Upholding need for teacher qualifications

Ruth Mathias raises concern about the government decision, which was implemented earlier this month, to remove the requirement for FE lecturers to have teaching qualifications.

The decision to remove the requirement for teaching qualifications for FE lecturers mean candidates with no prior teacher training, or professional teaching qualifications, could now secure lecturing roles in FE colleges.

Widespread concern over the negative impact this could have on the quality of teaching and professionalism in FE colleges — which will in turn affect students, representatives from the Institute for Learning, the University and College Union and the National Union of Students — has put pressure on the government to reverse the decision.

The fall in top grades for the second year running, following the recent A-level results, marks a new trend of falling top level grades.

This trend surely highlights the need for measures to be taken to improve the standard of teaching, rather than legislation that could lower standards.

Many senior figures agree with this viewpoint across FE.

We believe very strongly in maintaining a high standard of teaching across FE“

Theresa Ann Drowley OBE, chief executive of Redbridge College, said: “The removal of teacher qualifications will be detrimental to the profession and to learners in colleges.

“Teachers who go through the process of gaining teaching qualifications provide reassurance regarding their ability to write and research. This college will continue to require teaching qualifications in our efforts to move the college forward and deliver a quality process.”

Jayne Stigger, head of maths and science at Nescot College [North East Surrey College of Technology], said: “Qualified teaching staff actively enable the development of the whole student, motivating and applying specialist techniques to differentiate learning to suit the student.  The removal of the need for qualified staff will actively work towards lowering the standards that FE professionals have worked tirelessly to improve”

It’s feared the removal of the requirement for FE lecturers to have teaching qualifications could negate the positive impact of the 2012 Ofsted changes within the FE sector.

Coming into effect on September 1, last year, these changes were implemented to provide greater focus on the quality of teaching and learning in colleges.

More time is now spent observing lessons and a more robust inspection criteria was supposed to support head teachers and principals in their work to provide the best possible education for pupils and learners.

Morgan Hunt is proud to be one of the top recruitment agencies in the UK, offering specialist recruitment services to a wide range of clients.

We will not be changing our criteria in regards to recruiting FE lecturers, as we think this would undermine our efforts to supply high calibre candidates to FE clients, as Sue Cooper, director of education at Morgan Hunt, explained.

She said: “There is a considerable amount of government investment in initiatives to reduce the number of Neet (not in employment, education or training) young people and increase their employability.

“This latest decision by the government to remove the teacher qualifications requirement for lecturers in the FE sector seems contradictory to that mission. We believe very strongly in maintaining a high standard of teaching across FE.”

We will therefore still require a teaching qualification from all candidates.

 Ruth Mathias, web editor of Morgan Hunt Education recruitment agency

 

 

Lynsi Hayward-Smith, head of adult learning and skills, Cambridgeshire County Council

The tale of Lynsi Hayward-Smith’s journey into FE management, she says, “is an ongoing story of being excited by what I do”.

“Any challenge, any opportunity, I’m always interested,” she says.

“I’ve never been in the same job for very long. I’ve been in the same organisation, but I’m always thinking what can we do here, what changes can we make, how can we make things better.”

But change has not always been her friend.

Now aged 60, Hayward-Smith harboured dreams of becoming a ballerina in her youth, but then she grew too tall.

“The maximum height was 5ft 6 and I’m 5ft 7, which was slightly devastating at the time,” she says, ruefully.

Her second career choice — a primary school teacher — was influenced by her childhood, when her family moved frequently due to her father, Henry’s job as a public sector architect.

“I was born in Worcester and then moved around the country — a bit of time in Hertfordshire, a bit of time in Yorkshire, a bit of time in Essex, where I live now,” explains Hayward-Smith, who has two grown up children — Lucy, aged 32, and Lily, 27.

She now lives in a converted 17th century barn, “with roots and beams— it’s a home that feels like a home,” she says.

And having roots is important to Hayward-Smith, “particularly when I was bringing my children up, I didn’t really want them to have the kind of experience I did of having to be the new girl eight times,” she says.

She adds: “I went to, I think, a total of eight different schools.

“I was aware of teachers and how important they were, as they were the people I first knew in those schools… and they had different skills and qualities.

“I was doing a bit of an evaluation and thinking ‘I could do that’, although I didn’t have that in my ambitions then — I was still being a ballerina at the time. I could see there were some teachers who just got it right and made you feel like you’d got potential.”

Lynsi Hayward-Smith and (inset) aged 11 with four year old brother Rick in 1964

Hayward-Smith credits one of those many teachers, a “Mrs Stewart,” with inspiring her love of poetry, particularly, she says, WB Yeats and Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko.

“Mrs Stewart loved poetry and she really switched me on to it,” she says.

“But she brought alive for me the idea of how prose and poetry can communicate ideas in this very beautiful way.”

So could writing have been another career path for Hayward-Smith?

“I wrote reams of dreadful poetry,” she admits, laughing, but says she hasn’t attempted a novel, “yet — but there’s always hope”.

With so many possible directions, it’s no wonder that Hayward-Smith’s working life has been somewhat varied.

She completed her teacher training at Hockerill Teacher Training College in 1974 and took up a job in a Lancashire primary school that she “absolutely loved”.

From there she moved into the role of community liaison teacher, working across three different schools with children who found school challenging, and it was during this job that “things really took off”.

“I really enjoyed that, being able to help them make connections, help them resolve their problems, see them move on, change and develop,” says Hayward-Smith.

She continued in this role until the birth of her children.

“I didn’t take very much of a gap,” says Hayward-Smith.

“I was asked to work in the voluntary sector running the East Herts Community play bus which went out to rural villages where they had absolutely no early years provision, offering activities for families, somewhere for mothers to connect and for young children to learn through play.

“It was a bit of a departure, but something I could really see the value of.

“It gave a whole raft experience of working in a sector where money is tight and we make it go a really long way, learning how to offer something which is of enormous value to people that doesn’t actually involve huge resource but is in the right place at the right time, which was really fulfilling.”

And so her move into FE happened “slightly by accident”.

“I was asked to go and speak to a group of young students about the work of the play bus and the lecturer that invited me eventually said ‘why don’t you come and work for us?’,” she explains.

“At the same time I started teaching some adult literacy, again, something which was specifically aimed at people who needed to re-engage with education and come back into it. It was a very fulfilling and interesting time.”

Although she is now in management, she says her time teaching has made her keenly aware of the importance of frontline teaching staff in FE.

I am actually a waste of space without the frontline“

“I am actually a waste of space without the frontline,” she says.

“We can talk about how we envision [the sector] but if it’s not happening in the classrooms… if learners’ outcomes are not what they need them to be, then we’ve wasted our time.”

She adds: “That’s why the Education and Training Foundation is so important in terms of the professionalisation of the front line.

“I think change is challenging for everyone, but it depends where you are in that change and how much autonomy you have over it.

“I think when you’re making changes you have to go to the person with the least ability
to affect the change and find out if it’s alright with them.”

And this equally applies to the foundation, she says.

“I do think it’s really important that we bring the sector with us.”

But Hayward-Smith has not quite given up teaching. She plans to put a recently-acquired coaching and mentoring qualification to good use, helping her junior county council colleagues.

“I still love it when I get to do some staff development or where I get to go into a class and work with people,” she says.

“It’s about passing on my skills, if you like, but also being able to see a vision of an organisation going in a particular direction.

“It’s taking all of the ingredients that I gathered around me, working on a playbus, working in classroom, working in adult literacy, all those bits of experience and using them to help me shape the future.”

And Hayward-Smith’s plans for her own development include improving her coaching and learning Italian.

“I’ve been in education for 39 years and it’s still fresh and exciting and there are still things I need to do,” she explains.

“I think having aspirations for yourself rubs off on the people around you, if you appear to be satisfied with where you are, that’s not very exciting for the people you’re with.

“If you ever stop developing yourself then the time has come to hang up your whatevers.”

 

Labour sticks with forced apprentice plan

Business leaders have attacked Labour leader Ed Miliband’s plans to make firms train a “local” apprentice for every foreign worker they employ.

John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, labelled the proposal an “apprentice tax” on employers.

He said: “Businesses need to be able to choose the talents and resource they need and sometimes cannot find in the UK. This immigration benefits Britain. This is an apprentice tax on employers.”

We will require every large firm hiring a migrant worker from outside the EU to offer an apprenticeship in return.”

Meanwhile, the Confederation of British Industry said the plan — which Labour claim would produce up to 125,000 new apprentices — was unnecessary, as firms wanted to take on more apprentices regardless of immigration.

Neil Carberry, director of employment and skills, said: “These proposals could add to red tape. If we want to get more businesses offering apprentices, it will be crucial to keep bureaucracy to a minimum.”
It comes just days after the Hays’ Global Skills Index 2013 report called for a review of immigration policies to attract more skilled overseas workers.

It warned expanding industries, such as energy, IT and construction, had been unable to find enough skilled workers in the last year to fill their vacancies.

The report has cast further doubt on Labour’s proposal, which, it is argued, could deter firms from employing skilled immigrants.

Even Labour’s own House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee chair Adrian Bailey conceded the policy needed “a lot more work”.

“This has the potential to allow overseas workers to fill short-term skills gaps, but it could also encourage more domestic apprentices to be taken on to meet long-term skills needs,” he said.

“Concerns have been expressed about the policy. The Labour shadow team obviously needs to do a lot more work with industry to ensure this can be done in a way that will benefit all sides.”
Mr Miliband announced the proposal two weeks ago before Labour’s Brighton conference.

But Tory Skills Minister Matthew Hancock swiftly dismissed the idea, claiming it would be illegal under EU law to force firms to take on British-only apprentices.

Labour retaliated by insisting Mr Miliband meant firms would have to hire apprentices from EU countries — which would not be illegal.

And Shadow Immigration Minister Chris Bryant appeared to further soften the party’s position in a blog for the Huffington Post on Wednesday.

He said: “We will ensure companies have to invest in training local people, by requiring firms that wish to bring in workers from outside the EU offer apprenticeships in return.”

A spokesman for Labour’s leadership team insisted the party was standing by the original policy.

He said: “We will require every large firm hiring a migrant worker from outside the EU to offer an apprenticeship in return.”

Dress to impress or dress to de-stress?

Former House of Commons EducationSelect Committee specialist  Ben Nicholls is head of policy and communications at London’s Newham College. He writes exclusively for FE Week every month.

A little while ago, an acquaintance of mine — a rather dapper management consultant — confessed that he’d been asked to change the way he dressed in the workplace.

He’d been at a well-regarded media organisation, and, trying to impress, turned up in a sharp suit, crisp shirt, polished shoes — the works.

After a few days, colleagues gently suggested he was dressing “too smartly”.

Clearly, trainers, hoodies and jeans were the order of the day — his traditional tailoring was apparently making people feel tense and unproductive.

The days when everyone wore suits, uniforms or overalls to work are firmly over.

Organisations now operate every dress code imaginable, from the trendy office where my consultant chum got reprimanded to a city law firm which reportedly warned short-skirted women (“generally looking like we’re going clubbing instead of to the office”) to prepare for “uncomfortable discussions” with HR.

And it seems as if schools and colleges are just as varied too.

Perhaps there’s a case for lots of us, students and staff, donning a sharper suit a little more often“

In the four places I was educated (and that itself was some time ago), the dress codes varied from prescription grey suit and school tie, through to whatever we wanted.

And, while it might be assumed that young people preferred the latter, it doesn’t seem quite that simple.

At that school — a huge public elementary in East Coast USA — there was real pressure around clothes to constantly be as trendy and up-to-date as your peers, many of whom came from wildly differing economic backgrounds.

There were times when I longed for the red jumpers and black trousers of my primary school back across the pond, and I suspect my parents felt the same.

And in colleges like those most of us work in, dress codes are rare.

Our students wear whatever they want, and certainly at Newham this contributes to a sense of youthfulness and diversity across the campuses.

Many of our students have, of course, had less than optimal experiences of previous education, and sometimes this is because they weren’t sufficiently treated like adults – something I’ve advocated in this column before, and which I know many colleagues across the country feel strongly about, too.

Not wearing uniform can be a really important way of nurturing that independence, maturity and self-responsibility.

But there’s another argument which suggests that a lack of any dress code achieves completely the opposite.

Adults, in reality, have to conform to all sorts of dress codes, whether they’re required for practical reasons — hairnets for caterers, branded t-shirts for retail staff — or for vaguer notions of officewear, as in the media and law firms mentioned earlier.

There are rules and guidelines for parties, for weddings, for travel, for meetings, and for any number of religious and cultural settings.

Given that employability skills and preparation for later life are such an important part of colleges’ teaching, there’s a real argument that some form of ‘business casual’ dress code in college could work to students’ advantage when it comes to interview time — and at the same time it could, perhaps, make them feel more trusted and respected than a ‘free-for-all’ dress policy.

Of course, many learners already wear uniform of one sort or another, engineers, for example, and construction trainees, and extending that idea might foster a sense of fairness across a college community.

Such discussions are active and alive at Newham College, and thoughts or opinions from other institutions would be really welcome.

The discussions thrive elsewhere, too, and there is research suggesting that, in fact, the impact of wearing uniform is more positive on achievement in older students than younger.

But similarly, much research is inconclusive, including that examining the influence of adults’ dress on workplace productivity.

As someone who hates wearing a tie, I have my own views on that, but perhaps there’s a case for lots of us, students and staff, donning a sharper suit a little more often.

Unless, of course, we’re planning to work for a large media firm, in which case crack out the Converse.

Minister boosts traineeships with £20m – but only for 19 to 23s

An extra £20m funding will be available for over 19 traineeships, but there is no new cash for 16 to 18-year-olds despite a “pressing” need.

The funding, announced by Skills Minister Matthew Hancock on Thursday, is for the government’s flagship scheme which offers learners work experience alongside English, maths and employability training.
The cash has been welcomed by the sector, but some people have expressed concerns that it will be restricted to the programme for 19 to 23-year-olds.

We are continuing to push the agency to ensure funds are available for colleges where needed.”

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesperson said the money was “additional funding, re-prioritised from existing budgets outside of the adult skills budget,” but was unable to comment more specifically on where the funding had come from.

“The additional funding has been made available by the Skills Funding Agency for provision to those aged 19 and over,” he added.

“This funding will be available to eligible providers of all types including colleges and private training organisations.”

At least one college has turned down the opportunity to provide traineeships for 16 to 18-year-olds since the scheme started in August, citing a lack of government funding as reported by FE Week last month.
ASCL general secretary Brian Lightman (pictured) said: “We are very disappointed to hear this funding is only available for post 19-year-olds, when the pressing need is for younger students to have access to this important route into apprenticeships and higher level training.”

Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: “It seems bizarre not to fund traineeships for all under-24s because all unemployed young people need help to get a job.
“This is another illustration of the government’s disjointed policy-making on the hoof.”

She added: “It may grab the headlines, but it won’t work in practice.”

Traineeships were originally announced in January and initially were only for 16 to 18-year-olds.

The extension of the scheme to 19 to 23-year-olds was announced in late June and assistant chief executive of the Association of Colleges Julian Gravatt told FE Week this had caused “uncertainty” and “had an effect on numbers” on the programme.

He said: “The decision to allocate £20m to support employers and independent training providers will help to drive up numbers, but it is important the government does not overlook the way in which colleges can make a difference in helping young adults from all backgrounds move out of unemployment and into work.

“We are continuing to push the agency to ensure funds are available for colleges where needed.”

New loans being used for leisure

The government’s £232m pot of cash for FE loans could be going on courses not aimed at getting people into a job or higher education, FE Week has learned.

The cash was set aside by the Skills Funding Agency to fund provider “loan facilities” as part of the new 24+ advanced learning loans system, launched two months ago.

But FE Week has found loans being used to fund leisure-focussed courses, despite apprenticeship loan applications failing to take off.

Shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden has told of his concerns the loans may not be getting directed towards “retraining” and “reskilling”.

“I will be asking the agency to look into the information FE Week has brought to light,” he said.

It comes amid a government review of adult qualifications by Nigel Whitehead, BAE Systems group managing director of programmes and support.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock told FE Week: “One of my goals in reviewing qualifications has always been to ensure they have a clear line of sight to work.”

He added: “We plan to deliver that through traineeships and there’s no reason that adult qualifications should be any different.”

Among the leisure-focussed courses being advertised with the loan offer is a level three Royal Horticultural Society certificate in horticulture. It covers “practical skills” such as planting and pruning.
It is run at, among others, Bicton College, in Devon, where it is taught on a Monday afternoon.

The college has promoted its 24+ loans courses on Twitter with the hashtag #itsnevertoolate, and also advertises an NCFE certificate in creative craft, for learners to “explore and develop your latent creative potential” every Monday morning.

A 24+ government loan of £940 is needed to enrol, while the horticulture course is £750.

Jenny Tyrrell, head of marketing at Bicton College, said: “The college’s focus is always on enabling individuals to upskill in order to secure employment or move into higher education and we only offer approved courses to our learners.

“Those who have completed courses, whether in agriculture, horticulture, or in numerous other areas, at Bicton College have gone on to build their own businesses, gain employment or achieve career change ambitions.”

She said there was a “very clear skills shortage in areas such as horticulture, and the vast majority of our students leave college into careers or higher education courses of their choice”.
Loans are used to pay course fees for those aged 24+ studying at levels three or four.

Course costs used to be halved between the learner and the government, but are now, in theory, paid in full by the learner.

However, to ensure such courses are free at the point of entry, the government pays fees up-front in the form of a loan for 100 per cent of the costs — in effect doubling the initial outlay from the public purse.
There is no suggestion Bicton, which has a loans facility and bursary allocation of £102,409, has broken any loans rules because there is no official stipulation that loans must be used on courses aimed at getting people jobs or into higher education.

But with more than 3,000 loan applications having been submitted for level three certificates, there is concern providers’ finite loan facilities could be heading away from job-focussed programmes, such as advanced and higher-level apprenticeships.

These have seen a total of just 77 loan applications — compared to an expected figure for 2013/14 of around 25,000.

Mr Marsden said: “The details FE Week has uncovered are indeed worrying, even if they prove to be isolated examples.

“If they are part of a trend in which funding for 24+ loans is not helping to progress reskilling and retraining, then that would be of even more concern.”

A joint statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the agency said: “The value, rigour and relevance of qualifications is currently the subject of a major review being led by Nigel Whitehead as part of government’s drive to make the further education system responsive to the needs of employers and the wider economy.”

————————————————————–

Editorial: Loans not meant for leisure

Should limited public funding be used for level three gardening and creative craft courses that are taught for half a day a week — even if the funding is paid back?

You might think yes, but what if the loan funding (or “facilities”) runs out?

This could mean there is nothing left for those wanting to study access to higher education courses or become apprentices.

The stats already indicate that there have been more applications for leisure courses than for apprenticeships.

And with more than 35,000 applications by the end of August — and September likely to be the busiest month for applications — it seems likely the loan funding will indeed be exhausted soon.

But if, like me and seemingly the Skills Minister, too, you think loans should be prioritised for adults wanting to go to university, into work or to do an apprenticeship, then this needs looking into.

The first thing the government should do is provide more detail on who and what loan applications are for.

Providers are screaming out for market analysis as to what is popular, and it would also help establish how significant the leisure course issue is.

From there the sector should come together to look at whether these loans should be directed at specific programmes.

Only then can we ensure funding ends up where it is most needed.

Nick Linford, editor

 

Elmfield director Ged Syddall walks during Newsnight probe — but remains majority shareholder

Former Elmfield Training Ltd chief executive Ged Syddall (pictured) has quit as the firm’s director — but remains its majority shareholder — during a BBC investigation into alleged malpractice.

A Newsnight probe, supported with information uncovered by FE Week, was due to be aired tomorrow night (Friday October 4), focussing on Elmfield’s dealings with workers at supermarket giant Morrisons. 

The Newsnight investigation was carried out by BBC presenter Shelley Joffre (pictured)

Newsnight will allege that Elmfield received public money for courses that employees had declined to take.

A spokesperson for Elmfield made a statement to Newsnight, seen by FE Week, which claims investigations had already been carried out and had uncovered “no evidence of malpractice”.

Nevertheless, he told Newsnight: “The board and management of Elmfield take the view that the alleged behaviour described in the selection of emails obtained by Newsnight is unacceptable.

“Accordingly, we have asked an independent firm to carry out a further review.

“This will identify key learning points of how the Morrisons contract was operated and provide recommendations to us as a new board, to ensure that similar mistakes don’t happen again.”

He added: “Elmfield is announcing changes to its board of directors in order to serve the best interests of its learners, clients and funding partners.

“The majority shareholder, Ged Syddall, has ceased to be a director of Elmfield as of September 27.”

The Skills Funding Agency valued Elmfield’s delivery of Morrison’s apprenticeship contract at £64m from August 2009 to April this year, an FE Week Freedom of Information request to the agency uncovered. Including its Morrison provision and non-apprenticeship programmes, Elmfield delivered £108m-worth of provision to its 379 client businesses for the same period.

An agency spokesperson said: “We have received allegations regarding Elmfield.

“We take any allegation against an organisation involved in the delivery of skills extremely seriously.

“We are currently investigating the credibility of these claims and we are not able to comment on specific details during a live investigation.”

She added: “Should any whistleblower have information of irregularity in relation to public funds provided by the agency, we would encourage them to contact us directly and their evidence will then be considered in line with our investigations procedure.”

Mr Syddall resigned as chief executive in July after Ofsted inspectors gave Elmfield a grade four inspection result the previous month having come across “unacceptably low” results.

After ten years in post, and having founded the Cheshire-based independent training provider, he said he took “full responsibility” for the grade.

He said: “Despite many positive findings the business has received low grades and ultimately as chief executive I take full responsibility for that.

“I have therefore resigned as chief executive with immediate effect.”

The grading also saw the agency issue the firm with a notice of serious breach.

A condition of the notice is that Elmfield cannot start any new learners with either new or existing employers or apply for growth.

“Success rates in the apprenticeship programmes experienced a considerable decline last year and a high proportion of learners within the Morrisons’ contract did not complete the full framework,” said the Ofsted report.

“Furthermore, the number of learners who completed their apprenticeship in the planned time fell to an unacceptably low level of 33 per cent.”

The inspection report came just months after FE Week reported how Elmfield’s success rates showed just 47.5 per cent of its 13,420 leavers in the retail and wholesale sector, aged 25+, walked away with an apprenticeship certificate in 2011/12.

Morrisons stopped contracting with Elmfield in August, when NCG (formerly Newcastle College Group) took over the apprenticeship training contract. Neither Morrisons nor NCG are accused of any wrongdoing.

Ofsted inspectors will return to Elmfield in the autumn to see if it has improved.

In April 2012, Mr Sydall gave evidence to the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee.

He told MPs that Elmfield’s entire income of £30m in 2011/12 came from public funds and he defended his £3m dividend.

In the same month, Elmfield appeared as part of a Panorama investigation called The Great Apprentice Scandal.

Hundreds ‘fail’ to comply with wage rule

High street fast food business Subway was among hundreds of employers on the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) website advertising jobs that paid less than the national minimum wage, FE Week has discovered.

The legally-required amount that employers must pay apprentices went up 3p to £2.68 on October 1.

But many jobs — with start dates well into the month — were being advertised on the website at the old rate.

 There needs to be some serious thought about how people will be attracted to taking up an apprenticeship when wages are just £2.68 an-hour.”

Two such posts were with Subway and were for “customer service apprentice/sandwich artist” in Newcastle Upon Tyne.

The one-year apprenticeships would have paid £79.50 for 30 hours’ work — which equates to £2.65 an-hour.

A Subway spokesperson told FE Week the advert had been produced from out-of-date records. It has since been amended to £80.40 a-week — which equates to £2.68 an-hour.

She said: “All our stores are independently owned and operated by franchisees. As part of their franchise agreement, franchisees are responsible for all employment matters.

“Franchisees are required to comply with employment law when recruiting, contracting and in all dealings with employees.”

A NAS spokesperson said: “Training organisations, employers and apprentices have been made aware of the [minimum wage] increase.”

However, on the day the minimum wage went up there were more than 600 NAS website adverts, some with multiple apprentice posts, where employers would break the law.
Possible start dates for the underpaying posts ran right up to October 28.

Joe Vinson, National Union of Students vice president for FE, said: “It is scandalous that companies offering apprenticeships may be offering below a wage that is already incredibly low.

“Apprenticeships should offer an opportunity to gain valuable skills and an insight into the reality of the workplace, as well as enabling you to study for qualifications to further your future.
“However, there needs to be some serious thought about how people will be attracted to taking up an apprenticeship when wages are just £2.68 an-hour.”

Just over a month ago the government announced it would be making it easier to name-and-shame underpaying apprentice bosses.

The clampdown, which applies to non-apprentices too, came into effect this month. It comes in addition to financial penalties, of up to £5,000, employers face if they fail to pay adequately.

Frances O’Grady, TUC general secretary, told FE Week: “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.”

According to the Low Pay Commission annual report this year, data suggests that more than 27 per cent of apprentices were paid less than their minimum wage 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.

Meanwhile, the government’s apprentice pay survey for 2012 is yet to be published. A spokesperson at the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills said: “The survey has no set date and will be published in due course.”

Apprenticeship tax credits

Download your free copy of the FE Week 16-page special report on the PAYE proposal in the government’s apprenticeship funding consultation, sponsored by Pearson.

Click here to download (10mb)

——————————————————————————————–

Introduction

Time has been called on a consultation into the most radical reform proposals for apprenticeship funding in generations.

The government have confirmed around 350 responses from across the FE skills sector have entered the ring, contributing their views on three possible models for future funding arrangements, which the government hopes will attract more employers to the apprenticeships programme.

The first was a model of direct payment to the employer, the second would allow employers to claim back spending on apprentices through tax credits, and the third would leave funding in the hands of training providers.

Allowing firms to claim back costs through the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system was always going to be the most divisive option.

It was clear from the moment this was proposed through former Dragon’s Den investor Doug Richard’s review, in December last year, that we might have a split decision.

That is why we decided to focus this week’s 16 page hard-hitting supplement on the fight of the 21st century — at least

in the FE world — over tax credits proposals.

It’s the option FE Week understands has the support of Skills Minister Matthew Hancock, although he was unable to comment while the results of the consultation, which closed on Tuesday, October 1, were still being compiled.

But acting as referee, FE Week has drawn together here some ‘fors’ and ‘againsts’ in debate over use of the PAYE system.

So, seconds out, round one — and in the “red” anti-PAYE corner we have training providers worried about losing control of finances, and organisations representing small businesses, who fear it will put small and medium-sized enterprises off taking on trainees, because of possible added paperwork.

However, there are also several big hitters in the “green” pro-tax credits corner, including the Confederation of British Industry, which insists the simplicity and familiarity of PAYE would attract more businesses to apprenticeships.

The funding model the government eventually settles on will be a key factor influencing the fate of cross-party efforts to drive apprenticeships to new heights.