Colleges with the biggest pay gap between principals and staff revealed

Over one in 10 college boards pay their principals seven or more times the median employee salary – several of which have recently been hit by strikes over low staff pay, FE Week can reveal.

Experts have branded a pay multiple of this level as “high” while unions have lashed out at principals earning up to 10 times more than their workforce who can “insulate” themselves from the cost-of-living crisis as lower-paid staff reportedly turn to foodbanks to get by.

But colleges with the largest gaps have defended the so-called high multiples, explaining they are due to the college generating higher turnover than the sector norm, factoring in relocation costs, and in some cases including pension contributions as part of principal take-home pay.

‘That sounds quite high to me’

Colleges must report their pay multiples as part of their annual financial reporting to the Education and Skills Funding Agency. It is calculated by dividing the highest-paid member of staff’s basic pay (in most cases, the college principal or group chief executive) by the median pay of the rest of the full-time-equivalent workforce.

Out of 127 general FE colleges in England with published accounts and one accounting officer for the full 2021/22 academic year, FE Week identified 15 colleges with pay multiples of seven or more.

The average pay multiple for general FE colleges that have had one principal has sat at 5.7 consistently in the last four years. But while the sector average hasn’t moved, individual college pay gaps have.

The single biggest pay multiple hailed from Weston College, whose principal Paul Phillips earned a basic salary of 9.6 times more than the median pay of his full-time staff in 2022.

This was an increase from 8.75 in 2021, which a college spokesperson said was due to the median pay value dropping from an uptake in administrative roles in 2022, usually lower paid than lecturer salaries.

“The pay multiple is higher than that of the sector average as a result of the Weston College Group generating turnover significantly higher than sector norms, with activities extending far beyond the traditional remit of further education,” the spokesperson added.

Phillips’ basic salary in 2022 rose by £36,000 to £258,000 and includes a £60,000 payment for external consultancy work with agencies like the ESFA. On top of that, Phillips received £75,000 in pension contributions and was awarded £29,000 in benefits in kind, the nature of which the finance director cannot reveal without permission from Phillips, a spokesperson said. His total remuneration package for 2022 was £362,000.

While the college did not explain the 16 per cent basic salary rise, its accounts praised Phillips’ accomplishments in the year at length, including receiving a knighthood and his “impressive” role as a national leader of further education.

Weston College staff planned to strike throughout late September until a last-minute pay offer from management was initiated.

“That sounds quite high to me,” said Imran Tahir, a research economist from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, when asked if pay multiples of seven, eight and nine were normal for a public sector organisation.

Tahir, who co-authored a recent report on college teacher pay, said median staff salaries in the FE sector tend to be low which will “pull the multiple up”.

“I imagine there isn’t a lot of variation in median salaries between colleges, so what is likely to be driving the difference in pay multiples between different colleges is principal salary,” he told FE Week.

“I think the question is better framed as why do some colleges pay their principals such high salaries? It’s these high-paying colleges which will have the high pay multiples.

“I don’t have a definitive answer to that question I suspect different colleges will have their idiosyncratic reasons for paying their leaders especially high salaries.”

The IFS report found that in 2010/11, the median salary (adjusted for inflation) was £42,500 for a college teacher. The median dropped to £34,500 in 2022/23 – a 19 per cent fall.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady said: “College staff have been hit with over a decade of real term pay cuts, many now have to use food banks to survive, and pay is so low colleges face a recruitment crisis. It cannot continue.”

However, Tahir acknowledged that the “continual decline” in college funding would make it hard for colleges to find money from their existing budget to pay their staff.

Strike action over low pay

Low salaries and rejected inflation-linked pay offers in FE have been the subject of a wave of staff strikes in recent years. A country-wide ballot for college strikes is on the cards later this year.

“Principals earning up to ten times more than the average staff member are able to insulate themselves from a cost-of-living crisis that is pushing their employees into poverty,” Grady told FE Week.

“College principals have a small window to reallocate resources and protect their staff or they will be hit when strike ballots come.”

Three colleges in FE Week’s analysis with the highest pay multiples in England have been hit by such strikes in the last 12 months.

One is Bridgwater and Taunton College, whose principal Andy Berry earned a basic salary of £180,000, up from £162,000 in 2021. The college reported the second-highest pay multiple of 9.2, up from 8.66 the previous year. Last September, the college’s campuses were met with a 10-day strike over pay.

Bridgwater and Taunton College did not respond to requests for comment from FE Week.

Strikes engulfed Tyne Coast College earlier this week, which reported an 8.65 pay multiple for 2022, a nudge higher than 8.52 in 2021.

Some colleges such as Tyne Coast have blamed the high multiples on including pension contributions into basic principal pay. Most general FE colleges have a separate row in their accounts for pension contributions, but several in FE Week’s analysis have been paid as salary instead.

A Tyne Coast spokesperson explained that the £237,000 basic salary includes £45,000 of employer pension contributions and reflects Lindsey Whiterod’s dual role as chief executive of Tyne Coast College and chief executive of Tyne Coast Academy Trust.

In the case of North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College whose pay multiple was 7.6, its accounts said the chief executive’s pension contributions “ceased during this period and have been paid as salary”.

A spokesperson told FE Week the “apparent change to the pay multiple relates solely to this change”.

Meanwhile, the highest reported basic principal salary was Gerry McDonald from New City College, who leads negotiations on pay with trade unions on behalf of the AoC. He earned £294,000, which included pension contributions. This reflects a rise from his 2021 basic salary of £241,000 to include £57,000 in lieu of pension contributions. 

The college accounts explain that McDonald became a deferred member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme in July 2021, and the college did not make any pension payments during 2021/22, so the board agreed to add it to his basic pay.

As one of London’s largest colleges, New City College’s pay multiple for 2022 was 8.72, up from 7.03 the year prior. 

Staff at four New City College campuses went on strike last October. The college declined to comment when approached by FE Week.

Elsewhere, “the contribution for relocation benefits” was Coventry College’s reason for the increase in its principal’s basic salary increase to £156,000 in 2022. A college spokesperson said its pay multiple rise from 7 to 8.5 was because most staff had not received a pay rise in up to 10 years. 

The spokesperson explained that since the principal was appointed in 2020, all staff received a 1 per cent pay rise, there will be a review of curriculum salaries next year for almost a quarter of staff, and it paid out a 9.7 per cent national minimum wage increase early and rolled out a 3 per cent pay-rise from April 1, 2023.

On the other side, three colleges with high pay multiples reported a decline this year: Derby College Group (DCG), Burton and South Derbyshire College, and Luminate Education Group. The latter two explained this was due to pay awards given to staff during the year.

Burton and South Derbyshire College said their pay multiple of 8.32 was due to the chief executive Dawn Ward’s “decades of experience in successfully leading colleges, including our overseas operations and staff”.

“Inevitably, this length of experience and related remuneration would inflate BSDC’s ratio in comparison to the sector average,” a spokesperson added.

NCG, which has a pay multiple of 7.23, explained that it is a “complex organisation made up of seven colleges” and due to the “nature of the role and its nationwide remit, the role of CEO isn’t comparable with a traditional principal’s role in an FE college”.

Luminate Education Group said that as one of the largest FE corporations in the country with a turnover of over £100 million, thousands of students and staff, which includes two higher education institutions, the principal’s renumeration “reflects the responsibility of the operations and performance of a large and complex organisation”.

And the LTE Group, which runs The Manchester College as well as several other training providers, added: “During 2021/22 the LTE board mandated pay restraint for senior roles, and the chief executive and executive team received a lower annual pay increase than other colleagues, with the majority of employees across the group being awarded a pay rise which was at least twice as high, in recognition of their contributions in delivering high-quality training and education to our learners.

“We appreciate the difficulties colleagues face caused by the rising cost of living and, as an organisation, we will continue to lobby the government, alongside other industry bodies, for additional funding for pay.”

Data blunders

On May 24, the EFSA published its annual college accounts spreadsheet.

According to publicly available data, 20 colleges had pay multiples above 7. However, after FE Week reached out to all of them, five claimed the calculations were wrong.

Some have even republished accounts and informed the ESFA of the miscalculation, such as North Kent College, whose pay multiple was originally 10 until a spokesperson clarified that it was a human error and its actual pay multiple for 2022 is 6.5, a drop from 6.7 in 2021.

Two colleges said the error was made by using the median salary of actual staff pay, which includes casual staff, invigilators, and part-time staff, against ESFA guidance which requires all colleges to calculate the pay multiple using the median pay of full-time equivalent staff.

FE Week did not count colleges with more than one principal in 2021/22 in its analysis.

We should be celebrating the growth of degree apprenticeships – not denigrating it

Reading through FE Week’s article earlier this month on the growth of degree apprenticeship I couldn’t help but think that I live in some sort of parallel universe. 

The article outlined how degree apprenticeship spending “hit half a billion (pounds) last year” and “swallowed a fifth of DfE’s (apprenticeship) budget in 21/22.” The article then went on to outline how ‘experts’ warn that: “the rapid rise in their share of the market is squeezing out opportunities for younger workers and threatens the sustainability of the apprenticeship budget”. 

But is this right?  And shouldn’t the FE sector be celebrating the growth of degree apprenticeships and higher apprenticeships at the level of a bachelor’s or master’s degree?

Beyond the FE sector, others are pushing for more degree apprenticeships. For example, in March the government asked the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), to establish a £40m Degree Apprenticeship Development Fund to grow capacity. 

Degree apprenticeships are being used to train the police officers, registered nurses, allied health and adult social care professionals and social workers that the public sector and society need. In the private sector, degree level apprenticeships are a key programme to develop the highly skilled engineers (of various types), digital specialists and scientists. The growth of degree apprenticeship is a key government policy.

Let’s look at some of the facts:

In the list of the top ten degree level apprenticeships listed by FE Week, police constable is at number four, registered nurse number five, advanced clinical practitioner, number eight, teacher number nine and social worker at number ten.  Are we really saying police forces shouldn’t spend their apprenticeship levy funds on training, through apprenticeships, new police constables, the NHS on nurses, local authorities on social workers and schools on teachers? Surely there is no better use of apprenticeship funds.

We would suggest doubling the spend on degree level apprenticeships

At number two in the top ten degree level apprenticeships is the senior leader and at number three is the chartered manager. Look at any analysis of skills gaps and shortages in the UK and the deficit in management skills will always feature. UVAC believes that the sector making most use of management apprenticeships is the NHS; which is also the organisation paying the most apprenticeship levy. With substantial pressure on the NHS, drawing on the levy to train managers and senior leaders to manage the organisation is an excellent use of the apprenticeship budget.

It is also important to note that many level 3 apprenticeships are costly to deliver.  The move from apprenticeship frameworks to apprenticeships standards has raised quality but has also raised the cost of apprenticeships. Many level 3 apprenticeships, particularly in STEM occupations, are costly to deliver and have been allocated high funding bands. 

Finally, a 20 per cent spend on degree level apprenticeships means a whacking (and arguably questionable) 80 per cent of the apprenticeship budget is spent on apprenticeships at level 2 (GCSE level) to level 5 (HND / Foundation Degree level).

In policy terms there are two key drivers for apprenticeships: productivity and social mobility. Degree level apprenticeships are a key tool to tackle skills gaps and shortages at levels 6 and 7 – vital if the UK is to develop as a high-skill, high-productivity and high-pay economy. 

If we are to use apprenticeships as a real tool for social mobility, we also need to use degree level apprenticeships to open progression routes to the professions, higher pay and senior level occupations. We should also prioritise apprenticeships that will support the move to a net zero economy, which again means greater use of several key degree level apprenticeships.

The real issue that needs highlighting is why such a low proportion of the apprenticeship budget is currently spent on degree level apprenticeships. Indeed, UVAC would suggest a doubling of the apprenticeship budget spend on degree level apprenticeships to 40 per cent is easily justified by skills, productivity, social mobility and net zero arguments.

It’s too little, not too much of the apprenticeship budget that is currently spent in this area. But of course, some will quite correctly point out that it’s the overall size of the pot that is the root problem.

Fast-growing adult education provider suddenly closes

A training provider with multi-million-pound adult education contracts across several mayoral combined authorities has suddenly closed down.

Vocational Skills Solutions (VSS) was one of the fastest growing training providers just a few years ago, but has now been forced to call in the administrators.

Managing director Phil Juniper told FE Week several factors led to the “heart-breaking” decision that now impacts hundreds of learners and scores of staff.

The reasons include the pandemic, a “substantial” clawback due to undeclared associate agreements, a failed legal challenge against the West Midlands Combined Authority’s (WMCA) decision to deny it a contract worth over £3 million, and, ultimately, a “significant downturn in income”.

VSS was a national provider that started out as a subcontractor in 2012. The company secured its first direct contract with the Education and Skills Funding Agency in 2017 to deliver adult education budget (AEB) funded courses.

It also had a brief stint delivering apprenticeships but swiftly pulled out after “making significant losses” with the programmes.

The provider went on a period of significant growth around the time of AEB devolution in 2019, securing £4 million worth of adult education contracts in the mayoral combined authorities of Manchester, London, Liverpool and the West Midlands.

VSS had around 50 adult learners in 2019 and grew this number to over 2,150 by the end of 2020.

Juniper told FE Week the business was then hit “very hard” by Covid-19 and associated lockdowns which forced the firm to take out several loans.

Learner numbers fell by half over the next 12 months as recruitment struggles continued, leaving the company with a “much longer period of recovery than anticipated”.

“We had all the funding we could spend, but without learners coming through the door, we continued to make losses,” Juniper said.

In November 2021 the provider was further hit with a clawback of over £1 million after it used associate tutors from other training providers under “associate agreements”, which was determined as “undeclared subcontracting” by the ESFA and Liverpool City Region.

Juniper said: “This was a business error, and we agreed to pay the money back to keep our contracts, which we were successful in doing so in the main. However, this added further pressure to the financial position of this business.”

Despite the substantial clawback with Liverpool City Region, VSS was given a boost when it was awarded a five-year contract for £1 million per year starting in August 2022 with the authority.

But the future of the business relied upon securing more contracts in other areas.

The company re-tendered for its West Midlands contract of around £3.4 million but was informed in March 2023 that it was unsuccessful, having not made it through stage one of the process.

Juniper claimed that not one current provider in the region had won the contract, or even made it through stage one, “highlighting that there had been a significant failure in their tender process”.

His firm issued a legal challenge to the WMCA, requesting several documents and information about the qualifications and training of the evaluators, which was denied.

However, VSS was provided with a “different scoring methodology than the one provided in the tender specification, which caused a complete loss of confidence in the WMCA’s ability to manage a procurement exercise from this point on”.

A spokesperson for the WMCA responded: “Whilst we’re disappointed in the outcome of the initial call, in which only a small number of bidders were successful, we remain committed to achieving our ambition to secure provision that best supports our residents – and have recently completed a further call to secure local place-based provision for our residents. All of our procurement is conducted through a fair, robust and transparent process.”

Juniper said the WMCA contract refusal left his business’ financial position “at breaking point” and was forced to close the West Midlands operations down at the end of March.

He added: “Throughout April, the business suffered a significant downturn in income, and as the West Midlands response to my legal challenge was somewhat very dismissive and lacking in any accountability from them, and no future tendering opportunities seemed to be in the pipeline, with the advice of my advisory board and financial advisors, I made the heart-breaking decision to cease trading with immediate effect on April 28, 2023, paying as many staff as I could prior to closing the doors.”

VSS has now handed back its other AEB contracts. The company’s accounts for 2022 show net liabilities of £1.6 million.

Juniper said: “VSS has changed the lives of over 28,000 learners throughout the last 12 years and has contributed tens of millions to the economic growth of the regions we operated in. This is something I am personally very proud of.

“I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank all my staff for their hard work and dedication. I am most sorry for them, as they now try to source work in an industry that is in a significant crisis.”

Justice: Provider overturns published grade 4 Ofsted report after ‘arduous’ battle

A training provider has overturned an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgment following an extraordinary decision by the watchdog to publish – and then unpublish – the damaging verdict.

UK Training & Development Limited (UKTD) has now remarkably been rated as ‘good’ following a reinspection just months after the provider was dealt the lowest possible grade.

The inspection saga shines a light on Ofsted’s already under-fire complaints process and sets a precedent for appeals against grade four results, an outcome which usually results in contract termination from the Education and Skills Funding Agency for private training providers.

UKTD’s managing director, Theresa Wisniewski (pictured), told FE Week she was “delighted” with the outcome after a “long and arduous battle”.

“These events have come at cost both financially and personally to me, both of which there is no recompense for, however, the fight for justice is one that had to be made,” she said.

‘Substantive evidence’ forced reinspection

UKTD, based in Hemel Hampstead, was originally inspected in July 2022 and following an unsuccessful appeal, Ofsted published an ‘inadequate’ report in October.

But UKTD continued to appeal the judgment with legal advice from Duncan Lewis Solicitors, arguing that it was a “flawed and inaccurate inspection” and was successful in securing a rare reinspection, which led to Ofsted removing the grade four report from its website in December.

A completely different and smaller inspection team was sent back to UKTD in April and resulted in ‘good’ judgments across the board.

The provider’s main complaint when the grade four report was published was that inspectors had failed to consider the impact of Covid-19 on the hairdressing industry that it delivers apprenticeships to.

Several other providers, mainly in the hospitality, service and care sectors, have issued similar complaints over the past year after receiving ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgments – and in some cases have tried and failed to overturn the judgments in the High Court.

Wisniewski said she was able to land a reinspection due to “perseverance and substantive evidence that the previous inspection outcome was wrong”, but refused to say exactly what new evidence was submitted.

She added: “The inspection by comparison in April was challenging but fair and as a result we were able to showcase our provision effectively and achieve the right outcome for UKTD.

“Unfortunately, many providers have suffered from an Ofsted culture and regime that in my view has failed to recognise and properly understand the intricacy and pressures in the delivery of work-based apprenticeships in what has been a very difficult few years.

“The education inspection framework has been used in some cases by inspectors to view providers without context, failing to adequately take into account sector issues, the range of employers we work with, and other mitigating circumstance such as a pandemic and economic crisis.

“As a training provider and a business, we also experienced the impact of Covid and survived whilst still providing good quality training, support and outcomes for our learners and employers. This has not been recognised adequately in some inspections and in particular those sectors that have been hit hard, such as hairdressing. Additionally, not every provider delivers the same model, and this can bring different challenges, but this does not mean we are not good at what we do.”

Complaints process to be reviewed

Training providers and colleges have been successful in getting their judgements upgraded prior to inspection reports being published in the past, but it is unheard of for Ofsted to remove a report after publication and decide to carry out a reinspection.

UKTD’s success comes shortly after Ofsted’s senior leaders admitted their complaints policy “is not working” and will be reviewed.

Officials have been told to make the process more human and less bureaucratic, FE Week understands, following backlash from the education sector.

Paul Warner, director of strategy and business development at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said his organisation is “pleased that Ofsted are taking on board criticisms of the appeals process” which will “help to ensure continuing improvements in the inspection process even more through further co-operation with the sector”.

The feedback in UKTD’s ‘good’ report is unrecognisable to the ‘inadequate’ report published just months ago.

The grade four report claimed that leaders had “not rectified many of the weaknesses identified at previous Ofsted inspections”, accused leaders of lacking “ambition” for apprentices who allegedly often struggled to meet the demands of work and study because they “do not regularly receive their entitlement to time away from work”.

It also claimed that apprentices were “frustrated” with the training and assessment provided.

But the grade two report states that leaders “have taken effective action to improve the quality of education”.

Apprentices now have “very positive attitudes to their training”, “quickly gain highly relevant and up-to-date practical hairdressing and barbering skills”, and benefit from tutors who “collaborate closely with employers to link the practical teaching in salons to the theory sessions that tutors teach”.

Wisniewski said the report now “accurately and reflects our provision fairly”, adding that the reinspection was conducted by an Ofsted team that “had the right skills, competencies, and a willingness to fully understand our provision and the issues during and after Covid”.

An Ofsted spokesperson said: “We have nothing further to add to the published inspection report.”

This isn’t the first time UKTD has battled ‘inadequate’ Ofsted grades. The provider was given the judgement twice in 2017.

The two inspections were based on safeguarding failings. It is not clear why the Education and Skills Funding Agency did not terminate the provider’s contracts following the previous grade four judgements, as is usual practice for independent training providers.

The agency can, however, decide not to terminate contracts in exceptional circumstances.

UKTD, which was set up in 1998, was also judged ‘inadequate’ in 2006 by the Adult Learning Inspectorate – Ofsted’s predecessor.

The ESFA declined to comment.

Director ban for bogus apprenticeships firm chief

The owner of an east London training provider has been slapped with a seven-year director ban after investigators found fake apprenticeships that earned him almost £1 million.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency investigated London College of Global Education Ltd after an Ofsted new provider monitoring visit found “examples of people on the list of apprentices who were not studying at the provider” in 2021. 

Narayan Sah, the provider’s owner, was paid £994,690 for 471 apprentices in 2020/21. Following Ofsted’s visit, the ESFA alerted Sah that the agency would be investigating his training provider.

Shockingly, following the notification, an “internal verification of learners” conducted by Sah led to 463 of his 471 apprentices being removed for being ineligible for funding, if they existed at all.

DfE figures record 400 starts at London College of Global Education when the company began delivering apprenticeships in 2020. None of the learners enrolled completed an apprenticeship qualification for which funding was obtained, the Insolvency Service said.

Most of those ghost apprenticeships were advanced and higher-level ICT programmes. Ofsted reported all off-the-job training was delivered remotely.

Taking away the eight apparently eligible learners, the ESFA demanded the return of £885,989. By the time the company went into liquidation in July 2021, this was reduced to £429,189.

Sah founded the company, originally known as Sagarmatha Consulting Limited, in 2010, but is now disqualified from company directorship until May 2030.

Liquidators report that investigations with the ESFA are ongoing in their latest update, published on Companies House in September 2022.

“Meetings were carried out with the ESFA to discuss concerns that they have raised in the conduct of the company. The matters identified from these investigations are ongoing however, so as to not prejudice any potential future litigation, the joint liquidators do not intend to disclose the specifics of the investigation to date,” the report said.

Among the company’s £1 million-plus liabilities to creditors, including the ESFA, over £20,000 is owed to HSBC, over £18,000 to Dubai-based ed tech company Seeding Brains Education and Training, and FE Week’s publisher, LSECT, is owed £168.

Logistics assessment body acquired by VTCT

Awarding body VTCT has beefed up its apprenticeship end-point assessment (EPA) operation by taking over Skills for Logistics.

Skills for Logistics, which claims to have a 25 per cent market share in apprenticeship assessments in the logistics sector, became a subsidiary of VTCT last week.

The move adds eight apprenticeship standards to VTCT’s EPA roster, taking its total to 31 and making the charitable trust the joint tenth largest end-point assessment organisation.

VTCT chief executive Alan Woods said the acquisition will help ease the process to gain Ofqual recognition for Skills for Logistics – suggesting that the latter has to date been unsuccessful in getting  EPA recognition from the regulator in its own right.

Skills for Logistics offers assessments for LGV drivers, supply chain warehouse operative and supply chain practitioners. As the UK struggles to deal with widespread and well-documented lorry driver shortages, VTCT’s ability to bring “that size and scale to their operation” as part of the acquisition will be significant, Woods said.

“We now have 31 EPA standards that we are responsible for, so we’ve got size and quality that we’re bringing to the game,” he added.

“But we also need to have that quality and rigour from Skills for Logistics – they have got fantastic employer relationships.”

Woods said the takeover will not lead to any redundancies, adding that VTCT will use some of the “firepower on our balance sheet” to take Skills for Logistics into new areas, which will “enable them to develop some new products and services”.

VTCT’s presence in the logistics sector will be expanded, as it aims to “develop ourselves into an organisation which is working in as large a part of the foundation economy” as is appropriate.

David Coombes, the managing director at Skills for Logistics, and Paul Spink, the company’s development director will continue to lead the business while the same board will still be in place.

VTCT meanwhile will “continually look” for acquisitions which will help them improve their provision within the foundation economy.

Apprentices to take ‘integrated’ EPA and mandatory qual assessment

Apprentices will soon be unable to walk away from their apprenticeship with a qualification before passing their end-point assessment, in a move designed to reduce the large number of drop-outs.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has confirmed that it will proceed with proposals to make passing an apprenticeship contingent on achieving both the end-point assessment and, if the standard has one, a mandated qualification. 

This comes in response to complaints from training providers that, in some sectors, apprentices will leave their programme once they’ve achieved a qualification but before they take the end-point assessment. As well as negatively impacting the provider’s achievement rate, IfATE said these early withdrawals also mean there is no formal record of apprentices’ competence against the knowledge, skills and behaviours (KSBs) required by their apprenticeship standard. 

IfATE estimates around 40 per cent of apprenticeships currently mandate a qualification.

Following a consultation, IfATE yesterday released amended criteria it will apply to new and revised apprenticeships from next month on mandatory qualifications. 

Here’s what you need to know.

The three mandates

As proposed, there are three sets of criteria that determine whether a qualification should be a mandatory part of an apprenticeship. 

Firstly, IfATE will approve a mandatory qualification if they see evidence of a regulatory or legal requirement for it. For example, if a particular qualification is prescribed in regulations for a license to practice. 

Similarly, if a qualification is required by a relevant professional body for professional registration, IfATE will want to see evidence that the named qualification is required, that professional body registration is necessary and that said professional body has been involved in the development of the standard.

Thirdly, if employers can prove that a qualification is widely required by their industry and that employers have helped design it, a qualification can be approved as necessary for the labour market. 

Integrated assessments

A popular proposal to reduce non-completions by integrating the assessment for qualifications with the apprenticeship end-point assessment (EPA) will proceed. This is designed to reduce the number of apprentices that quit their apprenticeship after they’ve achieved a qualification, but before they take the EPA.

The idea is that a subset of KSBs from the standard will be identified for an integrated assessment which counts towards the qualification and the EPA.

Guidance states: “Where it is possible to do so, mandated qualification assessment(s) must be integrated with the apprenticeship end-point assessment.”

It describes how the apprenticeship assessment plan should be designed so that the award of the apprenticeship and the category takes place “within the same period” and that the apprenticeship and qualification can only be awarded if at least one shared assessment has been passed. 

Additional content only if IfATE is too slow 

IfATE will proceed with its proposal to reject requests for mandated qualifications that simply add “structure”, “stretch and challenge” or “depth and breadth” to apprenticeships. This is because mandated qualifications must be taken consistently by all apprentices, so introducing qualifications with extra content could disadvantage apprentices in different employer contexts.

The institute also maintains that any mandated qualifications should not teach content that is in addition to the to the knowledge, skills and behaviours set out in the apprenticeship standard.

However there will be a new process which allows for additional content in qualifications “in exceptional circumstances”. IfATE highlights how this could be used for apprenticeships in occupations where technology advances faster than IfATE can update the KSBs in the standard. 

In IfATE’s own words: “Respondents were often critical of IfATE’s agility in reviewing occupational standards.”

Precise mandates

Employer trailblazer groups will have to specify precisely which qualification/s should be mandated in the relevant apprenticeship, rather than a generic high-level description.

For example, rather than simply describing a mandated qualification like ‘level 3 diploma in youth work practice’ as now, the new system will require each mandated qualification’s title, level, awarding body, guided learning hours, Ofqual qualification number and the sector subject area.

A new process will also be introduced so that officials can match technical qualifications approved elsewhere within IfATE to an apprenticeship with a qualification mandate, which will then be reviewed by the employer group.

If the employer group believes a qualification, like a level 3 technical qualification of a higher technical qualification, isn’t suitable for the matched apprenticeships, they’ll have to explain why to IfATE.

Revealed: 42 colleges and schools share £140m capacity cash ahead of demographic spike

More than 40 colleges and sixth forms will share £140 million to build facilities to accommodate a demographic spike in 16 to 19-year-olds.

The funding comes from the Department for Education’s post-16 capacity fund, which allocated £83 million to 39 colleges in 2021/22 and £8.6 million to eight others in 2022/23.

Successful projects in this latest round are “expected” to complete by September 2024.

Skills minister Robert Halfon said the funding will enable colleges and sixth forms to “add additional capacity where there is a pressing need for places for 16 to 19-year-olds in their local area, given local demographic pressures”.

The Sixth Form Colleges Association estimates there will be 260,000 additional 16- to 19-year-olds that will participate in education in the coming years.

Four of the 42 winning bids in the 2023/24 list – Barton Peveril Sixth Form College, Cirencester College, Itchen Sixth Form College, and The Henley College – received allocations in earlier rounds.

The Department for Education does not publish the individual allocations for each college.

The fund was available to sixth form colleges, 16 to 19 academies, 16 to 19 free schools such as university technical colleges, and general FE colleges.

James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said: “We are delighted that so many SFCA members have been successful in the latest round of the Post-16 Capacity Fund. This is an excellent fund that is already helping institutions to deal with the demographic increase in 16- to 19-year-olds.

“We’d like the fund to be available on an annual basis as it is hugely oversubscribed and many of our members are operating at or over capacity. But it is good to have confirmation today that more young people will have the opportunity to study in high performing institutions and benefit from brand new facilities.”

Today’s announcement brings the total spending from the fund to over £230 million across 89 colleges and sixth forms.

The 42 providers awarded a share of the £140 million for 2023/24 are:

Funding rate boost for next round of higher technical skills injection fund

The second round of the government’s “skills injection fund” that aims to boost delivery of level 4 and 5 higher technical qualifications (HTQs) will involve higher per student funding rates.

Up to £48.8 million is being made available to colleges, universities and private providers to spend on specialist equipment, facilities, and upskilling staff to deliver HTQs across the next two financial years.

The funding is expected to ensure there are “widespread credible alternatives” to a three-year degree ahead of the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement in 2025.

Skills, apprenticeships and higher education minister Robert Halfon opened the fund for bids today. He said: “Boosting funding to support the delivery of HTQs and ensuring that schools and colleges have the space they need to provide all students with top notch training is essential to achieving parity of esteem with traditional degrees and plugging skills gaps in key sectors.”

Round one of the skills injection fund involved dishing out £21 million to 85 providers in 2022/23 – which was £11 million short of the £32 million on offer.

The new £48.8 million pot consists of £29.8 million for capital costs such as specialist equipment, perpetual software licenses and refurbishing existing facilities; and £19 million for resources such as upskilling technician staff, curriculum planning, or learner recruitment events.

It will also involve higher per student funding rates compared to the first round.

The formula for grants will be based on predicated learner numbers, with funding capped at £6,667 per student for most applicants. The basic cap in round one was £5,000.

However, if the bid comes from an IoT the per learner funding rate will receive a 20 per cent uplift to £8,000, while providers located in a designated “local skills area” – places where skills-based interventions are taking place as part of the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda – will receive a 10 per cent uplift to £7,333.

IoT and local skills area uplifts on offer in round one of the fund were 10 per cent and 5 per cent respectively.

Colleges, higher education institutions, independent training providers and Institutes of Technology can bid for the funding. Providers with an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted rating and those not registered with the Office for Students are not allowed to apply.

The fund is for HTQs only, and for providers preparing to deliver across all 15 occupational routes up to academic year 2025/26 when the lifelong loan entitlement will be introduced.

DfE guidance states that if a provider has already received funding through the HTE growth fund, or through the HTE skills injection fund round one, they can apply again for funding to deliver a “different HTQ within the same route or a different occupational route”.

For example, if a provider received funding to deliver a network engineer qualification it could not apply for funding to deliver another level 4 and 5 network engineering qualification but could apply to deliver a new software developer HTQ.

The DfE said there were no minimum learner numbers, but did expect a “viable cohort”, and warned that funding clawbacks could be used where providers failed to reach 80 per cent of their predicted numbers.

Applications must be submitted by July 21. Outcomes are planned to be communicated in November.

UPDATE: The list of 66 winners to this fund was published on November 10 and can be viewed here.