MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 435

Leanne Poole

Head of EPA Operations, NCFE

Start date: August 2023

Previous Job: EPA Client Relations Team Manager, NCFE

Interesting fact: Leanne started her career as a business admin apprentice and has worked in a variety of roles within ITPs and awarding organisations. Leanne has continued to study in the background and is a fully qualified counsellor and currently volunteers in her spare time to offer support to survivors of abuse

Zac Aldridge

Executive Director, Accelerate People Ltd

Start date: September 2023

Previous Job: Director of Quality, NCFE

Interesting fact: Zac developed a coffee obsession during lockdown and now has a dedicated coffee room in his house. For some reason, other people insist on calling a utility room

Wes Johnson

Principal & Chief Executive, Myerscough College and University Centre

Start date: September 2023

Previous Job: Principal and CEO, Lancaster and Morecambe College

Interesting fact: Wes escapes the pressures of day-to-day college leadership by retreating to his uplands smallholding, at 1000ft high in the Forest of Bowland. Wes and his family are planning to take their farm fully ‘off-grid’ in the next few years

Eyes on the prize: Specsavers judged ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted

Specsavers has landed its first ‘outstanding’ judgment from Ofsted after its “exceptional” apprenticeship training standards caught the eye of inspectors.

The watchdog lauded the optician’s “high-quality training” and “culture of high aspirations” in an upgrade on the ‘good’ rating it achieved in 2018.

Inspectors were also impressed with Specsavers’ focus on its apprentices’ mental and emotional well-being through monthly one-to-one sessions.

John Perkins, chief executive of Specsavers, said the report was a “fantastic endorsement” of the work of its apprenticeship team, which aims to ensure “people joining Specsavers are given access to the best training and development from day one so they can realise their full potential”.

The employer provider has 534 apprentices on its books. Most of the apprentices study level two and level three optician-related programmes, while 31 apprentices are on a level two customer service course and 61 on a level three spectacle making course.

‘Culture of high aspirations’

Specsavers scooped ‘outstanding’ grades across the board.

Ofsted highlighted “exceptional apprenticeship training” at Specsavers, where learners also benefit from “excellent resources” to develop new and existing knowledge, skills and behaviours.

Inspectors pointed to a set of “ambitious and challenging curriculums that extend beyond the apprenticeship standards”, so that “almost all” apprentices complete additional learning in areas like contact lens care and audiology.

“As a result, apprentices, including those with support needs, make excellent progress in their work and careers,” the report continued. Both apprentices and leaders have a “culture of high aspirations” at the provider, Ofsted said.

‘Clear and precise feedback’

Inspectors also praised efforts at Specsavers to keep work coaches’ knowledge up to date. For example, they are allocated one day per month where they complete “back-to-the-floor” days in store. As a result, staff have the “most current knowledge and skills to train apprentices effectively”.

Apprentices working for Specsavers also get the opportunity to shadow optometrists themselves, and act on “clear and precise feedback” to improve their own standards.

Inspectors also complimented the coaches’ “swift and effective action” to help apprentices when they fall behind, and review their apprentices’ workloads “carefully”, in fortnightly meetings.

“As such, apprentices who remain on their apprenticeship make excellent progress and swiftly develop the knowledge, skills and behaviours that are essential for their current job roles,” they said.

Ofsted said leaders “rightly recognise” that too many apprentices have left their training programme early, and that they use their “effective data” to “thoroughly analyse the reasons behind this and have quickly put in place measures to ensure apprentices do not leave early”.

Dena Wyatt, head of apprenticeships at Specsavers, said apprentices are a “pipeline of brilliant talent and part of what makes us so successful.

“We are very proud to have achieved an outstanding grade, but it does not stop here. We still have so much in the pipeline to make our programmes even better.”

Young carers ‘put off’ T Levels

Young carers are being pushed away from enlisting on the government’s “gold standard” T Levels due to strict rules that would cut off their access to benefits.

College principals, experts, and MPs have warned that young carers are choosing shorter courses or dropping out of education altogether to prioritise their caring duties and claim their carer’s allowance, which pays out £76.75 a week if they care for someone for at least 35 hours a week.

Benefits rules stipulate that carers will not be able to claim carer’s allowance if they study for 21 hours or more each week and cannot be in full-time education, even if they meet all the other criteria. T Level students typically study for more than 21 hours a week.

College leaders have called for an urgent review of the carer’s allowance eligibility rules in the context of the cost-of-living crisis.

The Department for Education said it is aware of the concerns but is yet to pledge any action.

Clare Russell, principal of Runshaw College, told FE Week that many young carers come from low-income households, who could end up seeking paid work instead of studying.

“Young carers are having to choose between claiming vital financial support to enable them to carry out their caring duties, or studying a valuable T Level qualification,” she said.

She added that preventing carers from claiming the allowance means they would either “be forced to study a different qualification with fewer course hours or drop out of study altogether in order to work and support their family”.

“This seems inconsistent with the government’s promotion of T Level qualifications as a route for students to develop vocational skills and progress into skilled employment, higher study or apprenticeships,” Russell added.

It comes after a parliamentary debate last week examined the rising cost of living for FE learners, where chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students Paul Blomfield MP said that he had heard the 21-hour rule is putting off carers from doing full-time courses.

“Subsequently [we] heard the particular issue facing young carers on T Levels who will lose their carers allowance if they study for more than 21 hours a week, so the cost-of-living crisis is affecting decisions on remaining in further education but also on the type of course, with many leaning towards shorter courses,” he said.

True figure of carers dropping out ‘impossible to know’

According to the latest census calculations, there are more than 270,000 young adult carers aged 16 to 24 in England and Wales, equating to one in 23 young people.

However, the true figure of how many FE learners are impacted by the carer’s allowance eligibility is tough to determine as young adult carers are not categorised through the Individualised Learner Record (ILR).

“It’s impossible to know how many are doing T Levels, or how many have chosen to drop out of education,” said Nicola Aylward, Learning and Work Institute’s head of learning for young people.

Andy McGowan, policy and practice manager for young carers and young adult carers at Carers Trust told FE Week: “The 21-hour rule means that for many young carers, they will be forced into choosing their course not for academic reasons, but for financial ones. Young carers should not have to choose between caring or learning.

“In the current cost-of-living crisis, this rule is pushing these young people away from learning – particularly ‘gold standard’ courses such as T Levels – as they simply can’t afford to give up their Carers Allowance.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “We want as many young people as possible to benefit from T Levels including carers. We are aware of concerns relating to benefit eligibility for students studying over 21 hours per week and that this includes T Level students.

“We want to support students to access T Levels, and those in need can access help with the costs of participating in study through the 16-19 bursary fund including for travel passes and books.”

Specialist college pleads for help after RAAC evacuation

A college for students with special educational needs is pleading with the government for exceptional financial support after dangerous RAAC concrete forced it to evacuate its learning space.

Royal College Manchester, an independent specialist college based in Cheshire that teaches students with severe and profound learning difficulties, had to close its biggest building after it found reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) this month.

However, its independent status means it is not entitled to government funding for RAAC-related work, as schools and general FE colleges are.

Clare Howard, chief executive of Natspec, which represents specialist colleges across England, accused the DfE of “treating students who are more vulnerable in a way that leaves them unprotected, when they wouldn’t do that with mainstream students”.

‘A considerable challenge’

Royal College Manchester, part of the Seashell Trust charity, had to “hurriedly” move most of its students to a building that wasn’t designed to cater for learners with special educational needs and/or disabilities at the beginning of September at the order of education secretary Gillian Keegan.

It has since had to fork out on costs to renovate the new site to make it accessible for students, many of whom use mobility aids and wheelchairs.

Bernie White, director of education and care at the Seashell Trust, told FE Week the young people the college teaches have “very complex needs” and elements of the building they have moved into, such as narrow corridors and larger classrooms for small teaching groups, present a huge challenge.

“There are practical, day-to-day issues that we’ve had to navigate and consider as we move,” she said.

“Transitions can be a challenging time for all our learners. This catapulted them into something which was very sudden.”

Disadvantaging vulnerable students

Term was delayed for five of the college’s 68 students. Remote learning is also not an option due to students’ needs.

They will use that building for two years, until another building, already planned before the college found RAAC, is ready in 2025/26.

White said she is in discussions with the DfE over funding and is hoping the department will offer cash to reimburse his college for the costs it has and will continue to incur due to RAAC.

However, the DfE told FE Week specialist colleges are not entitled to funding because they are independent. Unlike schools and general FE colleges, specialist colleges are typically not-for-profit companies or registered charities. 

Howard said she was “pushing to get the [RAAC support] rules changed”. 

“That’s something the DfE need to look at, particularly with their commitment to every young person having quality education. They need to look at why they have a policy whereby students in mainstream education are protected, and students with more complex needs aren’t protected. That’s an equality issue,” she added. 

‘Significant hindrance’

Royal College Manchester’s rush to respond to RAAC mirrors complaints made by general FE colleges.

The DfE added three colleges to its official list of educational settings which have identified RAAC this week. The list is now up to 174, four of which are general FE colleges. Royal College Manchester is the only specialist post-16 college on the list.

Farnborough College of Technology, Grantham College and Marple Sixth Form College – part of The Trafford College Group – joined Petroc as the general FE colleges with identified RAAC as of September 14.

Farnborough College criticised the DfE’s indecision for causing a “significant hindrance” after identifying RAAC months before DfE began ordering closures.

Despite DfE guidance showing concrete planks with RAAC were “generally in good condition” in July, the government told the college to urgently close 177,000 square feet of its space in August. That meant a “small number” of its adult learners could not come in the first week of term.

Grantham College, meanwhile, also had to close part of its campus while Trafford College closed part of its Marple Sixth Form College campus including six classrooms.

Unit for Future Skills’ ‘useful to a point’ £2.5m spend in 15 months

The Department for Education’s novel Unit for Future Skills has been “useful to a point”, sector leaders have told FE Week, after it was revealed the group has cost over £2.5 million in its first 15 months.

Set up by DfE in May 2022, the Unit for Future Skills (UFS) is an analytical and research unit, whose main priority this year was to deliver two skills dashboards on careers pathways and skills demand, showing available jobs in each area of England based on skills needs.

It was the replacement for the Skills and Productivity Board, which brought together FE experts into a committee providing independent, evidence-based advice to DfE.

The DfE revealed it spent £2,569,794 on the unit between its inception and August 2023, in answer to a parliamentary question from Labour’s new shadow skills minister Seema Malhotra who appears keen to find out whether the unit is offering value for money.

The unit, chaired by the UK Statistics Authority’s national statistician Professor Sir Ian Diamond, has around 20 people in its team who are mostly analysts. The unit also commissions external work by researchers and data experts. DfE said most of the costs incurred are for staff salaries.

“That’s a reasonable amount of money for the number of people and work involved,” said Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning Work Institute.

“I think the question is whether that is the right number of people and if they’re making a difference to the skills system, that will determine the value for money.” 

He explained that so far, the main outputs of the unit “seem to be a number of data dashboards on local labour markets and job projections”.

“A question for me is how valuable local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) have found these, how widely are they being used, and also how they add value to previous efforts,” he added.

Main users of the UFS’ dashboards included colleges and employers developing local skills and improvement plans, some of whom have criticised that the rollout wasn’t in tandem with the LSIP time scale, making it difficult to fully utilise the information provided.

“The only teething issue was that some information came out at different points so it seemed like it was being developed along the same time frame as the LSIP time frame so we couldn’t fully utilise all the information it contained,” a spokesperson for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire chambers of commerce, which led on its area’s LSIP, told FE Week.

“The dashboard was being consistently updated through the LSIP process and if it continues down that path then will likely continue to be a useful resource.”

The spokesperson added that the dashboards were “useful to a point” as they collated data usually found across different websites and databases and allowed them to “localise it to some extent”.

Others said the development of the LSIP involved rigorous local research which went “beyond the current capability” of the UFS.

A spokesperson from Devon and Plymouth Chamber of Commerce said: “As part of the DfE LSIP funding we undertook rigorous, local research that went into specific detail beyond the current capability of the UFS. 

“We understand that UFS is still in development, and we have provided our feedback as requested through the appropriate channels.”

Out of all 38 published LSIPs in England, 13 mentioned the UFS as a data source in their plans.

The unit has already made the careers pathways dashboard live, which shows the education pathways into industry and gives statistics on qualification and subject area outcomes. It is planning to update the dashboard later this year to link the pathways to job occupations for learners.

A DfE spokesperson said: “The Unit for Future Skills is meeting its priorities and providing value for money, helping to build a skills system that is employer-focused, high quality and fit for the future. 

“This includes producing resources to help learners see which higher and further education courses will best help them reach their career goals, working with the ONS to develop a new source of job vacancy information that will provide colleges and learners with precise information on local job demand, and working closely with employer bodies to support their local skills improvement plans.”

Employer partnerships are no longer enough to tackle the skills crisis 

The sector has long prided themselves on having ‘excellent relationships’ with employers. Accordingly, colleges around the country have been collaborating on a level not seen before to help tackle skills gaps. Whether it’s via apprenticeship provision, work placements or some curriculum delivery, there is no doubting the value that strong, industry partnerships can have on students’ learning and progression. 

And many employers recognise the benefits of engaging with colleges; enabling them to secure their future skills needs and influence the types of skills and behaviours being taught to the next generation of experts. 

Government skills policy has always been focused on the need for employers and educators to collaborate. The apprenticeship act of 1964 established the framework for young people to receive practical training alongside their academic education – and FE colleges have continued to play a crucial role, designing courses with local employers to meet the specific skills requirements of a regional workforce. 

There has been a growing emphasis on collaboration between higher education institutions and employers too. Degree apprenticeships are well regarded, together with research and development opportunities and work placements being integrated into HE programmes. 

The more recent apprenticeship levy and development of T Levels have further reflected the government’s support for employer-led training, and the fundamental role it needs to play in the growth of the economy.

So, at first glance, the introduction of LSIPs is not revolutionary in terms of employer-educator partnerships. Arguably, they’re just another take on encouraging organisations to work together, with the aim of getting more people into good jobs.

But having become fully immersed in developing the LSIF bid for the Local London region over the summer (which is our response to the LSIP), it’s clear that meeting the challenge of the skills crisis requires more than that.

What we have realised and learned through the LSIF process is just how much more can be achieved when working collaboratively with other colleges, HEIs, training providers and local authorities – as opposed to just linking up with employers.

It goes beyond employers. It is about working as a regional collective

Crucially, every organisation involved in this work has the same aim. We all want to meet employers’ skills demand, open up great local job opportunities for people in our communities and help support a thriving economy. 

This goes beyond just working with employers. This is about breaking down barriers – including any concern about ‘competition’ between colleges. It is about working as a regional collective to maximise the funding available and develop effective proposals that will achieve the greatest possible impact for local people. 

By joining up with 12 other FE colleges across the Local London region, three universities, adult education providers, local authorities and many employers – we have been able to collectively design an approach that will address green and digital skills gaps across our whole region. 

This process has not been straightforward. It has taken time and, most importantly, has required genuine drive and commitment from every partner to make it work.  

But the skills crisis is not going away. We need to create a system that can operate with greater agility to meet the rapidly changing needs of the workforce. This isn’t just about qualifications; it’s about training people in the way that employers need, to respond to their ever-changing operating environment.  

Our focus on digital and green skills is just one example, but the picture is the same across multiple industry sectors.  

Colleges are expert collaborators; we understand the needs of our students and we can adapt and flex to meet the needs of businesses. But discrete college-employer partnerships alone are no longer enough to close the rapidly expanding skills gap.  

Genuine engagement with stakeholders across the whole skills ecosystem – including local authorities, funding agencies and all types of education providers – is crucial if we are to develop, create and sustain long-term solutions and secure the necessary funding.

What’s more, by creating this collaboration blueprint, we will have a far greater ability to influence and shape policy moving forward. The Local London LSIF is proof that there is strength in numbers and shows just how much impact can be achieved when people are committed to achieving a shared aim. 

How to embed ED&I into your everyday teaching and learning

ED&I. When I reflect on what those three letters have meant to me and my students throughout my FE career, I’m proud of what I’ve achieved and of how far the sector has evolved. However, there is still a journey ahead; I know a number of my peers still struggle to make it part of their teaching.

For me embedding equality, diversity and inclusion has never been ad hoc or a novelty. It has enriched my classroom practice in many ways, but more importantly it has allowed my learners to see themselves reflected back through the curriculum. The level of engagement that has come from that is uncanny, and seeing it come to fruition is always a pleasure.

This holds true irrespective of the learners you have before you. Even a group lacking in diversity – or not diverse at all – will benefit from incorporating ED&I. There is not a class I have taught where the value of engaging with thoughts, ideas and concepts outside of learners’ lived experiences hasn’t been immediately obvious.

There are endless possibilities and often so many unknowns within ED&I, so I will attempt to demystify it. If you’re not sure where to start, my answer is an obvious one: at the very beginning.

A labour of love

In my experience, ED&I must be embedded at the earliest stage of planning – be that a curriculum intent document, scheme of work or lesson plan. For example, when planning lessons I always start with the area of ED&I I would like to embed before I think about how I am going to teach the skill.

Whether it’s anti-racism, LGBTQIA+ inclusion or disability awareness, I decide the message that is going to underpin the teaching of the skills, assessment and overall thematic tone of the lesson. Once I have determined this, I begin to do research, compile resources and plan assessments that incorporate the theme.

As an English specialist, my subject organically lends itself to being diversified through exposing learners to a multitude of texts. However, any area of the curriculum – academic or vocational – can be enhanced in this way.  All it takes is a little labour of love.

Any area of the curriculum can be enhanced in this way

Simply start by researching the profile of an under-represented group you wish to embed in the lesson. It could be the profile of neurodiverse people within construction, the number of women in engineering, Middle Eastern and African architecture, statistics from the Windrush movement. The possibilities are endless.

I recently taught a lesson on speech writing while introducing my learners to European standards of beauty. Challenging those standards stirred up passions. In turn, this led to powerful speeches as my learners competed to create the most impactful language devices to illustrate their points of view.

An arduous task?

But why do it at all? For some, starting at the beginning might mean going a little further back than the planning stage. Often we can feel inflicted upon by wider organisational priorities and start to perceive ED&I as the ‘agenda of the week’ – to be resented or avoided until it falls off the long laundry list of disdain.

ED&I is too important and fundamental to fall into obscurity, and the key to engaging everyone is to demonstrate how it applies to each of us. Where does your desire to teach find its genesis? What groups do you personally represent, knowingly or unwittingly? What are the unique aspects of your identity as a lecturer, and how do these impact on what you bring to the classroom? This may not be comfortable, but it will be cathartic.

But in the end, the single most impactful element of all the ED&I training and CPD I’ve done has been drawing attention to diversity as a strength within the classroom. The peer learning that springs from bilingualism, how cognitive diversity impacts problem solving, the richness of creativity and arts from different cultures. These are not dispensable add-ons but essential components of learning.

ED&I requires us to expand what we value as conducive to learning and as essential cultural capital.

Anything short of that would be the antithesis of inclusion and will feel like an arduous task – instead of the labour of love that it is.

Are private equity backers bad apples or golden eggs?

Transposing the world of private equity (PE) onto the education sector brings with it a curious mix of potential and perils. But the biggest risk is that both the hopes and fears of stakeholders are underpinned by a general lack of knowledge of the sector. So what does everyone need to know in order to proceed with due caution?

Dissecting the dilemma

As reported in FE Week, we’ve seen a surge in PE firms investing in training providers. High stakes, accelerated careers, significant exposure and control-centred dynamics are evidently tantalising for many. For others, the prospect of strong financial backing in a precariously and poorly funded sector is clearly a strong pull factor.

But there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The PE arena has an adrenaline-fuelled obsession with performance. It feeds off results. Success in inseparable from profitability and speedy returns, and such intense pressure results in a ‘survival of the fittest’ culture of leadership.

So while the upside may be lucrative, it is balanced on a knife-edge. Financial prosperity and positive audit outcomes are non-negotiable, and faltering on either front can result in swift repercussions.

Competing imperatives

PE-backed firms are premised on growing and generating profit. When such firms enter funded training markets, the stakes morph considerably. The human element of shaping future generations is as crucial to ITP providers as financial stability and an effective business model.

Accordingly, a number of recent articles about hiring on our website are written with new FE sector entrants in mind. They aim to find a balance between these too-often competing imperatives. What to do when improving organisational agility meets the challenges of career progression and fluid leadership. How improving structures, cross-departmental opportunities and rotational tasks fosters growth. How upskilling employees bolsters capability and contributes to dynamism.

A recurring theme is that the churn in senior leadership can be avoided with mindful appointment strategies and careful workforce planning. Key is appointing sturdy senior teams that mitigate risk while driving consistent, effective growth. In my experience, a collaboration of the right sector expertise and a PE firm’s own team works best.

It’s not all churn and burn

If the downsides are properly mitigated, PE-backed firms can bring a lot to the table. Many are predicated on profound impact and speedy advancements. With fewer layers of leadership and a lean structure, employees tend to have more exposure and responsibility. Employees that have a greater impact are typically happier at work.

Greater autonomy offers freedom to make decisions without wading through layers of bureaucracy – an often-touted criticism of working in FE colleges. Quick decision making, freedom to lead and the exhilaration of high growth present a sense of fulfilment not found elsewhere.

And of course there is the prospect of greater financial rewards – a honey pot that attracts quality talent. For those who can tenaciously ride the tide, the rewards (both monetary and developmental) are plentiful.

Implications for learners and beyond

As this trend has gradually seeped into the training provider sector, the ripple effects have already reached learners. A financially robust and quality-led institution can invariably offer better resources and upgraded training prospects – a potential win for learners. At least in theory.

However, the uncertainty associated with PE-owned firms casts a long shadow. The urgency to deliver financial results could risk eclipsing the core purpose of quality education.

Worse, it can eclipse any education taking place at all. We’ve already seen seemingly ‘cut-throat’ actions including liquidations, mass redundancies and market exits.

With frozen funding bands, unpredictable bid patterns and the rising cost of money, there is a huge pressure for investments to make a return.

Given the high-stakes nature of PE investments, there’s an inherent possibility of more volatility with both successful and unsuccessful outcomes. Striking that difficult balance between financial ambition and educational goals is trickier than ever.

For now, while appreciating the accelerated progress that comes with PE backing, it’s prudent to shield our learners, staff, and careers from potential risks. We must approach this new frontier not with fear but with an informed perspective.

Whitehall doesn’t know best – but devolution is harming skills policy

The next UK government will have to completely reboot the post-18 tertiary education system. Why? Because the current devolved and separate four nations’ skills policy model has largely failed to shift the dial on UK productivity and investment in training.

The reasons are many and complex. In a report commissioned by the Federation of Awarding Bodies, my co-author, Matilda Gosling and I painstakingly audited decades of policy reports and recommendations designed to improve skills. Time and again, we read statements written by successive governments with terms like ‘skills revolution’, ‘world-class’ and ‘gold-standard qualifications’.

We concluded that on the important skills metrics, the UK has been ‘running to stand still’. Since the Leitch Review of Skills reported under the last Labour government, only the target to increase HE participation has been met. We were supposed to be world-beaters in productivity by now. Instead, we are skills laggards.

Real wages have stagnated since 2005. The UK has come second from bottom since 2010 in productivity growth compared to our main European competitors. Investment from employers in training workers has nearly halved over the same period, with a staggering 60 per cent decline in training hours since 1997. We liken all these efforts by policymakers to running up an escalator the wrong way.

You can see this struggle in the data: in the period from 1993 to just before the 2008 financial crash, UK productivity growth increased by 40 per cent. Since that time, it has resulted in only 4 per cent growth according to ONS.

No wonder then that people are feeling worse off, exacerbated by the current cost of living crisis. Yet, talk to economists and about the only thing they can all agree on is the positive relationship between better skills and higher wages.

The UK doesn’t have to accept decline. Poland and Slovenia are projected to overtake British living standards by 2030. Strip away the economic powerhouse that is London and your average Brit is poorer today than a resident of Mississippi – the most deprived state in the US.

The UK doesn’t have to accept decline

The academic, Daron Acemoglu argues that nations fail when they allow extractive institutions to prevail. Prosperity flounders when politicians forget that skills and labour markets are like ecosystems that need to be cultivated carefully.

When you look at the current phalanx of devolved bodies and skills quangos, what we see are far too many extractive regulators and institutions. Our research found that the regulatory burden on the FE and tertiary sector has doubled since 2010. The Office for Students is a prime example, labelled ‘must do better’ by a parliamentary committee recently.

Instead of creating UK-wide bodies to regulate post-18 qualifications and apprenticeships, we have allowed the erosion of the UK’s own internal market by setting up and paying for parallel skills bureaucracies. For British citizens, depending on where they live in these islands, it increasingly means a postcode lottery of support.

A reboot is needed that dismantles the top-down English skills delivery model based on  ‘Whitehall knows best’. But that doesn’t mean government getting out of the way.

The UK lacks an industrial strategy with a determined focus on improving skills and productivity. Therefore, it’s time to end the nonsense of so many competing quangos and replace them with a UK-wide approach.

One of our key recommendations is to establish a new UK Department for Employment, Productivity and Workforce Skills. By using the reserved employment powers Westminster retained since 1997, it should be possible to reclassify some policy areas like apprenticeships and national occupational standards as UK legislative competencies.

That doesn’t mean to say that devolved administrations (including mayoral combined authorities) should not enjoy a high degree of flexibility when it comes to implementation. Ministers need to trust the sector more. But it really does make sense to pool stretched resources in a more effective UK national skills mission.

Perhaps only then will we start running up the skills and productivity escalator the right way. Prosperity depends on it.