Unfair: Large apprenticeship providers ‘disproportionately penalised’ by new ESFA rule

Large apprenticeship providers have hit out at a “nonsensical” funding rule that proposes to punish their firms if they have more than 100 withdrawals or delayed completions.

A new apprenticeship accountability framework, mooted in last year’s skills for jobs white paper, was published for 2021/22 and sets out the quality indicators that providers will be measured against when it comes to intervention, from April.

Controversially, it states that providers will be placed in a ‘needs improvement’ category and become subject to “enhanced monitoring” when the number of apprentices in a cohort are past their planned end-dates, on breaks in learning or have withdrawn is more than 15 per cent or “greater than 100”.

A clarification version of the framework released last month showed that enhanced monitoring could include management conversations with government officials, the development of “improvement plans” and potential referrals to Ofsted.

Providers have accused the ESFA of launching an attack on large apprenticeship firms as they will be “disproportionately penalised” under the “greater than 100” threshold.

“There are many holes in the framework and lots of unknowns but the initial comms seems nonsensical and will more than likely put the majority of apprenticeship providers into ‘need improvement’ category,” said Brenda McLeish, chief executive of the Learning Curve Group.

She gave the example of a provider with 2,500 apprentices that could have a withdrawal rate of only four per cent yet still be subject to enhanced monitoring.

Nichola Hay, chief operating officer of Estio Training, said the policy has “good intentions” but its implementation is “wrong”.

“It is not a fair rule,” she told FE Week. “From sector to sector there are different impacts for breaks in learning, for example, especially following the pandemic.”

Sector leaders estimate that around half of the almost 1,500 apprenticeship providers in England are medium to large in size and typically have more than 100 withdrawals each year.

Sharron Robbie, managing director of the Devon and Cornwall Provider Network, questioned where the government’s resource would come from to adequately monitor all those providers in scope.

Sharron Robbie

She added that while she is supportive of ESFA action to tackle poor-quality apprenticeships, using a “blunt figure” of greater than 100 for all providers was “disproportionate”.

The accountability framework states that from April 2022, the ESFA will use the indicators and thresholds as the starting point for informing where there may be areas of concern.

The ESFA told FE Week that the agency does recognise the greater than 100 threshold will “capture” larger providers.

In defence of the rule, the agency said that while 100 apprentices may for some providers still represent a small percentage, in volume terms this is “still potentially high numbers of apprentices where we would want to seek further information and assurance”.

For those providers showing a significant or highest risk of poor-quality apprenticeship delivery the agency will consider whether suspending apprentice recruitment until improvements are seen.

The accountability framework added that each intervention will be “based on evidence and appropriate to the level of risk to the quality of apprenticeship delivery”.

Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said her members are “extremely concerned” by the proposals. “We strongly support ensuring that more learners complete their apprenticeship, but as the agency well knows, there are often factors for non-completion that are out of the provider’s control, particularly in certain sectors,” she added.

Providers can email feedback on the proposals to provider.strategy@education.gov.uk until March 1.

MP support for skills bill amendments is encouraging

Not accepting two amendments is a missed opportunity by the government, but there is cause for hope, writes Peter Aldous

Readers will be all too aware of the significance of the Skills & Post-16 Education Bill and the wider skills reform agenda, and the impact it will have on colleges across the country.

It’s a bill I very much welcome – especially the focus it places on the central role that colleges have in improving economic growth and in creating opportunities that will redress long-standing regional inequalities.

But, while it points in the right direction, there are areas where it needs to be improved if it is going to meet its ambitions. That is why I tabled two amendments ahead of the report stage and third reading debates in the House of Commons on Monday.

One amendment would have required the government to conduct a review of barriers that universal credit claimants face in accessing education and training.

The other would have seen colleges formally recognised as co-constructors of local skills improvement plans (LSIPs).

In relation to the first amendment, I believe that modest changes to the way the current welfare system operates would help remove rigid and complex rules around studying and claiming universal credit at the same time.

My amendment called for a review on the conditionality rules that prevent too many people from being able to get the skills they need to gain more meaningful and sustainable employment.

I’ve discussed this in some detail with Alex Burghart, the skills minister and Mims Davies, the employment minister.

During the debate, minster Burghart was keen to set out the various government initiatives in this space and why he believes a review isn’t necessary.

The government is not yet convinced, so I did not feel it worthwhile to push this to a vote – but I was very encouraged by the number of MPs, both fellow Conservative backbenchers and those across the house, who spoke fervently in support.

My modest request for a review would provide a deeper understanding of why the system is not working, and a deeper understanding of lessons from the important recent developments government has led, including skills bootcamps and the recently announced pathfinder pilots set out in the levelling-up white paper. I’ll continue to work across the house and with the sector on this issue.

My second amendment aimed to ensure that there is a genuine partnership between employers and colleges when it comes to writing LSIPs.

Colleges have a unique insight into their local areas and are central to delivering on plans – and they have a key role to play in interpreting the diverse and at times contradictory demands of employers. It’s important then that they share responsibility for developing and delivering on local plans, and that this role is set out on the face of the bill.

College leaders in the LSIP trailblazer pilot areas recently set out strongly how they can be strengthened, and their support for my amendment. This would build on the government’s previous concession that mayoral combined authorities should have a formal role in this process.

Government, however, does not believe that this needs to be extended in the bill, arguing instead that this will be an important element of the statutory guidance.

The government can – and should – send a clear message to colleges that they are valued partners in this process, and will never be passive recipients of plans written up by others.

The government should send a clear message to colleges that they are valued partners

Ultimately, the government chose not to accept any of the amendments I and others tabled, which I do fear is a missed opportunity.

However, I am not disheartened. What I heard on Monday was colleagues across the house speaking passionately about the role of colleges in meeting the many challenges our country faces.

And I heard a government that accepts that more needs to be done, even if they are reluctant to make legislative commitments at this stage.

I’m sure peers will again press the government on these important issues. I’m hopeful that government will listen and we conclude the legislative process with a bill that truly delivers for people, communities and employers.

Ofqual proposes stricter controls on BTECs that survive qualifications cull

Regulators have unveiled plans for more “rigorous” controls over the BTECs and other post-16 qualifications which survive a planned bonfire of level 3 courses.

A 65-page Ofqual consultation published on Thursday details proposals to raise standards, but leaves the sector in limbo as it awaits news of which qualifications face the chop.

Courses which overlap with “flagship” A-levels and T Levels are set to lose funding from 2024, with education secretary Nadhim Zahawi arguing last year strong education systems abroad have hundreds not thousands of qualifications.

The cull has sparked a significant backlash, with more than 110 MPs and three ex-education secretaries slamming the plans. A petition has 108,352 signatures.

A newly published letter from Zahawi to Ofqual’s chief regulator Dr Jo Saxton also provides few clues about the scale of the cull.

But it says the “once-in-a-generation” overhaul from 2024 must ensure all post-16 provision is “fit for purpose”, asking Ofqual to balance stronger regulation with minimising “disruption and uncertainty” for schools and colleges.

‘Simplified’ system

Ofqual’s consultation reiterates past DfE pledges to create a “simplified system”, with A-levels and T Levels the “main academic and technical qualification offers” respectively.

But A Levels will sit alongside two “alternative academic” options – courses complementing students’ A-level and higher education choices, or courses with significant practical or performance-based knowledge unavailable through A-levels.

Meanwhile T Levels will sit alongside two “alternative technical” qualification types – those offering job skills in occupations not covered by T Levels, and those providing expertise which goes “beyond” standard occupational skills typically offered by T Levels.

The government also accepts a continued place for four more kinds of adult-focused qualification, and two other academic routes – courses like the International Baccalaureate, and small complementary options like Extended Project qualifications.

Grading overhaul

Ofqual is considering a “single grading scale” for alternative academic and technical qualifications, such as A* to E.

This would ensure “greater commonality”, but it acknowledged any scale may not be appropriate for all courses.

BTECs currently have their own grading system of pass, merit and distinction. Whereas WJEC qualifications, for example, offered across UK use an A* to E grading system.

Alternative options put forward by Ofqual include a fixed number of possible grading scales or grades, or letting providers use whichever scales they wish. The risk is a “proliferation” in scales.

The consultation asks if it should prioritise simplicity for users, flexibility for awarding organisations or comparison over time – potentially by keeping existing scales.

Performance tables

Zahawi’s letter had said most publicly funded qualifications should “meet the requirements to count in performance tables”.

Ofqual’s proposed “purpose” requirements for alternative academic courses include providing a “basis for schools and colleges to be held accountable” for performance”. 

Courses must be “sufficiently robust” to appear in performance tables.

Stricter assessment rules

Awarding organisations may be ordered to impose strict rules on non-exam assessments, specifying work and content required and how assessors differentiate students’ attainment levels.

Centres’ ability to make “changes” to non-exam assessment may also be curbed.

At least 40 per cent of alternative academic qualifications would be assessed via exams, on up to two set dates a year. The percentage is unchanged for applied general qualifications such as BTECs, but higher than the current 30 per cent rule for Tech Level courses.

Ofqual acknowledged exam requirements could “adversely impact” students with disabilities or conditions like anxiety, and two set assessment dates could coincide with religious events or activities. But it said some students would be disadvantaged “whatever time an examination is offered”.

Courses rebranded

A rebrand appears likely. Ofqual uses the novel terms “alternative technical” and “alternative academic”, but says the DfE will “confirm in due course what these qualifications will be known as”. 

It does not propose a single term – like A-levels – but seeks views on what “expectations for the use of specific terms or titling conventions” it should introduce. 

It acknowledges the risk this suggests more “similarity” between qualifications than there is, however.

Stricter Ofqual controls

Courses will only receive public funding if they meet government “expectations”.

Ofqual plans “strengthened controls” to drive up standards. Courses would be regulated more like GCSEs, with awarding organisations ordered to write and follow an “assessment strategy”.

Zahawi’s letter said providers should be clearer whether courses prepare students for work or further study. Ofqual said assessment strategies must include such “specific purposes”, and highlight how providers’ qualifications are designed, delivered and awarded.

This will help Ofqual “hold them to account”. It also wants powers to force awarding organisations to follow its requirements when it reviews their qualifications.

Ofqual will also set general standards on how alternative academic qualifications must be designed, though such “purpose” requirements are not proposed for alternative technical courses. Reforms will give students confidence in qualifications’ “rigour and currency”.

WorldSkills UK announces winners of equity, diversity and inclusion awards

People and organisations who champion diversity within business and technical education have been honoured as part of the third WorldSkills UK equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) heroes awards.

The awards were held during a virtual ceremony on Thursday in partnership with Coca-Cola Europacific Partners and NCFE. 

Winners included an electronics engineer who spent lockdown designing science packs for school children and a national programme to get non-English speakers to sign up for college courses.

“Congratulations to all the winners. We have been so impressed with the number and quality of entries this year,” said chief executive of WorldSkills UK, Neil Bentley-Gockmann.

“We launched these awards to highlight and celebrate the impact our partners’ work is having and we have been so inspired by the people and stories behind the nominations. 

“With more categories and entries this year, I am so pleased to see the awards going from strength to strength.” 

Anna Hart picked up the rising star award for her work in promoting STEM subjects to children ̶ to girls in particular. Anna spent the first lockdown creating resources to spark primary school children’s interest in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. 

As well as developing special packs to celebrate women in engineering, she reached out to universities to offer STEM career events to promote careers for women in engineering.

Cardiff and Vale College won the EDI ambassador of the year award for its work in opening up educational opportunities to the local community. One of the college’s programmes, which encouraged people who did not speak English as a first language to sign up for language classes, was rolled out across Wales by the government.

Middlesex University’s Puja Varsani was awarded the inspirational role model award for her work helping women, minority groups and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to consider careers in STEM. She organises events to promote STEM subjects and careers, and volunteers in local secondary schools on robotics competitions.

The awards are open to all students, apprentices, employees and organisations within the technical education sector.

Lifelong learning loans consultation finally launched

Access to the government’s flagship lifelong learning loans policy could be restricted to “high-value” courses and age-based limits.

Proposals around course and learner eligibility for the government’s flagship lifelong loan entitlement (LLE) were published this morning by the Department for Education. 

The new entitlement will give adults access to an online “lifelong learning account” which will, from 2025, include how much funding an individual can borrow to cover the cost of modules or full courses at levels 4 to 6. 

Through the entitlement, students will have access to loan funding worth up to the equivalent of four years of undergraduate study – £37,000 by today’s fee level.

The scheme has been designed to boost demand for higher technical qualifications and reverse the decade-plus decline in adults participating in education and training. The government hopes that the LLE will mainstream and increase take-up of modules that can accumulate credits to full qualifications. 

Providers including universities, colleges and training providers are now being asked to help design the scheme. The 60-page consultation document published today contains 49 open-ended questions on topics ranging from the changes needed to the student finance system, how to provide maintenance support and how qualifications should be approved for the scheme. 

More questions than answers

Ministers have given themselves until 2025 to build, test and implement the LLE. Today’s consultation bundles questions along three themes: ambition, scope and quality. 

In their foreword, the education secretary Nadhim Zahawi and further and higher education minister Michelle Donelan compared the introduction of the scheme to the formation of the National Health Service: “Like the revolutionary ideas that shaped the founding of our NHS, the LLE is based on the idea that people regardless of background or wealth should have a clear understanding about their loan entitlement, with those eligible able to access the system and learning opportunities flexibly – as and when they need it.”

Ministers and officials are faced with significant design and implementation challenges. In particular, policymakers hope to bring coherence to what is an incredibly complicated landscape of student finance regulations, multiple regulatory systems across higher and further education and bringing in a new system of credit transfer. 

Officials are not yet clear on a process to decide which courses and qualifications students will have access to through their lifelong learning accounts. Questions include whether or not to include courses that are currently eligible for HE student finance, how to include new higher technical qualifications and how to handle popular programmes like foundation years and PGCEs.

There’s also a rough “pathway” to implementation which outlines three feeder pilot schemes that will inform the development of the LLE rollout including the Office for Students’ HE short course trial.

DfE’s ‘pathway approach’ to the lifelong loan entitlement.

Susan Pember, policy director at HOLEX described how a lack of cross-government initiatives within the LLE is a “lost opportunity”.

“It is helpful that the consultation is out, but the proposals for a four-year loan entitlement are still very perplexing,” she said.

“Mainly because students can already get a four-year loan for both fees and maintenance and I can’t see the demand for that type of delivery at 19 declining. The lack of parity between level 3 and 4 and 5 seems to be as wide as it has always been and the limitations around the pilots for developing and delivering modules are not going to support the change to the post 19 skills landscape the way government hopes.

“A loan for a few HE modules does not constitute a lifelong learning policy – this is a lost opportunity to develop a true lifelong learning policy, to join up across government and offer students a real alternative and clear progression routes for life and work.”

Power to the people?

A stand-out feature of the LLE scheme is empowering learners to choose the courses and delivery model that is right for them. According to today’s consultation, this could include the facility to borrow for a “bundle” of small credit-bearing modules or larger full qualifications. Credits can be transferred between providers and built up over time. 

Yet, the consultation seeks views on how access to the scheme could be limited in order to preserve value-for-money and “ensure financial sustainability of the exchequer”.

Possible restrictions floated in the document include limiting how much a student could access according to their age. This could, as well as keeping the public finances under control, prevent students from spending their lifetime entitlement too early in their working life. 

Further restrictions could include preventing students from borrowing for a series of modules that don’t appear to lead coherently to a full qualification. 

The government is also looking for ways to control what courses students can access funding for through the scheme. Question 24 of the consultation asks: “When considering restrictions by level and subject, how could the government ensure that the LLE is used for the high-value learning that meets the needs of employers and economy?”

Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, has warned against a “Whitehall knows best approach”.

“The lifelong loan entitlement has the potential to open up opportunities to access higher education throughout life, and the government is right to test new forms of flexible delivery and put higher technical education on an equal footing,” he said.

“However, to avoid a ‘Whitehall knows best’ approach, the government should take a broad approach to what qualifications are eligible, investing in high quality advice and trusting people to make informed decisions. I would also argue we need a bigger focus on inspiring adults to want to learn and supporting people’s living costs if we are truly to see a skills revolution.”

The great rebalance

Systems that have been built to fund and support higher education students have been designed primarily for younger, full time undergraduates. If LLE is a success, ministers expect a shift towards more older and part time students. 

For example, the consultation details how student maintenance support is currently provided through higher education student finance for some students, and through advanced learning loan bursaries for others. Views are sought on how borrowing to support living costs and other non-tuition fee costs could be built in to the LLE and what controls and restrictions should be in place. 

“We intend and expect that, once the LLE is implemented, there will be a rebalance towards lifelong learning with greater flexibility that allows for more part-time study rather than, as has happened in recent decades, to an ever-greater concentration of young students” the consultation states.

The consultation is open to the public and closes on May 6, 2022.

Ministers scrap plans for post-qualification admissions

Plans to radically overhaul university admissions to offer students places based on their actual exam results have been shelved.

The government had consulted on a move to post-qualification admissions, which would have seen students receive university offers once they had obtained their final grades.

Former education secretary Gavin Williamson said at the time that he wanted to “remove the unfairness” from the current system, in which pupils apply and are offered places based on predicted grades.

But universities minister Michelle Donelan confirmed today that the reforms have officially been shelved.

“While we are considering and implementing a range of reforms, after careful analysis of responses to the separate consultation on post-qualification admissions, we have decided not to proceed with this at this time.”

The government consulted on two potential models.

One would have involved both applications and offers being made after students receive their exam results, with results day moved to July and the higher education term moved to October.

The other would have involved applications being made before results, but offers made after results day.

The proposals prompted a mixed response. Research by the Sutton Trust in 2020 found that 66 per cent of students felt a post-qualification approach would be fairer than predicted grades.

A review by Universities UK backed a move to post-qualification admissions, but shot down a suggestion that the start of term for universities be moved to January to facilitate a later admissions process.

Ofqual, the exams regulator, also warned that exam results could be delayed and students miss out on places if the government relied on slashing marking time to deliver its overhaul.

It said the reforms would rely on results for A-levels and other level 3 qualifications being released up to three weeks sooner than usual.

The DfE said responses to its consultation indicated the reform “would be a significant undertaking for both the HE and the school and college systems”.

“Many respondents” had pointed out the need for the sector to “focus on educational recovery and exam recovery as a priority, rather than wholesale system reform”.

Two thirds of consultation respondents were in favour of a change to PQA in principle, but 60 per cent of respondents felt the models proposed “would be either worse than, or no better than, current arrangements”.

“Whilst there is some support for post-qualification admissions, this is not strong enough to indicate that this is the right time for such a major upheaval, the DfE concluded.

The department said it would “continue to work with UCAS and sector bodies to improve transparency, reduce the use of unconditional offers, and reform the personal statement to improve fairness for applicants of all backgrounds”.

The government is due to shortly publish its response to the Augar review of post-18 education.

Among the proposals is the introduction of a minimum grade thresholds which could see students denied finance if they fail their English and maths GCSEs.

‘Get on with it’ – government unveils lifelong learning plans

Ministers will today finally unveil plans to reform post-18 higher education and lifelong learning funding – three years after the May 2019 Augar Review called for a “more balanced” funding approach between government, students and taxpayers.

The flagship lifelong loan entitlement (LLE), first trailed by the prime minister in a speech at Exeter College in September 2020, will finally be subject to a public consultation. 

The consultation, expected today, will outline what the government believes to be a “seismic shift in the way post-18 education is funded and accessed” including a “streamlined” funding system for modular courses at levels 4 to 6. 

Through the entitlement, students will have access to loan funding worth up to the equivalent of four years of undergraduate study – £37,000 by today’s fee level.

The new entitlement isn’t earmarked to be available to students until at least 2025. In the meantime providers, including colleges, universities and private ‘alternative providers’, as well as students, are being asked to give their views on how the new system of funding HE level credits and modules should work. 

The consultation, announced today as part of the government’s long-awaited response to Philip Augar’s 2019 review of post-18 education funding, will seek views on radically expanding enrolments on higher technical courses at levels 4 and 5.

In particular, the Department for Education has said they are interested in “the barriers faced by providers in offering and promoting level 4 and 5 courses and the role of fee and funding systems in affecting provider and learner behaviour”.

Pre-briefed proposals that are part of the government’s higher education funding reforms include introducing new eligibility criteria for access to student finance support for tuition fees and maintenance loans. These proposals have been met with widespread criticism from FE and HE sector leaders who have argued that arbitrary GCSE and/or A-level entry criteria to access HE student finance could provide an unfair passport to higher education for better off students. 

For more traditional university-level HE routes, the government is confirming their plans to freeze the annual tuition fee cap at £9,250 for enrolments up to and including 2024/25. 

For new students, the student loan repayment threshold will be reduced from £27,295 to £25,000 from 2023/24 and they will have longer, 40 years, to pay their loans back. In addition, the variable interest rate on student loans will be reduced to RPI +/- 0% for student starting obtaining student loans from 2023/24. 

This comes as a key plank of the government’s ambition to reduce the amount of student debt that is ultimately written off by the taxpayer. 

Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi said: “Our country’s world leading universities and colleges are key to levelling up opportunity by opening up access to a range of lifelong flexible post-18 options to help people train, retrain and upskill. 

“This package of reforms will ensure students are being offered a range of different pathways, whether that is higher or further education, that lead to opportunities with the best outcomes – and put an end once for all to high interest rates on their student loans.”

A second consultation, also launched today, will seek views on new government controls on the types of courses HE aspiring students have access to. This includes proposals to limit access to student finance to students that have achieved at least grade 4s at GCSE English and maths or at least to Es at A level.  

‘Process with caution’

David Robinson, Director, Post 16 and Skills of the Education Policy Institute (EPI) said: “We think that the government should proceed with caution in relation to the proposed reforms to higher education funding and access. Proposals to introduce minimum entry requirements for students must be carefully considered by the government, along with an assessment of the impact on disadvantaged and under-represented groups. 

“At present, students who do not achieve a grade 4 in English and Maths at GCSE may have limited options in accessing Level 3 courses, including T Levels. This, in turn, means it is harder for them to secure two Es at A Level (or equivalent). It is therefore important that the government considers whether contextual factors, such as student background or learning loss, should be taken into account when applying for student loans.”

David Hughes, Chief Executive, Association of Colleges said: ”Until now, the HE system has been designed to favour full-time, mainly young bachelor degree students. A key test of these proposals therefore is how far they enhance opportunities for adults and support college HE to grow whilst protecting what universities do so well.

“This consultation has been a very long time coming and implementation is some time off. We would like to see the promise of the lifelong learning entitlement to be delivered as soon as possible. Government needs to stop talking about a lifelong learning entitlement and get on and deliver it.”

‘Ladder-up not levelling-up’: DfE urged to rethink student loan grade threshold plan

Plans to deny student loans to learners who fail their English and maths GCSEs risk “removing the ladder” for disadvantaged students hoping to study higher education, ministers have been warned.

One legal expert has even said the proposals are “potentially discriminatory” because of the impact they could have on students with special educational needs and disabilities.

The Department for Education will launch a consultation tomorrow on new minimum eligibility thresholds to “ensure students aren’t being pushed into higher education before they are ready”.

It will ask for views on making access to student finance dependent on having either two Es at A-level or at least a grade 4 in English and maths GCSE.

But Geoff Barton, from the Association of School and College Leaders, said those “with the aspiration and commitment to access higher education should be helped to achieve that ambition”.

“To do the opposite smacks of a lack of ambition on the part of the government. It seems more like a case of removing the ladder up rather than levelling up.”

David Hughes, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said there are more than 150 colleges offering employment-focused higher education to adults who would not be able to access it elsewhere – adding that he is “very worried” the proposed minimum entry requirements “will hit them the hardest”.

“Adults often enter college HE without a suite of GCSEs or A-levels and go onto good outcomes, including good jobs and promotions; excluding them through a minimum entry requirement would be perverse,” he said.

In 2019, the last year formal exams took place, 44.7 per cent of disadvantaged students achieved at least a grade 4 in English and maths at GCSE, compared to 71.8 per cent of other pupils.

That same year, 26.7 per cent of pupils with SEND achieved the benchmark, compared to 71 per cent of those without.

Changes ‘potentially discriminatory’

Sarah Woosey, an education lawyer at Simpson Millar, said the proposed changes were “potentially discriminatory”, and pointed to the government’s need to comply with the public sector equality duty.

“Although it is probably sensible to ensure that students are only funded to study courses which they are able to succeed at, this decision should be determined by the entrance criteria for the individual universities, which also must comply with the Equality Act.

“To say that a university would be happy to offer a place to applicant on the basis of their admissions criteria but then for that student to be unable to access funding to do this because of their disability has got to be wrong.”

The Education Policy Institute warned that students from low-income families, black students and those from parts of the north and West Midlands could be most affected by the changes.

David Robinson, director of post-16 and skills, said the proposals “appear to be regressive and further thought must be given to ensuring that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are not adversely impacted”.

He said pupils who did not pass English and maths GCSEs already faced potentially limited options at level 3, making it harder for them to secure two Es at A-level.

“It is therefore important that the government considers whether contextual factors, such as student background or learning loss, should be taken into account when applying for student loans.”

Almost 19,000 students could be affected

Experts have predicted that thousands of pupils could be affected by the change.

Data from the University and College Admissions Service (UCAS) shows 91.6 per cent of 18-year-olds accepted onto university courses in 2020 met the grade 4 in English and maths requirement.

Mary Curnock-Cook, UCAS’s former chief executive, said a minimum GCSE requirement in 2020 would have meant around 18,800 students being excluded, and around £520 million of fee income lost by universities.

She said this would be a “pretty catastrophic reduction, unprecedented since the fee changes in 2012”.

The impact of the two Es at A-level requirement is less easy to work out. UCAS analysis shows 4,769 people fell below a D-E-E threshold in 2018, while 2,819 fell below three Es.

The consultation will be launched as part of the government’s response to the 2019 Augar review of post-18 education. The review did model a potential minimum entry threshold, but based on A-level achievement rather than GCSE.

The report found it was “feasible” to contextualise an entry threshold based on socio-economic background, which could “address the problems of low returns for graduates in a socially progressive way”.

Augar found threshold would be ‘significant intervention’

But it warned such a threshold would be a “significant intervention into what has been designed as a competitive autonomous market”.

It might also be objected “that the contextualisation process breaks the clear link between attainment and entry established by a minimum entry threshold”.

For example, two students at the same school with the same grades holding the same offer from the same university could have “different outcomes”.

“In so doing, it could be presented as an example of social engineering – and breach of concepts of fairness – that do not fit comfortably within a meritocratic education system.”

Poorer pupils ‘most likely’ to suffer

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, warned plans for a threshold were a “blunt tool” driven by “financial considerations” which would “set back social mobility and hamper widening participation in higher education”.

But according to Times Higher Education, universities minister Michelle Donelan stressed today that minimum eligibility thresholds were “not a defined, definite direction of travel” for the government.

“It isn’t necessarily the case we will even be doing a minimum entry requirement, or going down that English and maths route. That is just one of the options.”

Donelan also claimed that just 4,800 students who went to university last year did not have grade 4 English and maths GCSEs.

A DfE spokesperson said the government needed to “ensure that we are creating opportunities that will not only open doors but will develop the talent our country needs to prosper now and in the future”.

“Higher education is an investment and we need to ensure that graduates are being rewarded for the money, time and effort they put into their studies with an educational experience and jobs that match their skills and help contribute to the economy”.

AELP chair stands down after 18 years

Martin Dunford has stepped down as the chair of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ board after 18 years, with the organisation calling his departure the “end of an era”.  

He will be replaced by Nichola Hay who is chief operating officer of Estio Training and who also serves as chair of AELP London.

Dunford was a founding member of AELP, and under his leadership the organisation has grown to the point where it has around 800 members. 

Alex Khan, chief executive of Lifetime Training, was also elected as the new vice chair of AELP’s board.

The announcement came as AELP published a new report that explores how independent training providers can “deliver the workforce of the future”, which was launched at an event in parliament yesterday.

“I have been proud to chair the board for the last 18 years, having been involved in the organisation since its inception,” said Dunford. 

“Over those years, I have watched AELP grow significantly. We have moved mountains in that time.  

“When we started out, we never imagined that we would see a day when we would have ministerial position dedicated to skills and apprenticeships.”  

Dunford said that over the years AELP has never lost sight of their core values which are to support learners, providers, and employers and to make a “real impact through skills”. 

“As I step down and hand over the reins to a new chair, I am pleased to see that, despite challenges, AELP’s future is brighter than ever. I have every confidence that the leadership team and board is ready to tackle the challenges our sector faces,” he added. 

Dunford began his career in international sales, marketing, product, and business development, during which time he qualified for an MBA. 

Prior to becoming chief executive of Skills Training UK, he was chief executive of the Training and Business Group (TBG). 

He has served as an expert advisor on a number of government advisory panels and boards around further education and skills policy, including ten years on the Apprenticeship Ambassador Network. 

Martin Dunford will be replaced by Nichola Hay

Jane Hickie, AELP’s chief executive, thanked Dunford for his “relentless commitment” to AELP.

“A founding member of AELP nearly two decades ago, Martin had a vision to create a membership organisation which would support and represent ITPs with government to ensure that they had a voice and position in the FE Sector,” she said. 

“During his time as chair, he has supported four chief executives and led the board with a pure ambition which has resulted in not only AELP being the ‘go to’ organisation for ITPs but also for government ministers.”  

During an event at parliament held on Tuesday morning, AELP announced the publication of new research into how independent training providers can support the development of the UK’s workforce. 

The research calls for equitable treatment of ITPs in policy, regulation and funding and for the government to move away from “institution-led bias”.

It sets out seven recommendations that call for the system to “allow ITPs to do more of what they do best”.

“The fact is that ITPs have always been overlooked. But it’s also important that we don’t see this as one long whinge. That we don’t talk about it as a report about how hard done by ITPs are,” Paul Warner, the author of the report, told FE Week. 

“All that we are asking for is that ITPs have a certain set of skills, strengths and expertise and that needs to be recognised and used,” he added.

You can read FE Week’s full interview with Dunford in this week’s edition, out Friday.