ChatGPT: FE institutions need a solid policy to manage the AI revolution

Imagine a world where virtual teaching assistants provide personalised learning experiences for students and administrative tasks are handled with precision and speed by artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

This is no longer a distant dream, thanks to the likes of ChatGPT and others. As this exciting technology becomes an integral part of the education landscape, it’s crucial  that institutions have a comprehensive AI policy in place for staff for four key reasons.

The first is ethical. Picture a maths lecturer using AI to provide instant feedback on a student’s algebraic equations. While this is a great example of how AI can enhance learning, it also raises questions about ensuring its ethical, responsible use in education, not least with regards to privacy, fairness and transparency.

The second reason to have an AI policy is consistency.Having lecturers at the same college using AI tools in vastly different ways might lead to a disjointed learning experience for some students, and disadvantage others outright depending on who they were taught by.

Only a consistent application of AI can ensure that all staff and students benefit from the technology while minimising the risks of misuse, over-dependence and unequal provision.

Which leads us to professional development. It is inevitable that staff will need new knowledge and skills to integrate AI into their teaching practice and administrative duties effectively. Early adopters can be viewed as an asset, a threat, or merely as a novelty, but the reality is that these tools raise the bar for digital literacy across the board.

And finally, of course, institutions must continue to navigate data protection laws like GDPR while using AI. This isn’t just about remaining compliant, but about maintaining the trust of students, staff, and external stakeholders.

Four good reasons to have an AI policy, but what should it include?

Purpose and Scope

Outline the policy’s purpose, highlighting the institution’s commitment to responsible AI usage in a way that engages and excites staff and students alike.

Roles and Responsibilities

Be clear about the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved in using AI. Consider creating an AI ethics committee that includes representatives from different departments, ensuring a diverse range of voices contribute to the responsible implementation of the policy.

Data Protection and Privacy

Offer real-life examples of how the institution will comply with data protection regulations, such as GDPR, in relation to AI usage. This will help staff understand the importance of safeguarding student privacy and handling sensitive information responsibly.

Accessibility and Inclusivity

Showcase how the policy will champion accessibility and inclusivity, ensuring that staff and students with disabilities can access and benefit from AI tools on an equal footing.

Training and Support

Design an engaging training programme to teach staff about the responsible use of ChatGPT etc. and the policy itself.  You could include hands-on workshops, interactive webinars, and develop creative resources to help staff integrate AI into their practice effectively.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Establish a dynamic system for monitoring and evaluating the AI policy’s effectiveness, as well as the impact of AI usage on student outcomes and staff experiences. Encourage staff to contribute feedback, ideas, and suggestions for improvement through various channels, such as ‘town hall’ meetings or online forums. 

Review and Update

Don’t let the policy gather dust! Schedule regular reviews to ensure the AI policy remains relevant and effective in light of emerging AI technologies and educational practices. Adapt and revise the policy as necessary to address new challenges and opportunities in the rapidly evolving world of AI. 

As AI becomes a driving force in shaping the future of FE it’s important that institutions embrace a comprehensive and engaging policy for staff. By addressing ethical concerns, promoting consistent application of AI tools, ensuring legal compliance, and enhancing digital literacy, these policies will pave the way for a new era.

By fostering a culture of inclusivity, accessibility, and ongoing improvement, FE can harness the power of AI to transform the learning experience for both staff and students.

Maths to 18: A policy in search of a strategy  

The prime minister’s reiteration this week of his belief that all young people should study maths to 18 reflects a view that subjects can and should be prioritised according to the return on investment they offer to the Treasury and to their value to young people in securing employment and contributing to the economy. 

A focus on maths education is important, and sixth form colleges – with their specialist expertise and established tradition of excellent results in A Level, core maths and GCSE resits as well as their large populations of students taking maths – are well-placed to support an increase in take-up.  

But it is also important to foster a love of learning for learning’s sake. Maths is already the most popular A level subject, accounting for more than one in ten of all entries. So it’s worth remembering that all disciplines have an important role to play in enriching our society by offering learners a wide range of expertise and skills.

The promotion of maths must therefore be a part of a wider strategy. We also need to develop skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity and communication, and young people need to develop their artistic sensitivities through the arts, their understanding of the world through the lessons of history, and their active role in a democracy through the study of philosophy, law and politics.

So we still need to see more details of the Mr Sunak’s proposal, but a raft of questions already arise, including what measures will be introduced to address the fact that it is already difficult to recruit enough maths teachers.

If maths is to be added to a young person’s timetable, there will be more lessons on the timetable. Will the government commit to fully fund the delivery of additional maths qualifications?

We will have to build capacity first

Of course, maths for all to 18 does not mean that everyone will have to take maths at A level. Some will take core maths (roughly equivalent to half an A level). Others may need to resit their GCSE. If the latter pass at the end of the first year, at 17, what should they study for the final two terms before their A level examinations in other subjects?

Crucially, what kind of maths should be studied by those who aren’t naturally drawn to choosing maths? 

In 2018, Lord Baker advocated two different maths GCSE exams, such as happens in English (language and literature). This would make sense at post-16 too. Those who want to study mathematical theories can choose A level. Those who want to develop their practical numeracy should be able to access a different qualifications focused on the skills they will need in the real world, from basic operations to geometry, and from percentages to basic statistics. 

But if we are to succeed in achieving the prime minister’s ambition of maths for all to 18, we will have to build capacity first. The policy will mean even more demanding targets for the recruitment of maths teachers at the end of a decade when targets have been missed every year. The strategy will have to be properly resourced too: additional maths lessons on the timetable will only add to the cost pressures facing schools and colleges.

Then, once the capacity is there, the realities of delivering the policy will need careful consideration. We will have to establish the course content and the level of the qualifications offered. Employers will have to be engaged, including through the new expert advisory group, so that their needs are fully taken into account. And we will have to protect other disciplines in order to avert the kind of narrowing of the curriculum that followed the introduction of the EBacc and Progress 8, with a drop in the average number of GCSEs (or equivalents) taken by students from 11 to 7.

So there is much to do and to clarify before this proposal can become a reality, but the debate is an important one and sixth form colleges will look to make a valuable contribution.

Abolish Ofsted? We have better things to focus on

Like a punch to the face, the thought of Ofsted is worse than the reality. The recent outpouring of fury about the impact of our high-stakes accountability system is certainly worthy of exploration by the sector and its regulator. But will this moment of challenge lead to a moment of change? I doubt it.

Media commentators and unions are carrying the hopes of the profession by enticing us to imagine a life without Ofsted. But the rallying cry for its dismantling is frankly just noise. If it was sent to the scrap yard tomorrow, we’d have a new Frankenstein agency welded together and released back into the wild by a week on Wednesday.

Just because you want something to happen doesn’t mean it’s going to. And this is never going to happen. Nor should it. No one wants Ofsted to appear at the gates, but that doesn’t mean they are not required to check standards. 

That doesn’t mean regulation can’t be improved, but it’s not all down to Ofsted either.

True, judgments can be devastating. But this isn’t the fault of the judgment. It’s the culture in which the judgment is given and received. To paraphrase Cassius, the fault lies not in our stars, but in our minds.

We educators hand over too much power to the judgment. If governing bodies and communities, leaders and staff collectively had the will, we could take the high-stakes feel away from accountability. Where is our confidence in our evidence beyond the Ofsted criteria? College reputations exist in communities, for whom Ofsted only plays a small and often over-estimated part. 

Having said that, it’s easy to go too far the other way. A principal colleague recently mused that ‘a lion shouldn’t concern itself with the opinion of a sheep’. But as trust in public institutions declines, it is our duty to rebuild it, and this can only happen through mutual respect.

We hand over too much power to the judgment

The problem is that our sector is in perma-crisis. This means Ofsted judgments are increasingly likely to damage institutions through no fault of their own over the coming years. This is unlikely to foster respect for it, which is already at an ebb.

Ofsted will need to work with the sector to figure out how it will handle judgments amid not just chronic underfunding but substantial change. Curriculum reform looms that will displace thousands of young people from technical routes. In this context, how will Ofsted judge curriculum intent? And how will judgment land when providers stop delivering apprenticeships because they don’t pay their way and drag down quality indicators or increase audit risk?

The greatest danger is that the axe repeatedly lands on individual colleges, when it’s actually a system issue. An ongoing data-led, desk-based accountability system is worthy of further exploration. As is a more collegiate approach like peer review, adopted in many systems in Europe (who also have higher standards).

Removing grading isn’t a realistic option. Ask anyone in the street about a school or college and they’ll use their own more informal language to give you a one-word assessment. But there’s no need for the stigma and reputational impact of the current system. A binary system –  good enough and not good enough (yet) – is ample. The reality is that at any given time some providers really aren’t good enough. But ‘outstanding’ is a distraction – a pedestal from which to fall. 

The current inspection framework is well structured and broadly sensible. But it’s unwieldy and more difficult for GFECs, and in my experience Ofsted’s outcomes are variable regardless. Do less, but better, focusing on the professional, considerate dialogue and clear, dispassionate judgments that are the most valuable aspects of inspection.

In reality, amid the many strategic priorities on my desk Ofsted isn’t even in my top 10. I don’t enjoy Ofsted visits, but I don’t enjoy my prostate examination either. Both cause me fairly constant low-level anxiety, I’m fearful of both when the time comes, and ultimately they both leave me feeling a bit violated. But both give me important information about whether I need further help, so I welcome them.

Just not this week. Please.

University-run apprenticeship provider hit with Ofsted ‘inadequate’

A university has made one of its deans the chief executive of its apprenticeship training provider following an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted rating over safeguarding concerns, staffing disruption and poor off-the-job training.

Alliance Learning opened as a training provider 40 years ago and joined the University of Bolton group in 2020. Today it was judged ‘requires improvement’ in all areas except leadership and management, where Ofsted gave it the lowest ‘inadequate’ rating and resulted in an overall grade four.

The provider, inspected in February, had previously been rated ‘good’ but inspectors found standards had declined since its last short inspection in May 2017.

Between the inspection in February and the publication of the report, Alliance appointed Dr Gill Waugh as its new chief executive, dean of the university’s faculty of professional studies and head of the school of education and psychology.

Additionally, Bolton College’s principal Bill Webster and executive director for HR and estates, Jane Marsh, have both joined Alliance’s board.

The provider said it expects to enter discussions with the Education and Skills Funding Agency, but would not be drawn on whether its funding contract would be terminated as a result of the Ofsted judgement – which would be in line with usual ESFA rules.

Alliance Learning had over 350 apprentices on programme at the time of Ofsted’s visit. It has started 120 apprentices to date this year in engineering, manufacturing technologies, building and construction, administration and business management. It’s overall achievement rate for its 150 leavers in 2021/22 was 73.5 per cent, well above the national average of 53.4 per cent.

But Ofsted said that engineering learners had suffered “significant disruption” to their learning as a result of numerous staff changes and infrequent progress reviews. New staff have been recruited but had not yet resulted in all apprentices receiving the same high-quality training, the report said.

It continued that “leaders do not ensure staff follow correct procedures” when apprentices raise safeguarding concerns, resulting in those not being recorded or followed-up. Inspectors said that leaders and managers “cannot assure themselves that all apprentices are safe” and dubbed recording and monitoring of safeguarding referrals as “systemically weak”.

The report said that quality improvement processes were not yet effective, and the provider hadn’t identified quality weaknesses in its own self-assessment.

Furthermore, on and off-the-job training was not co-ordinated effectively and development of English and maths skills was deemed “not effective for all apprentices”.

Additional activities beyond the main vocational curriculum were not always provided, while learners were not given information to make well-informed decisions on career options, according to the report.

Prior knowledge, skills and behaviours were also not always identified.

Inspectors however did praise the positive attitudes and punctual attendance of learners, as well as the support from tutors, and Alliance’s work in aligning apprenticeships with priority skills needed in the Greater Manchester region.

Dr Gill Waugh, the new chief executive, said that all staff have now been trained in safeguarding and its policies have been updated, including new safeguarding leads being appointed.

“We acknowledge the concerns raised by Ofsted in our recent inspection. We took immediate and decisive action to introduce a robust action plan which addresses every point raised by the inspectors,” Waugh said.

“With new leadership and procedures in place, I am confident that our detailed action plan will achieve the rapid and effective change necessary to ensure an environment where all our staff and learners at Alliance Learning can develop and prosper.”

Sunak’s maths to 18 expert advisory group revealed

A curriculum guru, the former Ofqual boss and the chief executive of a credit card giant will be tasked with advising the government on how to deliver its plan to extend maths education up to 18.

It comes as prime minister Rishi Sunak doubled down on his promise this morning, announcing the establishment of the new expert advisory group.

The panel, made up of eight experts including mathematicians, education leaders and business representatives (see full list below) – will take evidence from countries with high rates of post-16 numeracy and UK employers.

Among the panel are Ofqual’s former interim chief regulator Simon Lebus (pictured left) and Tim Oates (pictured right), group director of assessment research and development at Cambridge University Press and Assessment and one of the 2014 national curriculum architects.

While the majority of the group work within the sector, Lucy-Marie Hagues, chief executive of credit card company Capital One UK, will offer insight from employers.

The group, which also consists of a college leader, will advise the prime minister and education secretary Gillian Keegan on whether a new maths qualification will be required for 16 to 18-year-olds.

But the work they do between this month and July 2023 does not need to constitute a formal review and the group will not be asked to publish its work, government said.

Terms of reference published this morning show the group will provide guidance to the government on “what maths knowledge and skills are needed for jobs in the modern economy, and therefore what ‘best in class’ modern maths content should look like”.

Group will advise what maths content is essential for post-16

As well as what essential content is needed for 16 to 18-year-olds, the group will consider what math skills are needed in STEM and non-STEM reliant jobs.

They will also be asked to query what maths knowledge young people need by age 18 to manage their personal finances.

Other questions for the group to answer include whether the depth of content should vary across different post-16 pathways and how many hours of study will be required to cover essential topics.

Members will also consider if study needs to be continuous over the course of 16-19 education.

Written evidence and advice will be provided to the government by the end of July.

Who is on the expert panel?

Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock (pictured centre), chancellor, University of Leicester

Peter Cooper, executive principal and CEO, Heart of Mercia Multi-Academy Trust

Lucy-Marie Hagues, CEO, Capital One UK

Professor Jeremy Hodgen, professor of mathematics educations, University College London

Simon Lebus, non-executive chairman, Sparx

Tim Oates, group director of assessment research and development, Cambridge University Press and Assessment

Charlie Stripp, CEO, MEI and director, National Centre for Excellence in Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM)

Fionnuala Swann, assistant principal (academic), Nelson and Colne College Group

What’s actually new in Sunak’s maths to 18 (re)announcement?

The prime minister has restated his pledge to make maths education up to 18 compulsory today – with parts of his speech getting lots of national media coverage again.

Rishi Sunak first underlined the “ambition” back in January. Today he reannounced the commitment alongside a few smaller scale policies linked to maths. Here’s what you need to know …

1. Expert group to come up with plan …

Let’s start with the *new* stuff. Sunak announced a new advisory group to work out what maths content students should study up to the age of 18.

The group – full details of its members and their remit here – will take evidence from countries with high rates of post-16 numeracy and UK employers.

It will also advise on whether a new maths qualification will be required for 16 to 18-year-olds.

2. … ‘rough timescale’ for ‘next steps’ later this year

Sunak said he expected the expert advisory group to deliver its recommendations in July.

He added the government would be outlining a “rough timescale on the next steps” of the plan later in the year.

As we reported earlier this year, the PM had only previously committed to *starting work to introduce the policy* in this parliament, acknowledging the *actual* reforms would not be achieved until 2025 at the earliest.

3. £6k incentives for new FE teachers

A cash incentive pilot will be run this year for up to 355 FE teachers who take part in the Taking Teaching Further programme, targeted at some of the “hardest-to-fill subjects”, including maths.

Education secretary Gillian Keegan revealed the scheme today as launched the sixth round of the scheme that is backed with £15 million.

Other subjects to benefit from the bursary offer include digital/IT, construction and the built environment, engineering/manufacturing.

Each new FE teacher in those subjects on the programme will be given a £3,000 payment in year one of the programme followed by another £3,000 payment in year two.

This financial initiative is in addition to the general Taking Teaching Further support package, which covers the cost of a teaching qualification, as well as providing a reduced teaching timetable and a provider delivering mentoring support.

Taking Teaching Further was first launched in 2018. Figures obtained by FE Week show that in its first two years, the programme supported 125 industry professionals to retrain as FE teachers.

Then 254 were recruited in 2020/21, followed by 354 in 2021/22, and 254 in 2022/23.

Skills minister Robert Halfon said: “Industry professionals know the skills that employers need, and we recognise we need more people with this relevant expertise in key sectors like maths, construction and engineering to share their knowledge and skills.

“With more and more high-quality technical training offers being rolled out, including apprenticeships, T Levels and skills bootcamps, there has never been a better time to consider becoming an FE teacher to inspire the next generation and extend the ladder of opportunity to people from all walks of life.”

4. Maths hubs extended …

Sunak announced that several existing programmes would be extended. This includes maths hubs, which currently support teachers and leaders from schools and colleges with professional development in teaching the subject.

There are currently 40 ran by the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM). Education software firm Tribal has a two-year, £8.6 million contract to deliver the programme up to August next year.

Intensive maths hub support will also be introduced, with further support for staff teaching 16 to 19-year-olds resitting maths GCSE or functional skills qualifications.

There are no details so far on whether this requires additional funding.

5. Sunak admits: ‘We need more teachers’ …

A main point of contention for critics is the woeful teacher recruitment and retention numbers.

Sunak said this morning the government was “not going to deliver this change overnight”, adding that it needed to “recruit and train the maths teachers… We need already and we will need more maths teachers and we know that.”

However Sunak pointed to the £27,000 bursary for maths teacher trainees in schools. He said that “most people will see that that’s a significant sum to incentivise” new recruits and “things are improving” because of bursary rises and new early years careers payments.

DfE recently upped the teacher training bursaries on offer in FE for maths from £26,000 to £29,000.

6. … but they don’t know how many

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, Keegan suggested dedicated maths teachers might not be essential for every 16 to 18-year-old because extra maths content could be built into post-16 technical qualifications.

But she admitted the government did not know how many extra teachers would be needed.

“It depends on what the experts panel say they’re actually going to be learning,” she said.

“There are not enough maths teachers to deliver even the existing requirements let alone extend maths to every pupil to the age of 18,” Geoff Barton, general secretary of leaders’ union ASCL said.

7. Plans will tackle ‘anti-maths mindset’

Speaking to students and teachers in north London this morning, Sunak said the government needed to change what he described as an “anti-maths mindset”.

Despite maths being a core skill which is “every bit as essential as reading”, the subject’s value is often overlooked with poor attainment seen as “socially acceptable”, he added.

With the UK remaining one of the least numerate countries in the OECD, he argued that its future economic growth depended on combating poor numeracy.

Sunak reiterated again that it will not mean all pupils studying maths A-level. Instead government said it will “work to ensure that we have the right teaching framework and qualifications in place to deliver maths to 18 in the most effective way for students of all abilities”.

“We’re going to do it carefully and make sure we get the curriculum right. It’s about changing the culture,” Sunak added.

Five join register of flexi-job apprenticeship agencies after failed bids reconsidered

Five organisations have been added to the register of flexi-job apprenticeship agencies, after the Department for Education reconsidered their previously failed bids.

But the new additions will be subject to additional check-ins going forward.

Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, EdAid Ltd, Digital Innovator, The New Leaf Initiative and South West Apprenticeship Company (SWAC) joined the register last week, bringing the total up to 35 organisations.

The five organisations had applied in the autumn 2022 window and had been initially unsuccessful, before the DfE confirmed it would be re-assessing bids which failed solely on financial grounds against an “additional test of sustainability”.

Sixteen fresh names joined the register in January having been successful in the autumn application window – just over half of the numbers that applied.

Existing financial evaluations remain in place, but organisations which could satisfy the requirements of the sustainability assessment could join subject to additional oversight by the department, it confirmed last month.

The existing checks include an assessment of key financial documents such as full accounts, end of period profit and loss accounts, balance sheet and data on creditors.

A financial health grade of outstanding, good, satisfactory or inadequate is then given based on profitability, solvency and debt ratio.

The DfE said the new sustainability assessment includes elements such as assessing trading history, sources of funding and current financial position of applicants.

That sustainability assessment will continue for future application windows alongside the existing financial checks.

The department confirmed that it already has oversight of all organisations on the register of flexi-job apprenticeship agencies, but the additional oversight for those joining from the new sustainability assessment could include additional data requests or more frequent check-ins.

The five new names were contacted directly by the department for reconsideration.

Flexi-job apprenticeship agencies are designed to support apprentices in areas which traditionally have shorter employment patterns or project-based working, such as in the creative industries and construction, where it is more challenging to employ a learner for a 12-month apprenticeship duration.

Organisations on the register effectively act as an anchor for the apprentices and handle the administration, while the learners move around several employers through the duration of their course.

The register launched with 15 organisations in February last year, 11 of which shared £5 million of grant funding. By the autumn, two had dropped out and one additional organisation had joined, before a further 16 joined in January.

None of the additions in January gained grant funding.

The autumn application window featured industries which had not been represented on the register for the first time, such as life sciences and the pharmaceutical sector, as the DfE explained it was keen to try the model on new sectors.

According to the register, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce joined for the creative sector, Digital Innovators operates in the digital space and EdAid is involved in the creative and digital markets.

SWAC and The New Leaf Initiative operate across multiple sectors.

DfE seeks another contractor to help boost T Level employer placements

The Department for Education has launched a £1 million contract for an organisation to drive new T Level employer placements.

A tender, published last week, is for a contract due to launch in September running for two years.

The document explains that the DfE is seeking “a potential supplier to engage with employers to develop their knowledge and understanding of T Levels, as well as helping them to plan and prepare to deliver high-quality industry placements through guidance materials, workshops and webinars, and tiered hands-on support”.

The contracted firm is expected to engage with private sector employers, central government departments and quangos, and wider public sector employers like local government and NHS trusts.

It is also expected to produce support and guidance materials tailored to different size employers and different sectors, and report back to the DfE on patterns of employment and workplace training.

A prior information notice ahead of the contract tender being published said that the employer support package aims to “promote the benefits of industry placements to employers,” as well as “explain what T Levels are and how they fit into the wider educational landscape, and how they differ from work experience and apprenticeships”.

T Level courses, the first three of which launched in 2020, feature a mandatory placement with an employer totalling 45 days or 315 hours, with the industry link among the selling points for the new qualifications.

To date, 16 T Levels have launched with another two – agriculture and legal services – due to launch this September.

As T Level provision grows, the need to drive-up employer placements has also become apparent, with the new contract seemingly the latest in efforts to encourage employers to get on board with the flagship new qualifications, designed to be the technical equivalents of A-levels.

The DfE has said that by 2025, around 100,000 students will be studying T Levels every year.

Between 2019 and 2022 the government offered sweeteners of up to £750 initially (and upped to £1,000 in 2021) to help employers cover the costs of offering placements, but just £500,000 of the £7 million pot was used, and only 843 placements supported against a target of 32,466.

In February, the DfE confirmed a £12 million pot is available for the 2023/24 financial year to support employers to offer placements, paying for costs such as staff training, equipment or set-up expenses.

Last year £2.2 million was set aside to offer £350 per placement to small and medium-sized firms, while in January the DfE relaxed rules on placements so that up to a fifth of placement hours could be carried out remotely.

Despite the efforts of the government, some employers maintain that the red tape and cost pressures make it unattractive.

Research from 2022 found that three quarters of employers had not heard of T Levels, while other employers told FE Week earlier this year that they were reticent to offer placements because of insurance worries, spending time training someone who is not staying, an inability to offer a placement that fits their course, and the need for specific industry requirements, such as Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) cards for building sites.

Insurance apprenticeship provider censured for heavy focus on industry qualifications

An online training provider for the insurance sector has been criticised by Ofsted for focusing too much on industry qualifications and failing to offer the broader requirements of an apprenticeship.

Inspectors gave Apex Management Consultants two ‘insufficient progress’ and one ‘reasonable progress’ ratings in a report published today following an early monitoring visit – its first by the education watchdog – in February.

The organisation, which is based in Devon and Sussex but delivers apprenticeships nationally through online-only sessions, was told that leaders were not familiar enough with “how to design a high-quality curriculum that goes beyond the confines of the professional qualification”.

Learners study a qualification through the insurance industry professional body, the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) as part of their apprenticeships, but inspectors found that overall teaching largely focuses on that industry qualification rather than the wider skills and behaviours of the apprenticeship.

Inspectors also reported that the provider, which launched apprenticeships for employees in the insurance industry in 2020 and has 150 learners on its books on standards from levels 3 to 6, fails to engage with employers.

It found that employers were not always involved in agreeing a plan for learners at the start of their studies, did not always meet with provider staff and the apprentice to review progress or establish targets, or collaborate on aligning learning with their work in the workplace.

The report continued that “many employers” do not provide apprentices with their entitlement of time to study and noted that while employers were complimentary about Apex’s service, this was because “leaders do not expect employers to play a full role in supporting their apprentice”.

Several employers told inspectors they saw the apprenticeship as a cost-effective way of getting their staff qualified, the report added.

Elsewhere, apprentices’ prior knowledge and skills were not checked enough at the start of their studies, while too many learners had not completed work by their expected apprenticeship end date. It said that a “significant factor” in that had been the lack of time employers were willing to release apprentices for learning.

Some apprentices needing maths or English qualifications were not taught those subjects early enough to complete those, the report noted.

Inspectors said that leaders had however identified areas for improvement, in particular around developing expertise in apprenticeships and the need to secure external support to help that.

The report added that teaching staff were experienced and held professional qualifications, while safeguarding arrangements were judged to be ‘reasonable progress’.

Apex’s website said the family business had been delivering training for more than 20 years and had secured the first accredited provider status with the CII in England in 2008.

Government rules state that ‘insufficient progress’ findings in early monitoring visit reports will result in a freeze in new apprenticeship starts. The provider declined to comment on Ofsted’s judgement.