OfS to create £40m fund to boost degree apprenticeship take-up

The higher education regulator in England has been told to establish a £40 million fund to drive up degree apprenticeship provision in the next two years.

Education officials have confirmed the pot, which follows on from £8 million given this year, can be used for providers offering the higher apprenticeships for the first time.

The education secretary Gillian Keegan wrote to the Office for Students last week with details for its £1.4 billion strategic grant priorities for the 2023/24 financial year.

Among the priorities is an imperative for the OfS to form a £40 million pot for use in the next two financial years dedicated to degree apprenticeships.

Keegan wrote that the OfS should support establishments with “the greatest potential to diversify growth at level 6,” and confirmed it could be used to support providers looking to deliver degree apprenticeships for the first time, as well as for existing providers to widen their programmes and help improve access to the courses.

The letter added: “This funding represents a significant uplift in degree apprenticeship funding against last year’s initial allocation and to build a long-lasting capacity and capability. Projects must demonstrate strong progress against their aims in order to receive ongoing funding throughout that period.”

The current year’s allocation of £8 million was dished out between 102 universities and colleges, but was restricted to those already delivering the level 6 courses and not available to those wanting to deliver degree apprenticeships for the first time.

That cash, for use in the 2022/23 academic year, was designed to upskill staff delivering the courses, develop new degree apprenticeships beyond providers’ current offer or refresh existing programmes to better meet the needs of the labour market.

The OfS said it has not yet decided how the new funding will be distributed, which will be announced in due course.

John Blake, director for fair access and participation at the Office for Students, said degree apprenticeships and other technical qualifications were important alternative routes into higher education.

He added: “We welcome this funding, which will enhance and increase the provision of degree apprenticeship and other qualifications so that even more students can benefit from these technical skills and fulfil their potential.”

Upping degree apprenticeship starts has been one of the key pillars of the skills minister’s first six months back at the helm of the skills, apprenticeships and higher education brief.

Robert Halfon said that he wants all higher education providers to offer the courses, telling the Universities UK conference in February that level 6 and 7 apprenticeships now account for more than 12 per cent of apprenticeships.

Halfon said: “As a lifelong advocate of skills and technical education, there are no two words I love more than ‘degree apprenticeships’. They blend the very best elements of academic education with the benefit of hands-on workplace experience, whilst empowering people to earn whilst they learn and this investment will help to expand the range of degree apprenticeships on offer.”

Vanessa Wilson, chief executive of the University Alliance, which represents professional and technical universities, said the funding was “very welcome”.

“To meet the rising demand for degree apprenticeships, there is a need to quickly and significantly scale-up the number and variety of degree apprenticeships on offer,” Wilson said.

“The scale of this competitive funding provides an excellent opportunity to meet the challenge of expanding access to degree apprenticeships.”

The education secretary has also told the OfS to set aside £16 million of the strategic grant fund for the 2023/24 financial year to be spent on eligible learners on level 4 and 5 higher technical qualifications through formula funding.

That is to “encourage greater provision and build capacity amongst providers to reverse the recent decline of level 4 and 5 qualifications”.

It followed £8 million for this year for increasing provision of level 4 and 5 qualifications.

Halfon said the cash will help in vital subjects such as digital, construction and health that will “help plug skills gaps and get more people into great jobs”.

The Marples lawsuit: DfE rebuts ‘fundamentally flawed’ claim

Peter Marples’ attempt to sue the government for refusing to sign off on the sale of his defunct apprenticeship provider 3aaa is “fundamentally flawed” and based on “unjustified gloss”, according to the Department for Education.

In its defence for the lawsuit, the DfE has denied that officials in the then-Skills Funding Agency acted negligently, with malice, or in bad faith when the verdict was made in 2016.

The department states that the decision to not sanction the change in ownership was based on “unrealistic expectations” as to the future growth of the company – a view that was accepted by the proposed buyer at the time and the reason used by the purchaser for ending the deal.

The DfE’s defence (download full documents below) also provides evidence that counters Marples’ claim that officials had a personal vendetta against the businessman. It also tells of further “funding errors” including “falsification of documentation” at his previous training providers, and a £300,000 clawback due to “significant discrepancies in the evidence relied upon” by 3aaa in support of funding claims.

The lawsuit

3aaa was England’s largest apprenticeship provider until 2018 when a government investigation into alleged manipulation of achievement rates paused an Ofsted inspection, resulted in contract termination, administration, and a referral to the police.

Marples, who co-founded the provider in 2009, and three other members of his family are now seeking damages worth £37 million plus interest from the government because the SFA refused to sign off on the sale of the company back in 2016 to private equity firm Trilantic Capital Partners LLP (TLP).

He claims that SFA chiefs unlawfully exercised their power to deny the change in ownership which amounted to “negligent misstatement, negligence, and/or misfeasance in public office”, claiming that he was subject to “animosity”, “disdain” and “distrust” by those at the helm of the funding agency who saw him as a “necessary evil”.

The defence

Under clause 5.10 of 3aaa’s funding agreement – which Marples’ lawyers mistakenly named as clause 5.8 in the original particulars of claim – the SFA was entitled to “terminate the contract if it considers in its absolute discretion that the change in ownership would prejudice the contractor’s ability to deliver the services”.

Marples’ lawyers claimed the “principal factors” which ought to have been considered by the SFA were whether there would be a decrease in the quality of management of 3aaa, its facilities, and a “degradation” in the financial standing of the firm.

But the DfE’s lawyers countered that this claim “places an unjustified gloss on the language of clause 5.10”.

The SFA was “entitled to take into account matters such as whether the change in ownership appeared to be premised on unrealistic expectations of growth on the part of the prospective buyer, such that the pursuit of those expectations would jeopardise the company’s stability”, the defence states.

It continues that the SFA’s refusal followed discussions with 3aaa and with Joe Cohen, a founding partner of TLP, in December 2016.

Information about the proposed business plan for the takeover included a presentation that set out projections for “year-on-year growth of 44 per cent between 2016/17 and 2017/18, 19 per cent between 2017/18 and 2018/19, and 10 per cent between 2018/19 and 2019/20”.

A note attached to those projections stated that the projected revenues in respect of 2019/20 (£55.6 million, as against a 2016/17 figure of £29.7 million) were anticipated to consist of 30 per cent from levy activities and 70 per cent from the non-levy market.

The SFA’s decision letter highlighted that “the business plan appears to be premised on continued delivery, and growth of, non-levy activity”, and commented: “There is no reference as to how this latter growth will be achieved – from an increase in market share through acquisition, whether it is commercial activity or an assumption that non-levy delivery will continue to be funded into the future. We are concerned that key assumptions made in the business plan may not be achieved and there was little information and no sensitivity analysis to give us assurance of the make-up of the financial projections.”

The letter went on to explain that in view of the introduction of the levy arrangements from April 2017, “there is no guarantee that the current aggregate level of public funding going into SMEs will continue to be available”, “there is also no guarantee of long term central funding of apprenticeships for non-levy paying employers”, and in view of a planned £5 million cap, “no provider will be given more than an initial allocation of £5 million”.

Marples’ claim pointed out that the £5 million non-levy cap policy was formally withdrawn in May 2017, and alleged that it was “widely known within the ESFA that the cap would not be implemented” by December 2016 when the sale negotiations were happening. The DfE’s defence denies this allegation.

The DfE’s defence goes on to reveal that the agency did offer 3aaa and TLP the chance to submit an alternative business plan to go ahead with the sale.

The agency’s refusal letter concluded: “We would be prepared to reconsider our decision in the New Year if you can provide further detail which would provide assurance that a change of ownership would not prejudice your ability to deliver our contract.”

But in an email dated January 11, 2017, Joe Cohen of TLP wrote to then-SFA chief executive Peter Lauener thanking him for meeting with him in December 2016 and stated: “Regrettably, in light of the market outlook that is explicitly detailed in your correspondence, it has become clear that our basic funding assumption for the SME apprentice market, at minimum, being maintained for the length of this Parliament is viewed by your department as ‘excessively optimistic’. As you can appreciate, given the market that 3aaa operates in coupled with the views expressed by your department around the Trilantic business plan, we are left with no alternative but to terminate our discussions with the company.”

‘Fundamentally flawed’ claim

The thrust of Marples’ claim is that the SFA was wrong to refuse the change in ownership, for example because it “applied the wrong contractual test”, “considered and relied upon factors that were not relevant to the clause 5.10 test”, and “failed to consider the factors that were relevant to the clause 5.10 [test]”.

The DfE points out that despite the claim revolving around a disputed exercise of contractual rights, there is “no claim for breach of contract; the claimants were not parties to the relevant agreement; and in any event the agreement expressly excluded liability for indirect losses such as those claimed in these proceedings”.

Instead, Marples’ plea claims “negligent misstatement, negligence, and misfeasance in public office” which “suffer from a series of fundamental flaws”.

First, there is “no properly pleaded claim of negligent misstatement at all…It is nowhere alleged that the SFA, or anybody else, made a false statement of fact on which the claimants relied”.

Second, both the negligent misstatement and the negligence claim are “premised on the idea that the SFA, in exercising a right under a contract, owed a duty of care to its contractual counterparty’s parent company’s shareholders”. There is “no room for any such duty of care” as this would “conflict with fundamental principles of privity of contract, the corporate veil and public policy”, according to the DfE’s lawyers.

Third, Marples’ own case that the consequence of the SFA’s decision was that the proposed sale of shares did not take place “represents no loss to the claimants, because they retained the shares”, adding that the main reason why Marples subsequently suffered any loss is because the value of the shares “fell for other reasons, in particular when the company went into administration in October 2018” which is “unrelated to the pleaded causes of action and is not recoverable”.

As for the misfeasance claim, DfE’s lawyers state that the “primary facts pleaded are incapable of justifying an inference that the SFA acted maliciously or in bad faith with the intention of harming the claimants”. The pleading, for example, refers “amorphously” to a “hostile sentiment” on the part of “the senior leadership of the ESFA”, including in a period many years before the relevant decision-maker – then-chief executive Peter Lauener – was appointed to his role, and in a period before either the ESFA or the SFA existed.

DfE lawyers even provide evidence of a note from Lauener to then skills minister Nick Boles shortly before a visit to 3aaa in July 2015 which suggested he held no animosity for Marples.

The note explained that Lauener knew Marples from past work and that 3aaa was “an organisation that has done very well recently and expanded rapidly and does seem to have a strong employer driven focus and has scored well with Ofsted”. He also said that “subject to looking at their data more, this might be the kind of organisation we would seek to expand in the future because they do pull new employers in”.

The DfE’s defence added that Lauener had gone “out of his way” to assist 3aaa’s cash flow difficulties in March/April 2016 by expediting payment of funding that had been suspended during a KPMG investigation into dodgy data claims, so that it could be released in advance of the conclusion of that investigation and in advance of the SFA’s normal payment run.

DfE points out data and funding issues ignored by Marples

Marples worked at numerous training providers prior to 3aaa which he claimed “demonstrated his competence in the sector over many years”.

The DfE’s defence denied the SFA viewed Marples’ CV as “competence” and provided multiple examples of data and funding issues found at his providers.

In 2005 Marples sold his first training provider, Assa Training and Learning Limited, to become the skills division of Carter & Carter – a firm that was valued on the London stock exchange at over £500 million before its collapse in 2008.

The DfE’s defence states that in November 2007, Carter & Carter issued a statement explaining that it would not be able to submit accounts for the year ended 31 July 2007 because its auditors were investigating irregularities, adding: “The quality of some apprentice learner records has been insufficient to support funding claims made to the Learning and Skills Council. Work carried out on behalf of the board also reveals deficiencies in learner records at the group’s skills division, including falsification of some supporting documentation.”

Further to this, Marples had been a director of Silver Track Training Ltd, a provider of rail engineering apprenticeships, between February 2010 and June 2011, and had been a shareholder until November 2011. The DfE states that “funding errors were subsequently identified in respect of the period during which he had been a director”.

Also in 2011 to 2012, the DfE investigated arrangements under which apprentices at five colleges were declared as being employed by 3aaa “such that the identity or existence of the ultimate employer was unclear”, and that investigation resulted in the “ending of such arrangements”.

Marples’ lawsuit highlighted the KPMG investigation into 3aaa that was launched in early 2016. His claim stated that “there was no evidence found of deliberate circumvention of funding rules by 3aaa”.

But what he didn’t mention, and what the DfE points out in its defence, is that this investigation found “significant discrepancies in the evidence relied upon by the company in support of funding claims, from which the SFA concluded that over £300,000 paid to the company should be repaid”.

You can download and read the full claim from Marples here and the DfE’s defence here.

The case continues.

Former national college to officially close down

One of the government’s former flagship national colleges has confirmed it will close its doors for good this summer after failing to find a sustainable future.

The National College for Advanced Transport and Infrastructure (NCATI), which has campuses in Birmingham and Doncaster and was formerly known as the National College for High Speed Rail, will cease direct delivery and wind down by July 31, 2023.

The decision was announced today following a two-month consultation that explored alternative business models in the face of long-standing financial challenges caused by insufficient student numbers.

In total 42 staff will lose their jobs and almost 170 learners and apprentices will be affected.

Interim principal and chief executive, Lowell Williams, said: “Unfortunately, we have been unable to identify a sustainable future for NCATI as a direct deliverer of education, and therefore we have made the difficult decision to discontinue delivery of learning.

“Our first priority now is to ensure all our learners have the opportunity to complete or continue their studies.”

Dependent on their location, the college’s 24 learners on study programmes will transfer to either DN Colleges Group or to South & City College Birmingham; while 81 apprentices with an end date beyond 31 July 2023 will transfer to other providers.

NCATI’s 25 higher education learners and another 38 apprentices will complete their programme with NCATI this academic year.

Williams said the Education and Skills Funding Agency has “expressed a desire” for NCATI’s buildings and land – which had a net book value of £19.5 million at July 31, 2022 – to remain an asset for the FE sector and the rail industry, as originally envisaged.

NCATI will “continue to work with the ESFA, City of Doncaster Council and Birmingham City Council in determining the future use of the buildings”. The board is also “continuing to explore collaborative models that might be developed as a legacy to NCATI’s original mission and vision”, Williams added.

The college has had a torrid time since being opened by then-education secretary Justine Greening in 2017 as the National College for High Speed Rail.

It struggled to recruit learners due to delays in announcing contractors for the High Speed 2 railway project, which meant employers were unable to commit to the apprentice volumes they had originally anticipated.

The college had to be propped up by millions of pounds of government bailout funding for years. FE Week exclusively revealed in February 2020 that NCATI had also taken Ofsted to court over an ‘inadequate’ report, blowing £73,000 on the legal challenge, which it eventually abandoned.

The college was dissolved and effectively taken over by the University of Birmingham in February 2021 following a structure and prospects appraisal.

NCATI made an EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) loss of £2.7 million in 2021/22, according to its latest accounts.

Williams said today: “The NCATI board, with support from the University of Birmingham, has resolved to discontinue the direct delivery of its further and higher education programmes, and to wind down the College by 31 July 2023.

“On behalf of the board, I would like to say how very much we regret the outcome of the consultation process. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to all our staff for their continued professionalism, support and commitment to our learners and their fellow colleagues, in what has understandably been and will no doubt continue to be a period of uncertainty.”

Tributes paid to ‘brilliant figurehead’ college principal Viv Gillespie

Tributes have poured in for the “fiercely determined” former college principal Viv Gillespie, who has died after a short illness.

Gillespie had been a stalwart principal in the FE sector, holding the top job at four colleges across England over her 30-year career.

She stood down as principal at Suffolk New College in January 2023 after seven years, at the time explaining her retirement was down to the recent discovery of a medical concern.

The college said she died peacefully on Friday, March 31.

Alan Pease, acting principal at the college and who worked as deputy principal under Gillespie, said: “Our college community is devastated by this news. During her time here, Viv committed to improving the lives of those living in this county and beyond by offering exceptional educational and training opportunities for all.”

Pease said she developed a culture of helping others but was “never the sort of person to shout from the rooftops about her own achievements. She liked to proudly sit in the background and let others take the glory”.

He added: “Viv was fiercely determined, incredibly loyal, honest and a great relationship builder behind the scenes. She was a brilliant figurehead for one of the largest educational facilities in the county and she will be greatly missed by all who knew her.”

Suffolk New College pledged a tribute to celebrate her life and to remember the outstanding contribution she made during her seven-year tenure.

Thérèse Coffey, secretary of state for the environment whose Suffolk Coastal constituency includes Suffolk New College’s coastal campus, on Twitter said: “Very sorry to learn of the untimely death of Viv Gillespie. RIP. As principal of @suffolknewcoll ege [sic] she had helped many students and secured a good Ofsted rating within the last few months.”

Gillespie took her first principal position at City College Plymouth in 2006, serving in that role for six years  that included an instrumental role in setting up UTC Plymouth, before moving on to Northumberland College in June 2012.

A seven-month stint there was followed by a post at South Worcestershire College, where she originally joined in January 2013 as an interim principal.

Her LinkedIn profile said that became permanent after six months, where she helped the college bolster its Ofsted rating from ‘inadequate’ to ‘good’ in a year.

She left in June 2015 to take up the principal post at Suffolk New College, where her achievements included improving its ‘requires improvement’ rating to ‘good’ on two occasions, and overseeing key building developments on campus.

She oversaw the college’s merger with Otley College, now known as Suffolk Rural, and opening of two ‘on the coast’ campuses in Halesworth and Leiston.

Gillespie, who held a first class honours degree in business studies, has also been active in wider Suffolk civil leadership, with board positions including Ipswich Central business improvement district, Ipswich Chamber, the Association of Colleges’ eastern region and as a member of the partnership board during Ipswich’s stint as an opportunity area.

She had also been a trained Ofsted inspector for post-16 providers.

A spokesperson for City College Plymouth said: “As a previous principal at City College Plymouth, we are saddened to hear of the passing of Viv Gillespie. Our thoughts and condolences are with her family.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said Gillespie was one of the country’s longest-serving principals and made an “enormous impact” at each of the colleges she served at.

“Viv brought compassion and good humour to each or her roles, all of which came with their challenges, and she was dedicated to supporting learners to reach their full potential and backed staff to help them achieve this,” he said.

Hughes said that she “worked tirelessly” with employers and professional bodies to ensure FE was recognised as a “valuable asset” to driving skills needs, and added: “She has had a great impact on thousands of people throughout her career, helping them realise their talents and ambitions.

“I would like to send my sincere condolences from everyone at the AoC to her family, friends and colleagues.”

Ian Munro, south west area director at the AoC said: “Viv made a significant positive impact as principal at City College Plymouth, not only in the improvement to the quality of education and training but in the wider community.”

Skills bootcamps: Study finds ‘inappropriate’ interviews and already-skilled workers on courses

More than half of the learners on wave two skills bootcamps already had qualifications at level 4 or above, a new government-commissioned study has found.

Research published by the Department for Education also reported “inappropriate” interviews despite guaranteed job interviews being a cornerstone of the flagship short courses, as well as starts dominated by men.

Skills bootcamps were launched in 2020 as free courses up to 16 weeks in length, designed to get learners quickly trained in areas of key skills shortages.

The study, carried out by CFE Research, assessed the implementation of wave two of the programme, which ran in the 12 months from April 1 2021.

However, while the report outlined some interesting new findings, key figures on completion rates and outcomes still remain out of the public domain.

The report said that information will be published in a forthcoming study, although a date has not been provided on that yet.

Here are the key findings from the DfE’s latest bootcamps study.

Places going to already-skilled workers

More than half – 55 per cent – of bootcamp starters already had a qualification of level 4 or above, the report says.

That proportion is above that of the annual population survey data for England which indicates that just under half, 49 per cent, of the population aged 20 to 64 hold a level 4 or higher qualification in 2021.

The report pointed out that there were a higher proportion of applicants than starts from learners with a level 1 qualification – 12 per cent compared to 6 per cent, while percentage of starts with a level 6 (honours degree level) was higher among starts than it was from applicants, 22 per cent of applicants compared to 29 per cent of starts.

“This suggests that those with a higher educational level more successfully converted to being a skills bootcamp start in comparison with those with a lower educational level,” the report said.

Fudged interviews

One of the key selling points for bootcamps is the guarantee of a job interview. The survey found this component was attractive for four in five learners.

But report authors discovered that it didn’t always turn out that way, reporting that some learners did not get their interview, while others found the interview offered was “unsuitable and not aligned to their skills need”.

It found that some participants received emails from their provider that just contained a list of adverts, while others found interview offers were inappropriate because roles were in the wrong location, offered insufficient salary or were unrelated to their training.

However the report said that some learners may have been offered interviews after the surveys took place because of the timing of the fieldwork.

Starts dominated by men

According to the data, two thirds of the 16,120 starts were men (67 per cent).

Around one in four starters, 28 per cent, were on Universal Credit, and a quarter of learners had caring responsibilities either for children or adults (26 per cent).

Previous FE Week analysis found that the flagship skills bootcamps policy was only funding sectors heavily dominated by men.

Huge demand for HGV bootcamps…

Just one in seven applicants for HGV bootcamps secured a place on a course.

Data revealed that there were 33,294 applicants for just 4,739 course starts, while digital bootcamps had a 2:1 ratio of applicants to starts – 20,354 applicants and 9,874 starts.

Total overall applicants for wave two bootcamps were 55,481, of which 16,118 started courses.

…but affordability problems remain for providers

Delivery of first year HGV bootcamps was hampered by difficulties in booking practical tests, often resulting in them taking longer than 16 weeks. That was due to a backlog in tests from the Covid-19 pandemic that meant demand for slots was higher than usual.

Coupled with the rising petrol prices in 2022 and providers paying for staff and equipment they couldn’t use while waiting for tests, the report noted it impacted on affordability of the training. Some providers lost money because they were unable to claim funding, it said.

For learners on Universal Credit, the delays left them in a difficult position where they risked losing benefits unless they got a job, the survey found.

Providers lambast ‘unfair’ payment…

Some providers described the payment schedule as “unfair”, claiming that the milestones for funding meant “a substantial amount of their training provision is unpaid”.

The report said a small amount of the funding was on evidence of training commencing, with a larger proportion once a learner completed training and a final sum when providers demonstrated a positive outcome or job offer.

Chasing evidence added extra administrative burdens for providers, some of which had to hire dedicated members of staff to secure evidence for payments, the document said.

It left some providers questioning if it was profitable, and some “might have to reconsider whether they would bid for future contracts”.

…but smaller providers were ‘kept in business’

Survey respondents from smaller independent training providers said that bootcamp funding was “critical for the continued success of their business” as a result of struggles they faced recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic and inflationary pressures.

Providers delivering pre-apprenticeship or short duration training reported that offering bootcamps was a “logical expansion” to their business.

Not enough time

On the higher-level digital courses, report authors found learners felt “rushed”, with some courses pitched at the wrong level or trying to cover too much content.

One fifth of survey respondents said there was not enough time to learn the necessary skills and knowledge for their bootcamp, with some saying that some providers had tried to condense too much of the curriculum from pre-existing longer courses into those 16-week bootcamps.

Employer characteristics

Nearly two thirds, 65 per cent, of employers that engaged with bootcamps were smaller firms employing up to 249 people, management information indicated.

It said that a quarter of those engaged offered an interview15 per cent gave time to employees to train on a bootcamp and one in ten offered a job to a learner.

Bootcamps ‘transformed lives’, says minister

Robert Halfon, minister for skills, apprenticeships and higher education pointed to a number of positives in the report, and referenced an extra £34 million pledged by the Chancellor in the spring budget to expand the number of places to 64,000 a year by the 2024/25 financial year.

“As this report shows, it has transformed lives by allowing people to pursue careers they’ve always wanted by breaking down the barriers that often make it seem impossible to retrain or change paths. It is also brilliant to see that skills bootcamps have improved the diversity of the companies involved,” he said.

Halfon added that the short courses helped learners to “gain new skills, boosting their confidence to get better jobs with higher wages.”

Do we need LEPs after all?

With government funding for skills advisory panels ending and the future of local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) hanging in the balance, the landscape for regional skills oversight is shifting. Jason Noble assesses the impact if both are lost for good.

For the last decade, local enterprise partnerships have been at the forefront of local and regional economic development across England.

Launched in the early 2010s to replace regional development agencies, LEPs were designed to take responsibility for local growth and play a role between central government and local businesses.

But with devolution deals promised for every region in England that wants one by 2030, and the government in the spring budget indicating that it was “minded to withdraw central government support for LEPs from April 2024”, is it already over for LEPs?

It would appear the writing has been on the wall for some time. LEPs were frozen out of bidding to become employer representative bodies for the new local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) being developed across England, although it should be noted that mayoral combined authorities were also curbed from taking control of those too.

And this month, the Department for Education published the final funding allocations for skills advisory panels – groups bringing together employers, providers and other key stakeholders, many of which are led by LEPs, to gather local data and evidence to inform local skills policies.

The DfE has confirmed there will be no further funding of SAPs, with the 2022/23 cash set at £55,000 for each of the 34 areas – £20,000 less than the £75,000 the year prior.

The DfE said the reduced allocation reflected the smaller ask of SAPs from previous years.

A spokesperson said: “We want to ensure that we are putting employers at the heart of local skills systems to help people to develop the skills they need to get good jobs and increase prospects.

“That’s why we are rolling out the employer-led local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) across the country, which the skills advisory panels supported in development by sharing analysis and data of the local skills system.”

The SAPs could still exist within the new employer representative bodies forming the LSIPs, but that will be down to the individual areas and will not attract any more central government funding, the DfE said.

The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities department told FE Week: “Our intention is for the functions of local enterprise partnerships to be delivered by democratically elected local leaders, where this is appropriate and is not already delivered by combined authorities.”

Mark Livesey

A consultation on the future of LEPs is currently underway – the 38 LEPs are in a four week window to complete a questionnaire that evidences where they add value, with next steps likely to be unveiled in the summer.

But what will the potential loss of LEPs and SAPs mean for local skills functions? Mark Livesey, chief executive of the LEP Network which champions the 38 LEPs across the country, is unequivocal.

“You won’t miss the benefits until they’re gone because LEPs play such an integral role in local skills provision – they’ve worked hard to build local partnerships between local business and providers,” he said.

“Local authorities simply don’t have that scale of business contact and the deep understanding of local labour markets which LEPs have built up over the last decade.”

He described it as a “retrograde step at a critical point,” pointing out that as apolitical bodies, LEPs did not have the same political wrangling which elected authorities faced.

Nationwide, LEPs have secured more than 3,500 business professionals in volunteering as enterprise advisors in schools to deliver careers sessions for the Careers and Enterprise Company.

Many help facilitate apprenticeship levy transfers from larger to smaller employers, and have a key seat on SAPs which have generated some of the evidence that has informed LSIPs.

Furthermore, many are involved in key government programmes such as Kickstart, Restart and skills bootcamps, and have been involved in dishing out investment funds locally.

Chris Starkie

Indeed, bootcamps is one area where the LEPs say they could add more value.

Chris Starkie, chief executive of the New Anglia LEP covering Norfolk and Suffolk, said the LEP significantly exceeded its wave 3 bootcamps target of 240 by achieving 310 learners, and could deliver twice as many learners this year had it been given the funding to do so.

It bid for £2.7 million for wave 4 bootcamps, but was given just £1.4 million.

He pointed out that some mayoral combined authorities struggled to hit their targets but received much larger allocations – at a time when the chancellor said he wants to drive up bootcamp starts with ambitions of another 8,000 bootcamp places in 2024/25 announced in the budget.

“We are just disappointed that while some parts of the country are struggling to get learners and struggling to get providers, we have just completed a procurement process where we will have to turn away providers and turn away learners because our settlement is much lower than MCA areas,” Starkie said.

Starkie says that LEPs have given further education providers “a real stake in local economic development – with an influential role in the work of LEPs, including seats on LEP boards”.

For Clare Hayward, chief executive of the Cheshire and Warrington LEP, the convening powers of LEPs are among the most important – and will be key to skills provision in the future, not just for the present.

Hayward said: “There isn’t really anybody else that plays that collaborative, catalytic role in bringing all of those voices together when it comes to skills.

“You might be able to understand what our current landscape is by using data and evidence, but also because we have those relationships with our businesses and business representative organisations, we can say what are the future skills.”

A push for business involvement in post-16 education has been clear for some time: Ofsted now measures colleges for their contribution to skills needs, and the watchdog often comments on how much apprenticeship providers work with firms to design their curriculum.

LSIPs add to this by bringing employers into wider local and regional planning and not just individual courses.

Clare Hayward

Ewart Keep, emeritus professor at Oxford University’s department of education, said that the new LSIPs will need to develop further still.

“The model seems to be employers sit down with chambers of commerce and write a letter to Santa saying ‘these are the skills I need from local colleges and providers,’” he said.

“If this model is going to have any long-term impact employers need to go on to a second stage – ‘this is what we the employers can contribute to the development of those skills’. You move from a wish list to co-production and employers accepting a greater responsibility.”

LEPs are understandably keen to shout about their work but local authorities will feel they can perform just as well.

A spokesperson from the Local Government Association said that the chancellor’s plans to transfer responsibilities from LEPs to local authorities by April 2024 “provides a helpful timeline for councils and combined authorities”.

But it warned that “this needs to be supported by a commitment from government that transfers of responsibility are matched by sufficient funding and a commitment to work with the sector to identify any capacity issues some areas may face”.

Hayward concluded: “There is a realism that structures are changing, the writing has been on the wall for a little while now. What’s really important is that we don’t lose some of the business voice, the independent voice, the strategic voice in the shift and the restructure. It may not be called a LEP but actually what is required is the capabilities and the skills of a LEP to be able to deliver.”

Ofsted reports discomfort at ‘blurred boundaries’ between UTC learners and staff

Ofsted has reported instances of racist language from students and learners’ discomfort from “blurred” boundaries between staff and pupils at a university technical college in Reading.

UTC Reading, run by Activate Learning Education Trust, was rated ‘inadequate’ by inspectors in a report published today following a visit in February – its first visit in eight years because of the exemption from routine inspections as a result of its previous ‘outstanding’ rating.

The watchdog reported that “the boundaries between staff and pupils are blurred. Pupils describe staff as ‘more like friends than teachers’. Some pupils told inspectors that this makes them feel uncomfortable.”

It continued: “Several pupils made serious allegations about staff directly to inspectors during the inspection. Too many pupils told inspectors that they had not felt able to report them to school staff. Pupils told inspectors that, in one case when they did report serious concerns to staff, these were dismissed.”

Elsewhere, inspectors found that in class “many pupils talk over their teachers” which goes unchallenged, and said that not all students felt they could report serious safeguarding concerns because “they have little confidence staff will act”.

The education watchdog said that teaching was inconsistent which resulted in gaps in students’ learning.

Ofsted said that attendance for sixth form students was too low, explaining that while leaders have set out consequences for those not attending many students were not on board.

Inspectors reported use of racist language from some pupils, with staff not always taking effective action on inappropriate behaviour.

However, Ofsted said that trust leaders had a clear vision and were beginning to support the 14-19 UTC well having identified that standards were slipping, albeit acknowledging this was very recent.

It said that the chief executive and chair of trustees had made some immediate changes to tackle weaknesses but said that until the inspection leaders and governors had not realised the extent of those problems.

A spokesperson from the Activate Learning Education Trust – the schools arm of Activate Learning which runs the UTC – said the trust was disappointed with the result but accepted the report’s findings and “take full responsibility for the shortcomings identified”.

The trust apologised to students, parents and the wider school community and pledged regular updates on its improvement efforts.

The spokesperson added: “The safety and wellbeing of our students is our top priority, and we have taken swift and significant action, including appointing a new executive principal, to address the issues as a matter of urgency.

“We recognise this news may be concerning, however we want to reassure everyone that we are taking the feedback serious, and are absolutely committed to ensuring that UTC Reading is, once more, recognised as a good and high-performing school.”

Wayne Edwards, principal at the ‘good’ rated UTC Heathrow which the trust also runs, is UTC Reading’s new executive principal, and had served as the college’s vice principal for four years until July 2017.

The UTC, which opened in 2013, had 499 learners on the school’s roll, of which 298 were sixth form students at the time of the inspection. It has a capacity of 600 learners.

Simon Connell, chief executive of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust which supports UTCs said it was working with UTC Reading to address the “disappointing outcome”.

“We are reassured that swift and decisive action is being taken to address the concerns raised in the report. In particular, Wayne Edwards’ appointment as executive principal of UTC Reading, following his success at UTC Heathrow, gives us confidence that the safety of pupils is a top priority.”

He said that three quarters of UTCs had been rated at least ‘good’ since the pandemic, stressing that UTC Reading’s report is “very much an exception”.

Apprenticeships: Employer engagement is key to widening access

Skills and apprenticeships minister, Robert Halfon grabbed our attention during his speech to the Annual Apprenticeship Conference when he told delegates: “To every young person I meet my message is that no matter who you are, or where you’re from, or whatever career you want to do, an apprenticeship will open doors for you.”

With 42 per cent of London Design and Engineering UTC’s learners eligible for pupil premium and 55 per cent speaking English as a second language, we understand the importance of helping young people from a range of backgrounds seize the opportunities that are out there for them.

My impact report on the school’s careers strategy reveals several interesting findings about the UTC’s employer engagement and offers some insights into how other practitioners can open the doors to apprenticeships, further education and employment to all their learners.

Quality and quantity

The report, carried out with the support of LDE’s leaders and its employer partners, found that our 569 students received an average of 19 encounters with employers during 2020/21. The target under the Gatsby benchmarks is just one.

The tremendous work of staff to achieve this has rightly been recognised. Employer engagement manager Janice Tricks’ work bringing employers and students together was cited three times during an Education Select Committee hearing last November.

But more than quantity, it’s the breadth and depth of that engagement that is the real key to success. Skanska ran mental health and wellbeing sessions for years 12 and 13. National Grid embedded power engineering sessions in year 9 science lessons. With CVB, the Costain Vinci Construction Grands Projects and Bachy Soletanche JV, Tideway, which is building the ‘Super Sewer’ under London, offered advice and support about job roles where A level students could apply their maths skills.

More than two-thirds (68 per cent) of learners agreed or strongly agreed that they had met a whole range of employers at the school.

A culture of engagement

The essential ingredients of a UTC also produce results. Associate principal, James Culley told the report students are “part of a professional working environment”, allowing them to “slowly develop confidence” and their employability skills on a day-to-day basis.

This is achieved through work experience opportunities, but also by the UTC keeping office hours rather than traditional school hours and by students learning on industry-standard equipment with expert teachers.

Ninety-four per cent of learners agreed that they were given information on apprenticeship vacancies at the UTC. The same proportion of our school leavers said that they had been given good advice on how to apply for apprenticeships and other opportunities.

One of LDE’s alumni, who now works as an apprentice site engineer, gave us a brilliant illustration of the importance of believing in our learners and presenting them with opportunities beyond the curriculum. In the report, he was glowing about having had the chance to meet ministers and take part in radio and TV interviews as one of our student ambassadors.

Getting started

Our research has led us to several recommendations for how employers, learners, and providers can create a more effective engagement programme.

For employers, governorship roles can provide valuable insights into a provider’s potential and how their projects can fit with the provider’s curriculum. Bringing employers on in this way can also help to create a sense of mutual endeavour.

For learners and families, tracking employer engagements is a powerful measure of how much they are creating opportunities for themselves. It’s also an important addition to their CV. Work experience opportunities are out there, and directing them to sites like LinkedIn is a great place to start.

For colleges and training providers, maintaining long-term employer relationships is key. To make the most of those relationships, leaders should support employers to develop projects for students and support staff to use employer engagement across the curriculum.

Perhaps the best piece of advice is from our apprentice site engineer: “You’ve got to want to do things”.

We all want what Robert Halfon wants: Apprenticeships that deliver opportunity for all. Now, we have the tools to make it happen.

The cost-of-living crisis is becoming a cost-of-learning crisis

During the Industrial Revolution in the UK, education underwent a transformation. Introduced in 1870, a series of reforms collectively called The Elementary Education Acts enabled children to obtain an education.

Before, many of these children were sent to work in the most dangerous parts of factories, where injury was common, all for small change that their families needed to survive. Thanks to these acts and other social reforms that continued into the 20th Century, children could access schooling for free and, armed with an education, go on to careers that lifted them and their families out of poverty.

Now, as the effects of the cost-of-living crisis truly manifest, we are beginning to see regression. Our students are having to make choices under a pressure they should never be subjected to in their teenage years: Do they learn and starve, or earn and survive?

In any other decade, such a claim would have been dismissed as hyperbole – and understandably so! If it wasn’t for seeing it first-hand and talking to those involved in FE and the local community, I would hardly believe it myself.

I first noticed the change last year. Learners who had been attentive and bright at the start of the first term were missing classes or turning up late. When they did attend, their excuse on arrival was always the same: they had been offered an extra shift and taken it.

Companies could be accused of being complicit in this, but from their side an increase in overheads means that employing 16-year-olds works out nearly £5 cheaper than employing a member of staff in their 20’s.

This year, things are worse. Despite my college pulling as much funding into its bursary and free meal schemes as it can, more and more learners are asking, some as their first question at enrolment: “Can I skip classes to take a shift if I promise to catch up?”

FE has become a last line of defence

Our vice principal, Carole Todd agrees that it is a growing concern for the college and the country that learners are forced to make this hard choice between learning and earning. Few would disagree that a strong vocational education opens doors to well-paying, non-exploitative careers while entry-level jobs often start and end on the minimum wage and zero-hours contracts.

But the reality is that last year in the construction department alone a few dozen learners across the trades left the college half-way through the course, lured away by promises of quick cash-in-hand work. It is the families that often make this choice for them. Financial hardship and cultural poverty mean they need their children to be earning and lack the guidance themselves to advise their children to seek out training courses such as apprenticeships or T Levels that would allow them to learn and earn at the same time.

In the community, there is evidence of this change as well. Speaking to my local councillor, Sajna Ali, I discovered that teenagers are recruiting other teenagers to jobs with poor hours and worse pay for a little kickback of their own. “Often,” Sajna told me, “these poor kids are being offered cash-in-hand work in restaurants owned by friends of the family miles away from the town. They are picked up mid-afternoon and returned after midnight, and for what? £25? How can they learn when they are so tired from such shifts?”

This decade will be defined by the situation we’ve called the ‘cost-of-living crisis’, but if we fail to act on behalf of our learners it will soon become a ‘cost-of-learning crisis’ that will damage the workforce for years to come.

FE has become a last line of defence between a life of skilled success and one of below-the-breadline suffering.

We need to be more vocal about the horrible choices our learners are forced to make. And we need a plan to mitigate the cultural poverty that inhibits families from seeking the right sorts of help, as well as plans to feed and support these learners economically.

And we need this before they stop even turning up for enrolment to ask the question.