Five ways to embrace new opportunities for apprenticeship inclusivity

More doors than ever have been opened by the latest ESFA apprenticeship funding rules. The policies lay out additional support for apprentices that experience a change in employer mid-course and those needing to do a secondment. But they also cement opportunities for asylum seekers and open up apprenticeships (in certain circumstances) to prisoners wishing to upskill.  It’s clear the rules offer a new level of inclusivity not seen before, widening the scope for apprenticeship recruitment.

What’s more, with off-the-job training now being capped at the equivalent of six hours a week, it is more feasible to combine this requirement with day-to-day responsibilities in the workplace. In addition, a level 2 pass in functional skills maths and English is no longer required before EPA, making it easier for more level 2 apprentices to complete an apprenticeship.

Add to this the learning support guidance recently issued by government, which outlines adjustments for those with a learning difficulty or disability, and these announcements could amount to a significant step forward for apprenticeship provision and assessment.   

But for these policies and guidance to translate into increased levels of diversity and inclusion, as an industry we must actively embrace these opportunities to see real change. Here are several ways that we can support these changes and encourage a greater range of people to undertake apprenticeships.

Invest time in understanding the rules

The first potential barrier to reaping the benefits of these new opportunities is a lack of awareness of their possible impact. The funding rules came with a bucketful of other changes and narratives, including important discussion on the impact for training plans.

However, as providers and assessors we must examine these changes through the lens of diversity and inclusion. Through this we can kickstart discussion about how to facilitate real change and reach out to recruit people who previously would not have considered enrolling on an apprenticeship.

Spread the word

In the short term, we can get the word out within our networks, speaking to colleagues and other industry leaders. In the longer term, we can consider widening our networking opportunities to reach these new audiences and make them aware that they could now be eligible for an apprenticeship. 

It’s also important to inform employers of the new rules and support them in reaching out to the wider audience when they recruit, helping the trickle-down effect where possible.

Reconsider risk adversities

Some of the groups now eligible for apprenticeships won’t have been targeted for recruitment before, and so understandably there could be some hesitation from employers around changing recruitment strategies or apprenticeship delivery to suit this wider audience.

As providers and EPAOs, we should encourage employers to consider the greater business benefits of more inclusive apprenticeships. For example, they can fill skills gaps with new talent, achieve a competitive edge over those who haven’t adjusted their strategies and maximise their return from their apprenticeship levy.

Update owned channels

Creating content around these changes will no doubt raise awareness among the target groups as they go to search online or scroll through social media. Importantly, ensuring websites and marketing collateral reflect the updates could assist with this greater awareness piece.

Keep asking for more

These changes aren’t the golden ticket for entirely inclusive apprenticeships. While by their very nature the courses open the door for training to those that may otherwise struggle to access them, more can still be done from the top-down.

For example, if government could incentivise employers to direct more of their levy funds to non-management positions, additional avenues of progression could open up for lower-level apprenticeships.

Embracing these new opportunities could lead to greater number, and importantly a wider variety of people accessing education and training. It’s key we keep talking and put thoughts into action to further improve the inclusivity of apprenticeships.

Apprenticeships: The new report that leaves Sunak exposed

It seems like every week, just after midday on a Wednesday, Rishi Sunak finds a way to tell us that one of the cornerstones of his plan to get us back to growth is apprenticeships. As apprentices, you’d expect us to be in favour of apprenticeships being the silver bullet for getting us back to growth. The fact is, we really wish they were.

Apprenticeships at their best are exactly what we need; they provide people with the skills they need to thrive, they give employers a chance to grow their workforce in a sustainable way and they absolutely deliver economic growth. But we don’t have an apprenticeship system that is anywhere near its best. We have an apprenticeship system that’s in crisis.

The Education and Skills think tank have released a striking report into apprenticeship provision. No Train, No Gain shines a light on a system that is in deep trouble. It shows that off-the-job learning has serious and deep failings.

One in five of us aren’t informed we should have 20 per cent off-the-job training. Half, yes half of us don’t t receive the minimum one day a week off-the-job training, and one-third of us don’t get any. A shocking post-pandemic blip? Don’t you believe it. It’s the same shabby story all the way back to the 2014 apprentice pay survey.

Even if we do get training, Ofsted say it’s not good enough at one-third of providers. This shouldn’t be a surprise when providers’ standard training practice includes counting the time apprentices spend on homework as part of their 20 per cent off-the-job learning.

The current funding rules also allow for unlimited online learning time to be included in an apprentice’s off-the-job learning. So we can wait months between any face-to-face contact, flicking though quizzes and watching YouTube videos. Is it any surprise that 47 per cent (yes, nearly half) of apprentices drop out?

Day release. Easy to explain to your nana, easy to explain to your boss

The National Society of Apprentices (NSoA) has recognised these problems for a number of years. We’ve been campaigning to change the system to one which works for employers, providers, apprentices and the public purse.

Apprenticeships have developed two competing models of training. Those professions that maintained historic apprenticeship provision – like construction, engineering and hair dressing – continue to deliver their training predominantly through day or block release. Employers understand that in order to develop new knowledge and skills, apprentices need to take time away from the workplace.

This model also allows apprentices to engage with peers, compare experiences and access services available in colleges, like childcare, student support, mental health support and sex and relationships education which are still on offer despite a decade of cuts.

Employers and industries that have adopted apprenticeships more recently – like health and social care, early years, retail and business administration – have developed a different training model. The assessor visitor model ensures that an apprentice is in the workplace full-time and must arrange their off-the-job learning around their duties at work.

The NSoA is calling for day release or block release to be the norm for all apprenticeships. It is an ambitious but achievable aim that every apprentice and every employer understands that education is fundamental to being an apprentice. Once a week (or in a block, we don’t really mind), it’s your college time. Easy to explain to your nana, easy to explain to your boss.

Some employers may refuse to participate in an apprenticeship programme that forced them to allow their apprentices to be absent from work one day a week. But this should already be the case. Opting out of the programme should identify non-compliance with the current funding arrangements.

The real question we should ask when Rishi Sunak stands up next Wednesday just after midday is what kind of emperor he is. Is he the emperor with new clothes, standing up to sell us the same broken system and expecting us not to realise? Or is he an emperor with a new groove, who realises that we’ve spotted the problem and fixes the system?

After this week’s report, we hope it’s the latter.

University that ramped up apprenticeships secures third ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating

A university that rapidly increased its apprenticeship numbers to more than 2,000 has secured its third consecutive ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating.

Manchester Metropolitan University was handed the grade one rating following a visit by inspectors on October 6 and 7 for its foundation art and design diploma and degree apprenticeship provision.

Inspectors offered high praise to leaders for recruiting apprentices with “integrity”, designing an “ambitious” curriculum and for “skilfully” designing their apprenticeships to meet the needs of employers.

Liz Gorb, director of apprenticeships, said the judgement demonstrated the “exceptional quality at scale” of Manchester Metropolitan University’s programmes, and added: “Our apprenticeships are designed in close partnership with employers.

“This ensures they meet their workforce needs, while developing every student to achieve their potential and advance in their career of choice.”

It represents the third straight ‘outstanding’ rating for the university following visits by the education watchdog in November 2018 and December 2012. Both previous inspections, however, focused on the university’s 16 to 19 provision.

The university had less than 50 apprentices at the time of its last inspection four years ago.

It has ramped up its apprenticeship delivery since then. At the time of this inspection there were 2,335 apprentices, mostly on level 6 standards. More than half were on the chartered manager and digital and technology solutions professional courses.

Others were on social work, digital marketing, digital user experience, healthcare science practitioner, creative digital design, retail leadership and laboratory scientist qualifications.

There were 526 apprentices on level 7 courses.

In addition, 169 of the 180 students enrolled on the foundation diploma in art and design were in scope for the inspection.

According to the university, it launched degree apprenticeships in 2015 and now works with more than 540 employers, ranging from small and medium enterprises to larger multi-national firms.

Gorb said that the university’s lecturers and skills coaches tried to personalise students’ experiences to builds their knowledge, skills, behaviours and confidence.

In its report, Ofsted said students described the university as “a gender blank space where they develop their identities and express themselves individually”.

Students praised their lecturers and skills coaches, the report said, while students’ confidence and resilience was also bolstered from their learning.

The report said diploma students described the course as “a turning point in their lives”.

Elsewhere, apprenticeships were hailed for their “ambitious curriculum” and were “skilfully” designed to meet the needs of employers, which included additional learning.

Inspectors reported that on and off-the-job training was well co-ordinated, and students were able to regularly practice their learning at work.

It said that career advice and guidance prepared apprentices well for the future, and the destinations of alumni helped inform curriculum changes.

There are 47 universities that hold a full Ofsted inspection grade. Four of them are judged to be ‘outstanding’.

Reclassification: An era ends and an unclear future lies ahead

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) decision on the reclassification of 228 colleges from the private sector side of the UK national accounts to the public sector is a ground-shifting one. But what really matters for colleges today is the department for education’s decision to introduce new treasury controls with immediate effect.

As of today, the ONS has decided that further education colleges, sixth form colleges and institutes of adult learning are again public sector organisations. Slightly bizarrely, the change means they have been since 1993 – at least in respect of their books. ONS keep the score in the UK national accounts and will now need to go away to restate 30 years’ worth of data.

In the meantime, in a policy document and a letter to college accounting officers, the DfE is asking college leaders from this week to ask for its permission to carry out transactions in 16 different cases. Some of these are occasional, infrequent areas such as write-offs of larger debts. But one area – control of borrowing – represents a major reversal of government policy on the funding of colleges.

DfE control of borrowing appears to be linked to a wider objective to reduce private debt and replace it with public money. To this end, DfE is reversing the stupid decision made back in 2004 to delay payments to colleges. Instead, they are bringing up to £300 million forward to plug the long-standing gap in March which explained why no FE commissioner team could ever go on holiday at Easter.

The government’s new insight seems to be that banks charge higher interest rates than government can obtain. The question for colleges is whether this policy reversal is accompanied by adequate capital funds for the needs of the future.

Reclassification puts colleges firmly in the frame for reform

Colleges are already working through these new controls at a busy time of year; other parts of self-government remain firmly in place. Colleges were, are and will be self-governing charities with their own governing bodies, budgets and relationships with staff, students and suppliers. They decide which courses to run and they control admissions, albeit within an increasing set of constraints created by government policy.

Like academies, they’ll keep their reserves, their surpluses and be responsible for deficits. Indeed, many of the 16 new controls are copies of those that apply to academies, but colleges will retain full responsibility for capital spending and existing commercial activities.

And although the borrowing pipe is now constrained, they won’t need to ask DfE for permission if they can scrabble enough money from cash, land sales and third-party grants.

But it is a change. And, in the long term, a big one.

This year is the 30th anniversary of the transfer of colleges out of local government ownership. Incorporation removed colleges from the public sector, created a new category of corporations and a new national infrastructure of funding, inspection and data collection to oversee a new set of self-governing institutions.

The accounting judgement that new colleges were in the private sector was made by the Central Statistical Office and led to a lot of talk about privatisation at the time, but public sector organisations operated in a more fluid environment with less rigid treasury controls. As time has gone by, this has changed and a rigid architecture of financial guidance governs every step taken by public sector accounting officers.

Colleges have been at the receiving end of a lot of these changes and have seen their funding agreement expand from a few lines of do’s and don’ts to 130 pages of instructions. And from now on, they are inside the public sector rather than just beyond the boundary. The most significant decision from ministers today is to show no intention of seeking a reversal.

Today, reclassification mainly affects people in the sector with finance jobs but it ushers in a longer re-positioning of colleges within the education system. The short-term impact is mainly negative and the long-term hard to read.

But the fact that colleges have public sector status now puts them firmly in the frame for reform, either after the next election, or the one after that. In the meantime, the future remains ours to shape.

College reclassification: Major changes you need to know about

Salaries of over £150,000 will need government sign-off and private sector borrowing for colleges will be highly restricted following their reclassification as public bodies, the Department for Education has announced.

College hopes of being exempt from VAT have also been squashed and while they will still retain the ability to operate their subsidiaries, those subsidiaries will now also be brought into the public sector and be subject to new constraints.

But there will be additional cash pumped into colleges this year to “eliminate the current deficit in funding” and to make up for their new inability to borrow commercially, and colleges will be allowed to retain surpluses and proceeds from sales of assets.

The DfE outlined the key changes to financial rules for colleges as a result of today’s announcement from the Office for National Statistics that they will switch from the private to public sector.

The DfE said that colleges will “maintain many of the flexibilities they currently have,” and day-to-day operations will continue with “minimal changes”.

But the guidance added: “It is our intention that reclassification allows colleges to continue to operate efficiently and in the best interests of students and taxpayers, while complying with managing public money and other central government guidance.”

A new college financial handbook is to be produced, with sector consultation expected in the autumn of 2023 ahead of publication in March 2024 and introduction in the autumn that year.

Here are the key developments the DfE has confirmed.

New private sector borrowing restrictions

DfE permission will be required, as a condition of funding, for any new private sector borrowing, the department confirmed, adding that colleges “may only borrow from private sector sources if the transaction delivers value for money for the Exchequer”.

It said that it was “very unlikely” colleges would be able to satisfy that condition given the higher financing costs of non-government avenues.

Finance leases are not affected.

Extra funding to address historic cashflow issues

To help colleges manage their cashflow, the DfE said it will “address the historical issue of uneven monthly payments from central government, which leave colleges out of pocket by March”.

This will include investing £300 million before the end of the current financial year “in bringing forward payments”, which will “enable us to smooth out the funding, so we have a new even profile for colleges from 2023 to 2024 for both the 16-to-19 and adult education budgets”.

Each college will get an additional funding payment in March 2023, with equivalent reduction in funding for each college between April and July, which will be made available between January and March 2024.

Existing debt

The DfE confirmed that colleges’ existing debt commitments will not change, but recognised some colleges had loans which require a lump sum to be paid at the end.

The government said that expectations of refinancing that debt commercially is unlikely to be possible as it doesn’t fit with its criteria on managing public money.

For colleges that can’t pay that lump sum at the end, the DfE will provide funding for that debt to be paid, with an agreed timeline set out between the DfE and the college to recover the handout by “withholding an agreed amount of planned future funding”.

It added that further use of existing overdrafts and revolving credit measures will be subject to DfE consent, and expectations for those arrangements to be phased out by August 2024.

Senior pay controls

Colleges will maintain responsibility for setting the pay, terms and conditions for the workforce, but senior pay will be subject to government rules.

It means that from May 2023 government approval will be required for salaries over £150,000 and bonuses above £17,500.

No change to VAT

The DfE said VAT-recovery is not linked to colleges’ ONS classification and therefore has not changed despite today’s announcement.

It added: “Many public bodies cannot recover the VAT they incur. We keep all taxes under review, and any proposals to change the tax system would need to be considered in the context of the broader public finances.”

Subsidiaries

Subsidiaries of colleges will also be reclassified into the public sector with the parent college, and colleges will continue to be able to operate those.

“Subsidiaries play an important role in the college system, both in delivering provisions and generating commercial income,” the guidance said.

Fresh capital investment

The government will provide £150 million of capital funding for general FE colleges and sixth forms from spring next year, building on the existing FE transformation programme.

That is in recognition that some colleges will have been planning commercial borrowing to fund improvements to their estates.

‘Contentious’ transactions

The DfE will be required to approve any transactions by colleges or subsidiaries that are considered to be outside of colleges’ normal sphere of business, may cause controversy or criticism, or have wider financial implications on other colleges.

Surpluses

Current flexibilities to carry over surpluses will remain, including unspent grants.

The DfE said this is to enable long term financial planning.

Asset disposal

Colleges presently can sell fixed assets without government approval and keep the proceeds.

That will remain but “be kept under review”, the guidance states, although income from those disposals must be used for capital expenditure.

Banking and pensions

Commercial bank account facilities can continue unchanged, or colleges will be able to bank with the government banking service.

The DfE is set to encourage establishments to switch to the government banking service over an unspecified period of time.

Colleges will not have to take any action with regard to the local government pension scheme.

Accounts

Colleges will produce an annual report and accounts as normal for the year ending July 31, 2023, with a review for measures in future years.

Further information will be sought from government from 2024 as the DfE said it must consolidate the accounts for colleges into one.

Requests will be made to colleges for information on budgetary spend on a financial year basis (April-April).

Colleges return to public sector, ONS announces

Colleges in England are to be reclassified as public sector bodies, it has been confirmed, which comes with new controls on borrowing and senior staff pay.

Today’s decision concludes a six month “classification review” by the Office for National Statistics, the independent body which decides which sectors of the economy should be accounted for in the government’s accounts.

This affects further education colleges, sixth form college corporations and designated institutions in England and ends a decade of private sector status.

The ONS has said: “These further education institutions will be reclassified from the non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sector to the central government sector. This comes into effect, retrospectively, from 1 April 1993 for FECs and DIs, and from 1 April 2012 for SFCCs.” 

It means the college sector’s debts of around £1.1 billion will now sit on the government’s balance sheet and could triggers the start of new controls on college finances, borrowing and governance. 

Leaders from the Association of Colleges and Sixth Form Colleges Association have issued a series of demands on the government to reverse longstanding inequalities in funding.

It is now up to the Department for Education and the Treasury to make decisions on how to respond on issues like VAT, borrowing rules and senior staff pay. On VAT, the Association of Colleges believes over £200 million could be reclaimed by colleges if they are made exempt in the same way as schools and academies.

But this request has been denied, with the DfE saying: “The ability of colleges to recover VAT is not related to their ONS classification. Many public bodies cannot recover the VAT they incur.”

Some colleges leaders fear the change will result in a loss of autonomy and even greater red tape and regulation.

VAT rebate request denied

The AoC has also called for a guarantee of local government pensions, support for teacher recruitment, funded collective buying schemes and capital funding to compensate for borrowing restrictions.

And the Sixth Form Colleges Association have said they are “very disappointed” that the government hasn’t acted to “address the long standing and indefensible inequalities that exist between colleges and other providers of 16-19 education.”

The government has said it will consult on a new financial handbook for colleges to be effective from August 2024, signalling a two year transition period to the Treasury’s managing public money framework.

In the meantime, there will be a new “consent process” for new borrowing placed on colleges and DfE expect any overdrafts and revolving credit facilities to be phased out by August 2024.

Reclassification also means colleges are now in scope for government senior pay controls for new appointments from May 2023. This includes government approval for salaries over £150,000 and bonuses over £17,500.

Extra funding worth £150 million will be provided to colleges in spring 2023 through the DfE’s FE capital transformation programme to make up for the inability of colleges to borrow commercially.

And £300 million will be spent on college cashflow this financial year to “smooth out” payments to colleges by March 2023, though this will mean lower monthly payments between April and July 2023, “which is then available to each college between January and March the following year.”

Sector leaders had feared that a move to the public sector could result in a raid on reserves, but FE Week understands that colleges will be allowed to retain their reserves and continue to operate subsidiaries. This has been confirmed today, though subsidiaries are also automatically reclassified.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, has said today that colleges’ new public sector status could “risk making colleges less fleet of foot in meeting the needs of their students, employers and communities.”

In a statement, Hughes said officials have developed new rules which leaves colleges “in control of their budgets, reserves and capital projects … It is helpful that DfE will be distributing the remaining funds from the three-year capital budget via a formula in the spring and also bringing forward revenue payments to March 2023 but we need to see whether these fully compensate for the new borrowing restrictions.”

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said: “The imposition of VAT on sixth form colleges will continue to act as a tax on learning that redirects funding away from the frontline education of students. There is very little in today’s response that will benefit students, but a great deal that will tie up college staff in bureaucracy and red tape.

“Today’s announcement will encourage more sixth form colleges to consider the academy option and it is more important than ever to remove some of the longstanding barriers to conversion.”

Colleges in Scotland and Northern Ireland are already part of the public sector. Colleges in Wales remain in the private sector.

Universities are currently recorded in the private sector, though the ONS have confirmed today they intend to conduct a classification review on universities to report this time next year.

New intervention powers swung the balance

The classification review was triggered by the Skills and Post 16 Education Act 2022 passing in to law, according to the ONS.

In their decision, the statistics body said the new legislation gives the secretary of state for education greater powers to intervene in the governance of a college in “instances of mismanagement”.

“The presence of this intervention power indicates that the secretary of state has the legislative powers to appoint and/or remove members of the relevant institution’s governing body.”

As well as cases of mismanagement, new powers in the Act which give the education secretary powers to direct colleges to college governing bodies to better meet local skills needs, including by ordering mergers, was also a factor in ONS’ decision to reclassify.

Digital skills: Government action is needed – but the right sort

Qualification reform is a tricky business. Often government’s best laid plans to introduce shiny new qualifications go awry due to competition with other, existing qualifications with an established track record with employers and universities. I’m looking at you, 14-19 diplomas. Alternatively, when governments are successful in replacing the old with the new, there are often have unintended consequences.

This certainly seems to be the case with digital skills qualifications, as demonstrated in new research published today by EPI, supported by The Hg Foundation. There is no doubt that employers need more employees who have digital skills: official data confirms that one in 20 employers report a vacancy due to a shortage of skills. Of these vacancies, 29 per cent were related to a lack of digital skills and 17 per cent to a lack of advanced digital skills.

And yet, both previous and ongoing qualification reforms may mean that employers continue to struggle to find employees with the skills they need.

As part of GCSE reforms in the mid-2010s, the government announced it would replace IT with computing. The new qualification placed greater emphasis on underlying digital skills which were thought more likely to remain relevant in the face of continuous software and hardware innovations.

Unfortunately, this reform has had a substantial impact on the proportion of female students taking digital GCSEs. Indeed, the shift towards computer science has seen the proportion of female entries in either subject fall from 46 per cent in 2011 to a mere 21 per cent in 2021.

This has had a knock-on effect on take-up of technical qualifications by 16- to 19-year-olds. Taking GCSE computing or IT quadruples the likelihood a female student will take a level 3 technical qualification, while only tripling the likelihood for male students.

We need a clear set of proposals to increase entries from young women

Correspondingly, with fewer female students taking IT or computing at GCSE, the proportion of female entries into technical digital qualifications has dropped from 23 per cent in 2012 to just 17 per cent in recent years. This fall is even more stark when you consider that male entries have also been falling, by a third since their peak in 2015.

And yet, research from CVER suggests female students taking a level 3 digital qualification see an average salary increase of 20 per cent by the age of 28, compared with those who study to level 2. The increase for men is only 4 per cent.

Of course qualification reform never ends, and T levels remain a flagship ambition for the current government. Given the Gillian Keegan’s background in vocational training, it’s likely they are due to receive more attention in the coming years, not less. Happily, it seems that digital T levels will provide many 16- to 19-year-olds with a valuable opportunity to strengthen their skills in this sought-after area.

However, there are significant risks of more unintended consequences. Our analysis suggests the more demanding nature of T levels may result in as many as a quarter of students taking the qualifications T levels are due to replace will not make the transition. Some students will take qualifications at lower levels and some may opt for other subjects altogether.

Ensuring that female students and students with lower key stage 4 grades have more opportunities to establish deeper digital skills does not require more qualification reform. But it does require more government action than is currently taking place.

First, the government must update their digital strategy with a clear set of proposals to increase entries into technical qualifications from young women.  Second, ministers must avoid any decreases in the proportion of 16- to 19-year-olds taking level 3 qualifications in digital skills, by ensuring alternative qualifications continue to be available, at least until enough students are able to access T levels. 

Young people with digital skills qualifications are in high demand. Without further government action, young people and employers alike stand to lose out over the coming years. But focus must be on removing unintended consequences, rather than creating new ones through more qualifications reform.

Government agency enters top 20 biggest apprenticeship providers

The government’s prison and probation service agency shot to the top 20 biggest apprenticeship providers last year after making it mandatory for all new prison officers to begin their career as an apprentice.

Analysis of provider-level apprenticeship starts data shows His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) had just 20 starts in its first year of delivery in 2018/19 but grew to 2,387 in 2021/22.

This made the HMPPS the 19th largest training provider of apprenticeships in England for the whole of last year, according to numbers crunched by Apprenticeship Data Insight – operated by FE Week publisher Lsect Ltd.

HMPPS, which is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, appears to have ramped up its numbers after gaining quality approval from Ofsted. The inspectorate judged HMPPS to be making ‘reasonable progress’ across the board in an early monitoring visit report in July 2021 when it had less than 200 apprentices.

Since then, the agency has introduced a policy that states: “All new prison officers will begin their career by completing a custody and detention professional apprenticeship which should take 12 to 18 months to complete.”

HMPPS isn’t the first government department to introduce a mandatory apprenticeship policy for its staff. In 2019, the HMRC made it compulsory for all employees to enrol on an apprenticeship in response to a “requirement” to increase recruitment and training significantly.

But the move didn’t end well. Ofsted went into the tax office earlier this year and judged it ‘requires improvement’ overall after finding the mandatory apprenticeship approach was not appropriate as the HMRC did not have the structure or capacity to support the 2,500 employees it enrolled, an issue exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The HMRC later reversed its compulsory apprenticeship policy and the majority of its employees dropped out of their apprenticeship.

Asked by FE Week how HMPPS has built capacity in such a short space of time to train almost 2,000 apprentices a year itself, the Ministry of Justice said: “The MoJ is committed to ensuring that the apprentice programme was, and still continues to be implemented professionally and confidently, to benefit both graduates and prison-based colleagues alike.

“As the role and demands of prison officers continues to evolve and new requirements emerge, we will also continue to evolve our training provision and apprenticeship offer to ensure it remains fit for purpose and supports the requirements of a modern prison service.”

A spokesperson added: “Apprenticeships are just one of the many ways in which we invest in staff and keep the public safe by bolstering the frontline.”

Create new ‘national apprenticeship inspectorate’, says think tank

A think tank run by a former government skills adviser has called for a new apprenticeship inspectorate to be formed to clamp down on poor quality training that is leading to half of apprentices dropping out.

In a radical report that claims tens of thousands of apprentices are not receiving their minimum entitlements to training, EDSK director Tom Richmond has called on the government to take direct action against those employers and training providers who are “letting down their apprentices”.

He also said there is a widespread “lack of genuine training” that has become so prevalent that one in ten apprentices are “not aware that they are on an apprenticeship”.

But provider chiefs say the report, called ‘no train, no gain’, paints a picture of the apprenticeship system that is “simply not true or one the sector will recognise”.

EDSK’s report aims to assess the state of the apprenticeship landscape 10 years on from the coalition-government commissioned Richard Review.

It said that while there were “many excellent apprenticeships available” it had “no choice but to conclude that the quality of apprenticeships in England remains a serious problem”.

The report, penned by Richmond and Eleanor Regan, has called for a new “national apprenticeship inspectorate” to be formed, with the role of carrying out inspections instead of Ofsted, and responsibilities to manage the register of apprenticeship training providers.

It said that a new body would enable the scope of inspections to be widened to include regulation of the on-the-job training that an apprentice may receive from their employer which is currently “not subject to any formal quality assurance”.

This new inspectorate would also be able to make more timely and frequent inspections, of at least once every three years regardless of the provider’s grade, after noting that “frequency and scale of [Ofsted] inspections for new and existing provision” can be too slow because it is essentially determined by government which sets Ofsted’s budget.

The report said this new body would, in effect, be created by “spinning out Ofsted’s current apprenticeship inspection duties and then expanding its remit and responsibilities”.

Richmond and Regan propose that the national apprenticeship inspectorate should have a budget of £60 million a year – three times what Ofsted is able to spend on all further education and skills inspections.

Elsewhere, their report said that some low-quality and low-skilled roles rebadged as apprenticeships were “just as prominent today as they were in 2012” with some apprenticeships offering training that could be learned in a few weeks.

The report continued that, while allowed in the funding rules, allowing homework tasks and online learning as training went against what the Richard Review wanted to see.

EDSK referenced IFF Research’s evaluation of apprenticeships in 2021 which said that one in five of more than 5,000 apprentices surveyed were not even aware of the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement, and less than half (46 per cent) achieved the minimum amount of off-the-job hours.

In addition, it said that it was “concerning and regrettable” that many apprentices were only given limited information about their training programme before starting, explaining that the lack of curriculum for standards gave apprentices “no point of reference for what training they should be receiving”.

Around one in twenty apprentices were unaware they were on an apprenticeship, according to IFF research, while Department for Education data indicated that more than two thirds of those who dropped out cited quality of the course as a reason.

The report called on the government to “publicly restate its commitment to the Richard Review’s definition of what constitutes a high-quality apprenticeship” and any apprenticeship that does not meet this definition should be “immediately banned from accepting new apprenticeship starts and fully withdrawn by 2024”.

It also said employers should be required to produce a “training curriculum for each apprenticeship standard from 2024 onwards”. Every training curriculum should have to demonstrate that it meets at least 300-hours of off-the-job training each year, and a minimum 200 hours of the 300 must be delivered face-to-face.

But Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the report “tried to paint a picture of the apprenticeship system which is simply not true or one the sector will recognise”.

She said Ofsted remained the correct body for regulation and said the 300,000 starts last year indicated a “strong appetite from employers” for apprenticeships.

She added: “Simply identifying a few weak vacancies posting as a proxy for quality of lower-level apprenticeships is wholly inappropriate.

“The suggestion of remote training being poor quality is totally misinformed and any sort of arbitrary cap goes against the principle of an employed-led system. This would jeopardise the bespoke and innovative programmes that are co-designed by employers and providers.”

EDSK director Tom Richmond said there were “many excellent apprenticeships available in this country” but added: “So long as the government is content for watching webinars and doing homework to be counted as ‘training’ then there is little hope of improving the experience for current and future apprentices.

“The only wat to eradicate poor provision and substandard training within the apprenticeship system is for the government to now set a much higher bar for what constitutes ‘quality’, as well as doing a better job of protecting apprentices from malpractice and exploitation.”

Minister for skills, apprenticeships and higher education, Robert Halfon, said apprenticeships “continue to deliver great outcomes”.

He added: “Our reforms have made apprenticeships more rigorous, with more training and they now properly reflect the needs of employers, with high satisfaction rates and 92 per cent of apprentices securing sustained work or further training.

“We know there is more to do to ensure all apprentices get a great experience, which is why we’re introducing a suite of reforms to boost quality. This includes refreshing our register of training providers and strengthening provider accountability, Ofsted will inspect all apprenticeship training providers by 2025, and we have launched a new feedback service for apprentices.”