, added: “It’s disappointing as we’ve been pushing DfE and local authorities for years to remember post-16 and further education in those grant allocations.”

A Local Government Association (LGA) spokesperson said: “These are local decisions for councils to make, in consultation with parents and schools. Councils would likely have consulted SEND groups and these decisions therefore reflect local priorities.

“The Department for Education has indicated that they want most of the funding directed to schools, with capital funding likely going to new places in special schools, where there is a shortage of spaces.”

The LGA spokesperson added: “Post-16 colleges are more flexible and can accommodate SEND without building new sites due to the lack of limits on class sizes.”

Howard disagreed. “There are a lot of colleges finding it very difficult to find spaces for the number of young people that need places in further education across general FE and specialist colleges,” she said.

“Most of our members have restricted sites. They may well be able to put extra buildings on that site, but they don’t have the capital funding to do that.

“Most of our members are charities, and they’ve had to use their charitable funding, they’ve had to draw down reserves from their charity to build new spaces for these learners.”

A 2021 Natspec survey found that 53 per cent of 125 member colleges had buildings in need of urgent repair, or within the next two years. The majority (96 per cent) of colleges said that their buildings would need repairs within 10 years.

Howard pointed out that specialist colleges are also locked out of the £1.5 billion FE capital transformation fund, the £1 billion plus school transformation fund, and are unable to bid for the post-16 capacity fund available to FE colleges.

Calls have been renewed for the government to create a separate capital improvement fund for specialist colleges to develop their estates.

In October, conservative MP Jo Gideon wrote to the minister for children, families and wellbeing David Johnston to call for FE’s eligibility for capital funding rounds and a one-off urgent capital improvement fund.

“This lack of access to capital funding is adversely affecting some of the most vulnerable 16 to 25-year-olds currently in the system,” she wrote. “They are learning in cold, drafty and damp buildings, as a result of failing boilers, leaking roofs and single-glazed windows, or in teaching spaces that cannot adequately accommodate their wheelchairs or the specialist equipment they need to hand.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “It is the decision of the local authorities to determine how best to use their high needs capital allocations to meet local priorities.

“Local authorities can use their high needs capital allocation to work with any school or institution in their area, including academies. They are also free to choose to spend the funding across the 0-25 age range, including in dedicated post-16 institutions or other FE settings.”

Collab Group closes after 20 years

A national body that has represented UK further education colleges for nearly two decades has closed.

Members of the Collab Group were offered refunds for their annual membership subscriptions last month, and were told the organisation would soon be dissolved.

A communication to member colleges sent in early December said: “The board of directors have made the decision to dissolve Collab Group. The company will officially be closed from December 31, 2023.”

It is not yet clear precisely what will happen to Collab Group as a company, but multiple principals of member colleges told FE Week they expect it to be subsumed into the Association of Colleges (AoC).

The company was listed as active on Companies House at the time of going to press but its website has been removed.

FE Week understands the Collab Group board, chaired by LTE Group chief executive John Thornhill, is in talks with the AoC about how it can better represent large college groups. Those talks are ongoing, and no decisions have yet been made about whether a formal merger of the two organisations is on the cards.

Thornhill paid tribute to Collab’s “distinguished history” in the sector and said the board is exploring options.

He told FE Week: “The Collab Group has a distinguished history of supporting its members across the UK in shaping and delivering skills policy. In recent months the Collab Group Board has been working closely with members to identify their priorities and the role they would like Collab to play in representing their interests going forwards.

“We have also held positive discussions with a range of partners and senior stakeholders, including government departments, ministers and other representative bodies. Our deliberations also include a review of sector representation nationally and of representation in the devolved regions. We will confirm our future plans once these have been finalised.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, told FE Week: “We have had several discussions with the Collab board about the needs and opportunities for large college groups. They’ve been positive discussions, but nothing has yet been decided.”

Collab Group chief executive Ian Pretty retired from his role in December and was not replaced. It had 26 member colleges from across the UK at the time, a number which has fluctuated over the years.

Its website is no longer active, and it hasn’t posted on its X or LinkedIn pages since May. Companies House lists seven company directors, including Pretty, Thornhill and the leaders of Newham College, Bradford College and Walsall College.

Collab was founded in 2006 as the 157 Group following a review of further education colleges commissioned by the then secretary of state for education, Charles Clarke, and Chris Banks, the then chair of the Learning and Skills Council, a predecessor to the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

The review, Realising the potential: A review of the future role of further education colleges, was led by Sir Andrew Foster and was published in 2005.

Paragraph 157 of Foster’s report called for “greater involvement of principals in national representation, in particular those from larger, successful colleges where management capacity and capability exists to release them for this work”.

“There is a strong need for articulate FE college principals to be explaining the services they give society and how colleges can make a significant contribution to the economy and to developing fulfilled citizens,” Foster said.

A year later, the 157 Group, named after Foster’s paragraph above, was formed, initially as a group representing large and Ofsted ‘outstanding’ colleges. It was reported at the time as an equivalent to the Russell Group for universities given its “elite” membership requirements.

Over the years, under the leadership of Lynne Sedgemore, the group became a high-profile national voice for colleges and widened its membership criteria to allow more colleges to join.

Sedgemore told FE Week she was “very sad” to hear the news of Collab’s closure.

“I am very sad to hear this. In its heyday, 157 Group made a significant contribution from the particular perspective of large urban colleges on various fronts. I wish everyone involved a successful way forward,” she said.

Sedgemore retired as CEO in 2015 and was succeeded by Ian Pretty, who quickly launched a review of the organisation’s role which led to the rebranding of 157 Group to Collab Group.

Under Pretty’s leadership, the group pivoted away from high-profile policy and political work and instead focused on college commercial activities and supporting its members on specific government priorities, such as apprenticeships, Institutes of Technology, and higher technical skills.

Ofsted reforms to ensure ‘no more tragedies’

Ofsted will look at “decoupling” safeguarding from judgements, publish reports quicker, and appoint a sector expert to lead an independent inquiry into how it responded to the death of Ruth Perry.

Today Sir Martyn Oliver, the chief inspector, accepted all of the senior coroner Heidi Connor’s recommendations as he issued a heartfelt apology for the watchdog’s role in the death of the Caversham Primary School headteacher. 

Both Ofsted and the Department for Education have published their response to Connor’s prevention of future deaths report.

Ruth Perry

Oliver “apologised sincerely for the part our inspection of her school played in [Ruth’s] death” and said: “As the new HMCI, I will do everything in my power to help ensure that inspections are carried out with professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect and with consideration for staff welfare. 

“Such tragedies should never happen again, and no one should feel as Ruth did.”

The Ofsted changes

The inspectorate will run a formal, internal review of how safeguarding fits with individual inspection judgements, including whether it should be “decoupled” from the leadership grade and have its own judgement entirely.

An independent, expert-led learning review is to be commissioned into Ofsted’s response to Perry’s death. The inspectorate will review its “quality assurance processes” with a view to slashing “the time between inspection and publication of the report.” 

An “expert reference group” will also be created to “provide constructive challenge to Ofsted,” focusing on “aspects of training and where well-being might be incorporated more explicitly across the education inspection framework.” 

Connor last month ruled an Ofsted inspection in November 2022 contributed to Perry’s suicide in January last year.

This will come alongside the “Big Listen” consultation and further mental health training that has been already promised.

Ofsted also admitted that there had “previously been no clear, written policy for pausing inspections.” 

During Perry’s inquest, Connor said it was “suggested by Ofsted witnesses that it is an option to pause an ongoing inspection because of reasons of teacher distress.” 

The DfE’s response

The government’s response had fewer clear-cut changes. The DfE has reviewed how it communicates with schools facing intervention to ensure contact is “undertaken sensitively and with full consideration of the possible impact on school leaders.” 

DfE does not make clear how much of its response will apply to the FE sector.

Training on how to pick up on distress and adequately respond has been delivered to all officials in the DfE’s regions group and “relevant” staff at the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

Future work on “tone and style” of communications is planned, including on termination warning notices.

The DfE will also launch a call for evidence on whether further changes to safeguarding guidance are needed. This will run alongside Ofsted’s “Big Listen,” with small clarifications from September and “any fundamental changes made in 2025.” 

Speaking earlier this week, education secretary Gillian Keegan said when appointing Oliver she “was making sure that we got somebody who recognised that we needed to have a different culture, a different approach, a more supportive approach to inspection as well.” 

The sector response

Professor Julia Waters, Perry’s sister, said Ofsted’s “new direction is encouraging. Had these reforms been in place just over a year ago, perhaps my beautiful sister Ruth might still be with us today.”

“Much work now needs to be done to bring about the radical overhaul to the culture of school inspections, so that a tragedy like Ruth’s cannot happen again,” she added.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges said: “I welcome the promise of transparency and openness to rebuild and strengthen confidence in Ofsted and inspection.”

“While a lot of the discussion has been focused on schools, there are very real consequences for colleges when a grade 3 or 4 is given around funding and provision. AoC is in talks with both the government and Ofsted about how those rules can change to support, rather than hinder, colleges to continually improve,” he said.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said Ofsted’s response showed “positive steps in the right direction”, but “does not address all the problems with the inspection system.” 

Inspections are due to restart on Monday, when all lead inspectors should have completed new mental health awareness training.

Ofsted Ruth Perry report response: What you need to know

Ofsted and the Department for Education have responded to a prevention of future deaths report from the coroner who oversaw the inquest into headteacher Ruth Perry’s death.

Here is your trusty FE Week speed read on what inspection changes the watchdog has promised today (and a reminder of what changes have already been implemented). Ofsted have confirmed that changes affecting schools will also apply to colleges unless otherwise stated.

Coroner’s concern 1

The schools with serious safeguarding concerns and those with issues that can be fixed quickly receive the same overall grade.

What Ofsted plans to do:

  • Conduct a formal internal review of where safeguarding fits with individual inspection judgments
  • Explore having safeguarding as a standalone judgement, “decoupled” from the leadership and management grade
  • Examine whether further changes can provide more time for improvement with ‘ineffective’ safeguarding but judged ‘good’ or better in other areas
  • Hold a comprehensive listening exercise called “The Big Listen” between March and June
  • “Where appropriate,” changes will come in immediately. Ofsted will consult by September on more major changes, and introduce them in the 2024-25 academic year

Coroner’s concern 2

An ‘almost complete absence’ of training or policy on spotting and dealing with distress and pausing inspections

  • Publish a new policy today on pausing inspections where a serious issue has been identified requiring “substantial action”
  • Develop a long-term programme of training for inspectors on mental health and supporting leaders’ wellbeing, with a roadmap due this spring
  • Form an expert reference group to provide “constructive challenge” and look at “aspects of training and where well-being might be incorporated more explicitly across the education inspection framework”
  • DfE regions group will proactively notify responsible bodies when a provider receives an adverse inspection outcome

Coroner’s concern 3

Absence of a clear path to raise concerns during an inspection if these cannot be resolved directly with the lead inspector

  • Work with sector bodies to make sure “roles, responsibilities and process for raising and responding to concerns about leaders’ welfare” are understood clearly by the inspection team and the responsible body
  • Clarify in handbooks, guidance, code of conduct and complaints procedures how providers can raise concerns about inspectors’ behaviour. Process to be complete by the end of March

Coroner’s concern 4

Changes to the confidentiality requirement after an inspection have not yet been written into policy, meaning some leaders may fear discussing outcomes

  • Communicate the message that leaders can share provisional outcomes and the draft inspection report with those they deem appropriate, including partners, health professionals and those providing personal support

Coroner’s concern 5

Timescales for report publication

  • Review, in the first half of 2024, quality assurance processes to “see if we can make further changes to reduce the amount of time between an inspection and the publication of a report”
  • Findings will feed into the “Big Listen” and will be part of the proposals put to the sector and parents for their views
  • Where reports do take longer to be published, “we will endeavour to explain why”

Coroner’s concern 6

No learning review of these matters was conducted by Ofsted. There is no policy requiring this to be done

  • By March, appoint a “recognised expert from the education sector to lead an independent learning review of Ofsted’s response” to Perry’s death
  • The independent expert will consider “whether Ofsted’s internal policies and processes for responding to tragic incidents need to be revised”
  • Define clearly the “circumstances in which a learning review will be commissioned, who will conduct it, how it will be carried out and arrangements for publishing and disseminating the lessons learned”

Coroner’s concern 7

Ofsted was not able to say what additional support government was providing for leaders

  • Ensure inspectors are “conversant with this support and ready to remind leaders that it is available”
  • Through training, “reinforce the expectation that they share this information with leaders at the beginning of an inspection”

Refresher: What Ofsted has already done

  • Updated handbooks to make clear that providers can fix minor administrative issues during inspections (schools only)
  • Introduced policy of revisiting schools with safeguarding issues but that are otherwise “good” within three months
  • Introduced a national safeguarding duty desk that inspectors can call if evidence points to ineffective safeguarding
  • Changed its handbook to allow leaders to have a colleague join discussions with inspectors
  • Introduced a helpline for managing concerns about the inspection process
  • All lead inspectors are now required to request contact details of the person responsible for leaders’ wellbeing
  • All lead inspectors are given mental health awareness training. All remaining inspectors to be trained by end of March
  • Proposed a new complaints process allowing providers to contact Ofsted the day after an inspection and for direct escalation to an independent body

Latest apprenticeship funding review uprates 35 standards

Funding bands for a further 35 apprenticeships have been increased following the government’s review of the 100 supposedly “most-used” apprenticeship standards.

However, some apprenticeships that received the largest increase had low, or even no starts in 2022/23.

The Department for Education tasked the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education with reviewing and updating 100 apprenticeship standards as part of its “crackdown on rip-off university degrees” media push over the summer.

IfATE then told the sector it would “review the content of 100 of the most-used standards so they reflect the latest technological advancements and work better for employers and apprentices”.

FE Week revealed in September that just 59 apprenticeships had so far been reviewed. IfATE confirmed this week that the process has now been completed, and 127 apprenticeships have now been reviewed, exceeding its target.

The biggest winner from this week’s update was the level 6 church minister degree apprenticeship which received a £9,000 funding increase and now attracts £22,000. Government data on apprenticeships starts though show that 10 apprentices took that standard in 2020/21, with none since.

Click here to see the full list of reviewed apprenticeship standards

Analysis by FE Week shows 21 of the 127 reviewed standards, which excludes new apprenticeships, had no starts in 2022/23. However, of those, 14 have been either retired or replaced as a result of the review.

Forty-one standards chosen for the review had fewer than 20 starts in 2022/23.

The most popular apprenticeship deemed worthy of a funding increase as part of this review was the level 3 early years educator, as reported by FE Week last week, moving up from £6,000 to £7,000.

Level 3 plumbing and heating technicians can now attract £22,000, up from £21,000, and funding for the level 2 supply chain warehouse operative apprenticeship has been increased from £3,000 to £5,000.

Three standards have seen their funding reduced. The level 2 arborist, now £12,000; the level 3 battery manufacturing technician, now £24,000; and the level 3 process industry manufacturing technician, now £24,000. They were each reduced by £3,000.

IfATE said the 127 reviewed apprenticeships were taken by over 60,000 apprentices each year.

Ben Rowland, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “Employers and providers need to see this momentum continue as regularly reviewed standards are central to a high quality and sustainable provider market which helps meet the needs of employers.”

“There are also aspects of the funding model which still need attention – including the list of eligible costs and the data which feeds into the model on fixed inputs (such as initial assessment, formative assessment and administration). We also need to fairly fund providers for every aspects that they’re expected to deliver such as Prevent and British values,” Rowland said. 

Robert Halfon, minister for skills and apprenticeships, said it was “fantastic news” that IfATE exceeded its target.

“It’s vital that we ensure all apprenticeships remain up to date and offer high-quality training so more people and businesses can benefit, and we can grow the economy.”

Halfon also hailed “almost 80 per cent of the standards revised received a funding boost, including those in key sectors such as social care, transport and logistics and engineering”.

However, FE Week analysis of previous and current funding bands shows that only 45, or 60 per cent, of the 76 apprenticeships that were not new, retired or replaced received a funding increase.

As previously announced, the apprenticeship which received the largest funding increase in IfATE’s review was the level 6 chartered legal executive, which increased in September from £12,000 to £27,000. Forty apprentices started that standard in 2022/23.

The review resulted in 26 apprenticeship standards being retired, most of which had low or no starts recorded.

Alongside church ministers, level 4 healthcare science associate apprentices now also attract more funding, with their funding band increasing from £9,000 to £16,000. The level 3 spectacle maker standard, which was taken by 60 apprentices in 2022/23, had seen its funding doubled to £8,000.

Others, like the level 7 solicitor and level 6 civil engineering degree apprenticeships were reviewed but did not receive a funding increase.

Jennifer Coupland, chief executive of IfATE, said: “This has put us in a fantastic position starting the new year with apprenticeships bang up to date with the latest industry requirements. I’m absolutely delighted to have exceeded this target. 

“Achieving it required everyone at IfATE to maintain laser focus and I would like to say a huge thanks to all the large and small businesses across the country who advised on what was needed.”

Almost 50 jobs at risk as college seeks £1m savings

A north east college has put around 50 jobs at risk in a bid to make savings of £1 million, citing under-recruitment of students in several areas.

Tyne Coast College expects to make 22 posts – or 17 full-time equivalent posts – redundant in addition to placing a hiring freeze on non-critical staff. It will also not fill the nine currently vacant posts “to mitigate redundancy” and offer voluntary redundancy elsewhere.

The move has angered the University and College Union, who labelled the proposal as a “kick in the teeth for hard-working staff”.

Tyne Coast College’s proposal follows a series of strikes from staff, who took to the picket lines last June and September over low pay, and the controversial closure of its sixth form. 

Tyne Coast College chief executive Lindsey Whiterod told FE Week: “Efficiencies need to be made due to under-recruitment in certain curriculum areas for 16 to 18 learners, as well as apprenticeships and higher education.”

The college recruited 2,200 16 to 18-year-old students in 2022/23, a drop from 2,400 in the previous academic year. 

However, the college saw 100 more apprentices and the same number of higher education students – 1,100 – in 2023 compared to the year before. It did report a drop in adult learners from 4,600 to 4,000 in 2022/23.

The college’s enrolment figures for 2023/24 are not yet publicly available.

According to its 2023 financial accounts, the college generated a deficit of £3.3 million, down from a £3.5 million deficit the year prior.

Whiterod said the college needed to make necessary savings worth £1 million.

But, this is not the first time the college has made headlines this year. 

Bosses had proposed to close its sixth form – Queen Alexandra Sixth Form College in Wallsend — abruptly last summer due to a decline in numbers. The decision was delayed by one year after community backlash. It will now close at the end of this academic year.

Staff had agreed to strikes in October over a three per cent pay award but were called off at the last minute after a better deal was reached.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Coming so soon after strike action over low pay and the closure of an entire sixth form campus, this is a real kick in the teeth for hard-working staff at Tyne Coast College. 

“Management has yet to provide any information to substantiate claims it has to sack staff and unless it starts engaging meaningfully in the consultation process the college is at risk of acting unlawfully.

“North and south of the Tyne, our members have continued to give everything to their jobs and the education of our local communities. Being told they are no longer wanted less than halfway through the academic year will not be a welcome message.”