MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 380

Emma Barrett-Peel

Director of apprenticeships, Learning Curve Group

Start date: February 2022

Previous Job: Ofsted Her Majesty’s Inspector- Further Education and Skills

Interesting fact: Emma owned a royal python as a pet for over 15 years and appeared on the Big Breakfast and MTV in the 90s

Alex Khan

Vice chair, AELP

Start date: February 2022

Concurrent Job: Chief executive, Lifetime Training

Interesting fact: Alex is an artisan Perry maker, making around 4000 litres a year for some of the best restaurants in England, Wales and Scotland

Nichola Hay

Chair, AELP

Start date: February 2022

Concurrent Job: Chief operating officer, Estio Training

Interesting fact: Nichola once trekked 100km across the Saraha Dessert for charity, sleeping under the stars with no home comofrts or mobile devices

Daivd Eastgate

Corporation chair, London South East Colleges

Start date: February 2022

Previous Job: Vice chair, London South East Colleges and former chief executive, The Hyde Housing Group

Interesting fact: David used to play in a band called The Larks, described by NME as “a punk band wearing a soul overcoat”. Peaking in 1986/87, appearing on the radio, The chart Show and Kids’ TV

Dawn Helsby

Vice chair, T level Ambassador Network

Start date: February 2022

Concurrent Job: Student employability manager, North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College

Interesting fact: Dawn is a qualified florist and once worked at Britain’s second most haunted house

Daniel Brett

Vice chair, T level Ambassador Network

Start date: February 2022

Concurrent Job: Deputy CEO and principal, York College

Interesting fact: Despite his appearance on his Linkedin Profile picture, Danny has had grey hair since year 10 at school

External staff groups helped me change my classroom

Collaboration with staff outside of your own FE provider is very empowering, writes Stacey Salt

When I became a teacher I thought you had to be in a position of authority to drive change, and add creativity and innovation to the classroom and staff development.  

I have been an FE educator for six years. My subject specialism is business and I currently work as an advanced practitioner. For me, it’s really important that FE is a mutual learning ground for all, staff and students included.  

This has never been more true than since the pandemic.

The culture of our colleges was flipped on its head – “the way we do things” suddenly became a moment of panic, disruption and “how are we going to do things now?” 

As an advanced practitioner, my role is integral to supporting and developing others, so at this time the move from the classroom to online became a priority.

And wearing my business teacher hat, the question was also – how can I teach effectively to a group of business students?

How can I ensure the skills and knowledge required by industry can be effectively delivered on an alternative platform?  

Two years ago I knew I needed to find something to help me through the pandemic, in a highly pressurised sector.

So for the past couple of years I have participated in “external communities” in FE.  

These are groups of professionals who have not only informed my educational practice but given me confidence, helped develop my skills and shown me the power of collaboration and community.  

I particularly found comfort in two external communities ̶ the ‘JoyFE Collective’ and the ‘AP Connect’ community.

JoyFE connects up educators in order to bring joy in the remaking of education and professional practices. AP Connect is for advanced practitioners to participate in projects that drive change within organisations.

These communities are everywhere and filled with care, hope and compassion. These spaces have given me the courage to think deeper.

They have encouraged me to use my voice and drive change within the classroom. 

They have encouraged me to use my voice   

I was also inspired recently to co-create a new space for subject specialisms. The community exists so people can come together across the sector to share, collaborate and think together in a protected space.  

These external spaces are underpinned by values such as joy, care, trust, equality, empathy. These are what I put first before I take any action or implement change. 

During summer 2021 I took the idea of creating communities for subject specialists  to an ideas room run by JoyFE.

This is how the “vocational communities of practice” project was born.

The vision for this project was to connect subject specialists across the FE sector to share, learn and collaborate.

For example, sports tutors come together to discuss the issue of students attending practical lessons but not theory lessons.

After months of planning, our first event launched on the third of this month, and gained much interest. The launch itself was a success and we have further events planned.

You don’t have to be in senior leadership to bring in changes

The driving force within this community is that all the organisers work together, everyone is equal and there are no deadlines or pressures associated with it.  

I’ve never met some of the people face-to-face that I see on a weekly basis, but we are certainly working together, as activists to drive change in a sector we are passionate about. 

Now, I certainly came into the sector to share my industry knowledge with students.

But also, I am on a journey ̶ a willingness to develop and learn from others. Whether you are a student or an educator, lifelong learning is for us all, and FE is our mutual learning ground.

You don’t have to be in senior leadership to bring in changes. We can work together to do this, use your voice, share your ideas and be brave.

Beautiful change can happen and can become something impactful, valuable ̶ and joyful.

This is how to draw more HE students into FE

A personalised experience is the way to win over this emerging group of learners, writes Sali Midjek-Conway

It’s more important than ever for FE colleges to think outside the traditional two-year post-16 pathway.

Higher education is now facing huge changes and challenges to the way it operates.

So what do we know about how higher education will look in the future?  

University applicants are currently facing the stiffest competition in years, with deferrals, grade inflation, and tougher criteria.

A HEPI report published last year predicted a likely demand of up to 380,000 additional HE places by 2035. 

Alongside this upsurge in demand, HE also faces a greater reliance on home students rather than international in future, due both to the UK leaving the EU and to the global pandemic. 

What are the challenges faced by universities?

The global pandemic has changed the face of academic learning, with many universities now offering blended learning, mixing face-to-face lectures with digital teaching.  

And while campus life is slowly returning, things look different to how they used to, with measures put in place to protect both students and staff. These appear likely to stay for the foreseeable. 

The government’s “levelling up” agenda has also challenged universities to set new ambitious targets to support students by reducing dropout rates and improving progression.  

What are the opportunities for FE colleges? 

Policy changes mean that in future it may be more favourable for FE to support any additional demand for higher education.  

We will see increased opportunities for HE in FE collaborations, including an increase in accredited degrees. We will also see a rise in non-traditional HE students, such as career changers, late bloomers and upskilling professionals. 

We will see a rise in career changers, late bloomers and upskilling professionals

There are two elements to this: attracting a wider variety of HE students and ensuring the infrastructure can retain and support them towards successful outcomes. 

According to a recent survey by YouthSight, 73 per cent of prospective students have already chosen their subject by August. But most (74 per cent) are yet to choose their university at that point – so there is everything to play for.  

1. Consider your brand purpose 

Are you offering what your HE market needs? And does your HE offering reflect your core values – in other words, are you playing to your strengths and offering what you’re best at?  

Identifying what is distinctive in what you offer, compared to other colleges, will help you establish the wider and deeper value you offer to HE students, beyond the value of the fees. 

2. Keep in mind the overall student experience  

A distinctive student experience is a “sticky” campus – one that encourages students to stay beyond their classes and creates a community feel and a sense of belonging.  

Consider the standard of the facilities, the overall look and feel of the campus. What work-life balance opportunities are on offer?  

3. Encourage a democratic learning environment

Today’s students enjoy having a personalised experience, so maximise your current student data to enhance this and convert in-college progression. Another consideration is offering a co-authored HE curriculum, in which student feedback is part of the design.  

4. Improve your internal communications 

The challenges on the ground are often around infrastructure, staff engagement and buy-in. So develop an engagement strategy and aim to ensure staff understand HE in FE and the opportunities it presents for development, promotion and growth – both professionally and for the college’s future. 

5. Pivot your messaging  

Depending on your provision, make a change to promote the overall 16-to-21 journey. Create a compelling story – highlight what’s important to your target audience which encourages buy-in, such as convenience, progression in one place, employment destinations. 

Gather testimonials and make use of HE champions, encouraging adult students to continue in education.  

6. Lobby for better curriculum planning 

Finally, gather and share data on student course enquiries and missed income opportunities to encourage your senior management to engage with the opportunities HE presents – if prioritised.  

In today’s education climate the focus for colleges is on student experience, particularly when it comes to HE in FE. 

If you can adopt even some of the above, it will be the beginning of offering a much more competitive proposition to an emerging group of discerning students.

One bill was never going to solve our skills challenge

A long-term cultural shift is needed – so after the bill, we need a ten-year plan, writes Stephen Evans

The skills bill is nearing the end of its journey through parliament and will soon become law. Where does this leave us?

The purpose of the bill is to make legal changes to enact parts of the recent skills white paper. Other parts that don’t need legal changes are awaiting the government’s responses to consultations.

This week the Commons considered 35 potential amendments.

While none passed, they helped to raise important issues.

For example, we probably don’t need an act of parliament to be able to retrain people into green jobs, but the proposed amendment perhaps helped to shine a greater light on the issue.

I was also pleased Margaret Greenwood, MP for Wirral West, raised essential skills – nine million adults have low literacy or numeracy in England, yet 63 per cent fewer adults are improving these essential skills compared to a decade ago.

Education select committee chair Robert Halfon continues to be a one-person skills revolution, securing action on apprenticeships for prisoners and rightly proposing strengthening the Baker Clause.

In other words, some of the issues raised in amendments are now more likely to get action as a result. That’s a good thing.

For me, the best part of the final bill is the new lifelong loan entitlement. This gives adults access to loans for higher education, alongside the recently introduced lifetime skills guarantee (although the latter is not guaranteed in law) focused on access to level 3.

Neither are perfect. I’d like the loan entitlement to start sooner, and I’d like the skills guarantee to be wider so it helps with retraining and learning at all levels.

But they’re good steps forward and something to build on.

The bit I’m least convinced by are the new local skills improvement plans (LSIPs). The bill is allowing the government to designate employer groups to draw up skills plans that providers must pay regard to.

This isn’t the first attempt to do this – we’ve seen a whirligig of initiatives over the past 30 years. We tend to go in various cycles of more market-based approaches, and then focusing on greater employer involvement in planning the skills system and qualifications, and then thinking about compelling employers to train, and then repeating. Employers have probably been in more driving seats than Lewis Hamilton.

Will LSIPs stand the test of time? We definitely need a strategic view of skills needs, but it’s not clear to me how the latest approach learns from previous attempts ̶ from the Manpower Services Commission under the Heath government in 1973 to skills advisory panels, which are ongoing.

And, of course, learning is about more than skills and jobs. I worry we’re too focused on employer involvement in planning the publicly funded skills system, but paying too little attention to learning as a whole.

We also need to focus more on how skills are used and employers’ own investment in training. And it feels like there is too little join-up with “levelling-up” plans, including greater devolution and role for local government and the government’s Plan for Jobs, which aims to get more people into work.

This links to my final point. Expectations were perhaps too high among some for this bill. Improvements in skills require a change in culture and long-term investment.

Expectations were perhaps too high for this bill

Laws can help or hinder, but no single act of parliament was ever going to “solve” our skills challenge.

The bill doesn’t do anything to change the apprenticeship system, where numbers are down on pre-levy levels, with falls particularly acute for young people.

It’s good that public investment is rising again, but the bill doesn’t fill the £750 million gap in adult skills funding that will remain in 2025, compared to 2010 levels – or reverse the decline in employer investment in training over the last decade.

However it wasn’t going to “solve” those issues anyway.

That’s why I think we need a ten-year lifelong learning strategy, developed in partnership and backed by long-term investment. The skills bill takes some steps forwards. We now need a giant leap.

Rationing access to student loans will hit FE colleges harder than universities

Students without minimum grades also have a limited choice of other routes, write Andy Westwood and Ben Verinder

Yesterday we got the government’s long-awaited response to the Augar Review, nearly four years after the review was published.  

Beforehand, ministers had briefed the introduction of proposed “minimum entry requirements” for access to student loans. 

These would be either a grade 4 in GCSE English and maths, or two Es at A-level ̶ and the possible return of “student number controls” for “low-value” courses.  

Immediate changes are also being made to the student finance system, with longer repayment periods (40 years), a fixed lower repayment threshold (£25,000) and frozen fee levels at £9,250 until 2025. 

(High inflation means this is a year-on-year, real-terms reduction in fees.) 

While making these decisions, successive Conservative ministers have promised to expand alternatives to university. These include more higher level and degree apprenticeships, and new technical qualifications at level 4 and 5.  

So what will the government offer those without the minimum grades? And what impact will these changes have on degrees and levels 4 and 5 in FE? 

It is clear that the rhetoric does not yet match reality. If you’re leaving school or college aged 18-19 and want a degree or higher-level apprenticeship at level 4, there aren’t very many on offer. 

According to the House of Commons Library, there were just 2,800 higher-level starts for 18-year-olds in 2020, down from 3,400 the previous year. Even if we include the starts among 19-to-24-year-olds, this only increases by a further 13,400.  

That’s very small, given that in the summer of 2021 there were 682,010 applicants for HE places in the current academic year.  

And numbers of level 4 and 5 courses continue to be in freefall, dropping by 32 per cent between 2015/16 and 2019/20 – from 165,865 to 113,380. That’s according to new research from market research organisations Chalkstream and RCU for the Collab Group of colleges. 

Only 23 per cent are under 21 years old, with two-thirds 25 or over. 

So whatever the ambitions, there’s not currently much choice for 18-to-19-year-olds as they leave school or college. Augar’s “missing middle” remains a very real problem.  

Augar’s ‘missing middle’ remains a very real problem

Obviously the government hopes this will change by putting financial support for full- and part-time students “on a par with degrees”, together with “upfront investment for providers up to 2025, to support the rollout of HTQs”. 

But if current numbers are anything to go by, this is going to require serious policy attention to be meaningful and if college-based HE is to be preserved.  

Rationing access to student loans will hit FE colleges harder than universities. According to DfE research, 11 per cent of level 4 and 5 learners had qualifications below level 2.  

And if new loan changes apply to levels 4 and 5 then our research suggests that for level 3 college students, financial considerations are the most significant barrier to progression. 

So these are significant issues to think through as DfE consults on these proposals.  

Minimum entry requirements and increased costs for institutions will threaten level 6 provision in colleges.

In turn, this impacts on their capacity to deliver levels 4 and 5 (they are often taught in similar subject areas and by the same staff).  

Furthermore, the proposed squeeze on university income poses significant risk to validating and franchising agreements – including for levels 4 and 5 – upon which the vast majority of HE in FE depends. 

That’s a real problem, and it’s not clear that ministers have joined up these dots.  

There are other political challenges. HE in FE students are more likely to live in low-participation “cold spots”, and attend institutions in towns and cities where economic performance and living standards are lowest.  

Earlier this month, the “levelling up” white paper promised ten-year missions to raise skills, strengthen institutions and boost human capital in these places. 

Less than a month later, and these promises may already be at risk.

DfE being sued for millions by training provider

A training provider that successfully defended a legal case brought against it by the government last year is now suing the Department of Education for millions of pounds in damages. 

In the previous court battle the DfE tried and failed to recover almost £200,000 of tuition fees from CCP Graduate School Limited, a provider of further education teacher training courses. 

Now, in a separate case, CCP is suing the department claiming that it unlawfully held back fees from the provider which it claims ultimately led to a loss of business – an alleged breach of contract for which CCP is seeking damages. 

“The provider was unable to continue with the successful business that was built over 20 years,” a solicitor from Saracens Solicitors, who are fighting the case on behalf of CCP, told FE Week. 

They said that staff of over 15 years were put on part-time and then made redundant. 

“Many went through depression due to not being able to continue with the organisation. The company felt it was being targeted.” 

The previous case 

Back in September 2021 the DfE tried to recover £196,862.50 of tuition fees paid to CCP, in respect of 93 students enrolled on DTLLS courses – a now defunct teacher training qualification for teaching in further education. 

In 2014 the DTLLS qualification was phased out, being replaced by the Diploma in Education and Training (“DET”). 

CCP had enrolled a number of students on its DTLLS courses in the academic year 2013/14 but registered them with the relevant awarding body, Pearson, for a DET qualification. 

The DfE claimed that as CCP was never approved for designation as a provider of DET courses, it was not entitled to be paid tuition fees in respect of students who, although taught on a DTLLS course, were registered by CCP for a DET qualification. 

However, a judge dismissed the DfE’s claim on the grounds that the students were entitled to receive funding support for the course until the course was completed or until they withdrew from the course. 

Saracens Solicitors told FE Week that the consequences of the last judgement are that other providers of this course “may want to consider whether they are in a similar position and ought to consider obtaining legal advice with a view of launching their own legal challenge against the department”. 

The solicitor said they could not comment on whether they knew of other providers in CCP’s position, and added that it would be premature to say if this would lead to a “floodgate of claims”. 

The new case brought against the DfE

Back in 2011, CCP first entered into an agreement with the DfE to teach students the DTLLS course. 

As part of this agreement, the DfE agreed to pay students’ tuition fees owed to CCP via the Student Loans Company. However, CCP claims the DfE breached this agreement by failing to pay tuition fees owed to them between August 2013 and December 2014. 

While CCP remains an active company, the business claims that the withholding of fees led to CCP becoming “moribund”. 

CCP said it has not been able to function as a training provider, and that whether it is able to be a full provider again will depend on resolution of the case. 

According to CCP, the DfE had made various enquiries with CCP, but the provider claimed no justifiable reasons have been given for holding back the money. 

The company said the initial reason was that a whistleblower had reported fraudulent behaviour by students who had registered on the SLC portal for courses run by CCP.

Because of these allegations two investigations were carried out, first by SLC and then by the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA). 

However, the provider said these investigations did not find any fraud or malpractice on the part of CCP. 

CCP claims that by November 2016 it had answered all legitimate concerns the DfE had and so they were obliged to make full payment of the outstanding fees – something CCP says the DfE ultimately did not do. 

The DfE told FE Week that it could not comment on legal proceedings ongoing or otherwise. 

As well as offering higher education courses (including the DTLLS) CCP previously offered 16-to-19 study programmes. 

Following an Ofsted inspection published in August 2016 into its 16-to-19 provision, CCP received an overall rating of ‘inadequate’. 

CCP told FE Week that the Ofsted inspection resulted in the termination of its government contracts for 16-to-19 study programmes. 

However, it said this was a very small contract compared to its higher education contract, and that it was only going to concentrate on higher education where they had a substantial number of students. 

The company claimed that the termination of the 16-to-19 contract did not have an impact on CCP as a business and did not contribute to it becoming moribund. 

CCP added that it had a successful QAA achievement and therefore the Ofsted rating was not relevant for their higher education funding.

Provider pulls out of £3m devolved contract due to low student uptake

A training provider is cancelling a near-£3 million adult education budget contract with a devolved authority and closing five centres due to a lack of student demand.

Go Train Ltd has put 32 staff at risk of redundancy after taking the decision to withdraw their West Midlands Combined Authority contract mid-way through the academic year.

The provider will, however, continue with its £3 million national AEB allocation held with the Education and Skills Funding Agency and expand its delivery of the government’s Restart jobs scheme as a subcontractor – which is its traditional delivery model.

Marco Ferrara, chief executive of Go Train, told FE Week the West Midlands took a “disproportionate” hit during the pandemic when it came to adult enrolments.

His provider has struggled to fulfil its annual maximum contract value with the combined authority every year since the WMCA took control of the £128 million AEB for its areas in August 2019 – leaving it “unviable” to continue with.

“We’re predominantly a face-to-face provider, but the pandemic has significantly impacted our turn-up rates from job centre referrals,” he explained.

“Covid has complicated people’s personal circumstances, such as childcare and work-sharing arrangements. Our potential learners, despite all the willingness in the world, just haven’t been able to commit to signing up. Over its lifetime, the WMCA contract just hasn’t worked for us.”

Ferrara wouldn’t share Go Train’s target or actual student recruitment numbers but said his provider was failing to hit targets by double-digit figures. He added that Go Train has spent half of its current 2021/22 contract in the West Midlands and they will complete the training for existing adult learners in the area before the remaining contract is handed over.

A WMCA spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Go Train have informed us they wish to withdraw from their AEB contract. We will work with the company to minimise disruption to their learners.”

Go Train has offered adult learning programmes as a sub-contractor since 1992 and currently offers sub-contracted provision for seven providers and colleges.

It only started to deliver directly funded AEB provision with the ESFA in 2017 and then the WMCA in 2019 to adults studying qualifications in areas such as employability, enterprise and retail.

Ofsted visited Go Train for the first time in 2019 and judged the provider to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in all three areas of an early monitoring visit.

Ferrara said Go Train will now invest in other areas of its business, such as Restart, and has even begun advertising for 13 new jobs.

Zahawi makes plea to peers to leave the skills bill alone

The education secretary Nadhim Zahawi has warned members of the House of Lords against changing the skills and post-16 education bill again.

The bill passed its report and third reading stages in the House of Commons on Monday, clearing the way for it to become law.

Before that can happen, though, a process informally known as “ping pong” takes place, in which the bill goes back to the Lords to consider the changes made in the Commons, and then back to the Commons to consider changes made by the Lords.

In a letter sent to members of the House of Lords on Wednesday, Zahawi said he is “extremely proud of the bill” and makes a plea to peers not to make any more changes.

“We have made a significant number of improvements to the bill, and to policy more generally, in response to important issues raised by your Lordships. Our focus now must be for the bill to pass through parliament and to start implementing these important measures,” Zahawi writes.

Because the Conservative Party does not have a majority in the House of Lords, it’s much easier to find a majority to amend legislation. This is why, earlier in the parliamentary process, Lords were able to make a host of changes to the skills bill, only for them all to be removed by MPs further down the line.

Lords amendments included delaying the government’s plans to defund some level 3 qualifications, changing universal credit conditionality rules, bolstering careers guidance rules and bringing in rules on who should be involved in local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) – but these were all stripped out by MPs.

Ping pong

Several members of the House of Lords spoke to FE Week this week to indicate that they are actively considering using the “ping pong” process to bring back some of those changes.

For example, the government rejected changes that would require FE providers, local authorities and combined authorities to be involved in the development of LSIPs.

In his letter to peers, Zahawi writes: “I will commit my officials to engage with stakeholders, including the Local Government Association, the Greater London Authority, mayoral combined authorities and the Association of Colleges, and ensure that I am satisfied their views have been fully considered in the development of [LSIP] statutory guidance.”

Responding to a Lords amendment that would prevent universal credit claimants losing benefits by taking part in education and training, Zahawi says this would “create significant financial cost by widening eligibility for universal credit. The Commons has voted to remove this clause, and it would be inappropriate for the House of Lords to introduce a measure which impacts on public spending.”

Back to the Commons

Backbench Conservative MP Peter Aldous, who is also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for further education, received cross-party support in Monday’s debate for his amendment which would require the secretary of state to review universal credit conditionality rules which he says are a “barrier” to unemployed and low-earning people accessing further education.

Skills minister Alex Burghart rejected Aldous’s plea, stating that existing flexibilities were sufficient and challenging MPs to provide examples of courses that claimants cannot access because of the rules.

Harlow MP and education select committee chair Robert Halfon tabled three amendments; however, he didn’t move them to a vote. This is a common tactic by backbench MPs from a governing party – to have issues raised in order to receive verbal assurances from ministers without upsetting party whips.

Halfon’s amendments included adding provisions for prisoner apprenticeships to the bill, which are now being developed.

In a passionate speech about careers guidance, Halfon tabled a popular amendment to enhance the Baker Clause – a law requiring schools to provide advice and guidance on the full range of FE and apprenticeships options.

He said the clause “has not been implemented properly” and that it “grieves” him that schools are not providing good advice about apprenticeships.

Responding, skills minister Alex Burghart said that he “expects schools to take note” of the new unit for future skills, which he says will provide schools with the data that shows the positive outcomes of apprenticeships and technical education.

“I am trusting the government to move some way on his,” Halfon said.

Should the Lords proceed to change the bill again, it’s extremely likely that the government will once again use its majority to remove any more changes.

The skills bill could have been so much better

Both Labour and Conservative voices have been ignored by the government, writes Toby Perkins

After the government blocked no fewer than 32 amendments to the skills bill, education secretary Nadhim Zahawi said it “will leave this place in a much improved state”.

I have to disagree. It was weakened, and the skills bill could have been so much better.

People are used to politicians disagreeing on party lines, but in recent debates in parliament, respected Conservative voices lined up to criticise the government’s approach to the bill.

That included former Tory education secretaries Ken Clarke and Ken Baker – the latter going as far as to call the bill “an act of educational vandalism”.

Sadly, the government was having none of their wise counsel: on Monday every Lords amendment was taken out and every Commons amendment blocked.

Legislation to improve skills education is always welcome. But for Labour, there are four key issues, which the skills bill fails to address or risks making worse.

Too many children do not have access to professional careers guidance and work experience.

Too few apprenticeships are available, because the apprenticeship levy isn’t working as it needs to, with too many small businesses not participating, and fewer level 2 and 3 apprenticeships.

There’s too little ambition on local skills, with local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) envisaged as an outsourcing of administration rather than boosting the skills that different communities need to prosper.

And the transition towards the new T Levels has sadly become a case study in how a laudable policy aim can be put at risk by incompetent execution and poor planning.

It matters that we get these things right, for our young people and for our country.

The pace of change is accelerating, and opportunities for young people and adults to train and retrain have never been so important, so that opportunity is shared across every corner of our country, and everyone can enjoy security and prosperity at work.

We want young people to leave education both ready for work and ready for life, with the digital skills they need, the careers advice they deserve, and work experience for everyone.

Giving children – particularly those from more deprived communities – a chance to experience the world of work and a sense of potential careers isn’t just about their horizons after education, but often about giving a purpose to their studying too.

For too long, careers guidance and work experience has been seen as additional to a school’s contribution to a child’s development.

Labour believes that good-quality, face-to-face careers guidance and meaningful work experience is vital part of every young person’s education and development. 

That’s why Keir Starmer committed last year that the next Labour government will offer all children face-to-face careers guidance and a minimum of two weeks meaningful work experience.

On apprenticeships, the bill basically left the current system untouched. That’s a serious mistake. Too many small businesses that don’t pay the levy have now also moved away from offering apprenticeships. 

The bill basically left the broken apprenticeship system untouched

Reforming this broken system and addressing the drop in apprenticeship starts should have been at the heart of the legislation, not out of scope.

At a local level, what skills reform this government has achieved since 2010 has been about putting employers in charge.

The government rejected an amendment that would have created a more collaborative approach and ensured that LSIPs heard from private and public sector employers, FE colleges, independent providers, local devolved decision-makers and local enterprise partnerships.

And while T Levels are a welcome innovation, they have yet to complete their pilot phase and the government has simply not managed the transition as well as is needed. 

There has been widespread alarm from all corners ̶ from employers, unions, and colleges alike ̶at the government’s plans to scrap so many level 3 qualifications in advance of the new qualification being established and recognised.

Labour welcomes T Levels, but this haste risks wrecking the journey.

The next Labour government will build a better and more coherent system. But the bill the House of Commons has just voted through represents many missed opportunities. 

Britain deserves better.