Over three-quarters of the near 200,000 apprenticeship incentive payment claims were made for young people, new data has revealed, prompting fresh calls for incentives to be brought back.
The Department for Education published data this morning which showed that 195,590 claims were made by employers for the incentive scheme, which ran from August 2020 until the end of January this year.
More than three quarters – 77 per cent – were for new apprentices aged 16-24, with 23 per cent for those aged 25 and over.
The scheme was introduced by then-chancellor Rishi Sunak in August 2020 as part of his Plan for Jobs initiative, and offered firms £2,000 to take on apprentices aged 16-24, or £1,500 for those who employed a new apprentice aged 25 or above.
That incentive was then increased to £3,000 in March 2021 until September, before an extension until the end of January was confirmed. That extension period in itself saw a further 40,000 apprentices recruited under the scheme.
The data has prompted the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) – which has lobbied for an extension on multiple occasions – to renew its calls for the incentive to return.
Chief executive Jane Hickie said: “AELP lobbied for enhanced employer apprenticeship incentives as part of the Plan for Jobs, as we were confident that they would have a positive impact on apprenticeship uptake. The data proves that we were correct.
“Not only did apprenticeship starts increase at a difficult time in the economy, but incentives also led to positive impact on social mobility and rebalancing the system. 77 per cent of new apprentice starts as a result of the incentives were under 24 years old, 83 per cent of starts were at levels 2 and 3, with SMEs particularly benefiting.
“But since the incentives came to an end, we’ve already seen a reduction in both starts and vacancies.
“This is exactly why AELP are calling for a return of incentives – targeted at young people – which could be delivered by recycling unspent apprenticeship funding that would otherwise be returned to the Treasury.”
According to the DfE, health, public services and care were the sectors which accounted for the most claims – one in every four, while the business, administration, law, engineering and manufacturing technologies sectors made up around one in every five applications.
The DfE said over the 18 months of the programme, between 5,000 and 10,000 learners typically started on incentive schemes each month, although nearly 40,000 started in September 2021.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said: “It’s welcome to see a high proportion of apprenticeship incentives going to young people and at levels 2 and 3 – the groups and levels that have seen the biggest falls in recent years.
“It’s likely the incentives made something of a difference during the pandemic, but without a proper evaluation it’s not possible to tell how many would have happened anyway. For the future, we need a clear strategy to increase employer investment in skills as a whole, and in particular for young people and those with lower level qualifications.”
Proposals for multi-year adult education budgets, “simplified” funding bands and public provider performance dashboards have been firmed up as the government presses ahead with its overhaul of adult education funding in England.
Officials at the Department for Education published proposals to reform funding and accountability models a year ago but have today released a second stage consultation with more detail.
Some accountability reforms will be rolled out in the coming 22/23 academic year, while the more ambitious funding reforms are proposed to take place in 23/24 and in to the next spending review period.
The second stage consultation focuses on implementation, with the sector now being asked to provide feedback on five new proposed funding bands for adult education courses, a successor to the adult education budget (AEB) and bringing in a lagged funding model for adult education.
Here’s what you need to know:
AEB becomes the skills fund
DfE is pressing ahead with its proposal to introduce a “simpler” adult education funding model and had originally proposed to consolidate seven separate funding lines into a single skills fund.
It now proposes that, starting in 23/24, colleges will receive a combined AEB (including community learning) and free courses for jobs (FCFJ) allocation under the ‘skills fund’ heading.
A decision will be made at the next spending review on integrating the FCFJ pot into mainstream budgets.
Funding for skills bootcamps and adult training funding from the UK shared prosperity fund, will though continue to be separate.
The idea is that a combined skills fund will free up providers to be more responsive to local needs.
Colleges will sign new accountability agreements which are promised to be “significantly shorter than current funding agreements” according to DfE.
The new agreements will stipulate the national priorities the fund can be spent on, as well as highlighting specific ringfences and rules for non-qualification provision and development of “innovative” new courses.
The Department wants to “re-orientate the vision for non-qualification provision” by proposing that all provision must achieve at least one of three set objectives; achieving employment, progression to further learning that brings learners close to employment and helping learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to access independent living.
Colleges will also have to set themselves “a small number of outcome targets” and set out how they will adapt their provision to meet local needs as part of the agreements.
There will be a draft later this year.
DfE also wants to push ahead with its plans to move away from setting allocations based on historic performance towards a “needs-based” funding formula to be introduced in the next spending review period.
Another set of budgets to be consolidated are the various sector support grants. After the next spending review, the strategic development fund, college collaboration fund, workforce industry exchange programme, higher technical education growth fund and the FE professional development grant will become a single ‘development fund’.
Getting a grip on devolved authorities
The current level of adult education budget spent in devolved combined authorities is 60 per cent. That figure is set to grow continually over the coming years until the ambitions of the government’s levelling up ambition of a wholly-devolved adult skills system is realised.
The DfE reports that providers were uneasy about inconsistencies in funding and assurance approaches as the list of adult education commissioning bodies is set to grow ever larger.
As well as bringing in a needs-based formula for mayoral combined authorities, the DfE wants local areas to use a national funding model it develops when designing and implementing their plans for the skills fund.
“Taking this approach would mean any differences between local areas had a clear rationale and would minimise the extent of differences that employers and providers need to navigate,” today’s document says.
A rise in rates for priority provision
Courses in high priority skills areas could see funding rates rise from 2023/24.
This Autumn, courses will be organised in to SSA categories and placed in one of five funding bands; base, low, middle, high and specialist with a set hourly funding rate.
Courses in health and social care currently attract a “low” programme weighting, but are proposed to be added to the “middle” funding band in the new system. Engineering courses, currently in the “medium” category could be moved to “high”.
The Department promises that the rates set for each band will be informed by analysis of skills needs and new research it has conducted on delivery costs.
This way, it argues, a higher funding premium is attached to courses for in-demand skills and those that are more expensive to staff and deliver.
No SSA will be moved to a lower funding band than existing programmes, the DfE has said, and accommodations will be made for advanced learner loan funded students in courses attracting higher funding rates.
The future is lagged
Once the new funding rates are in place, the DfE wants to end the cycle of allocation and reconciliation.
Despite receiving a “mixed response” in the consultation, the DfE says it “continues to think a lagged approach [to the skills fund], which gives providers a firm allocation for the immediate year, is the best approach.”
However the model won’t change until the new funding bands are established and devolved authorities will be free to choose whether or not to follow suit.
Providers and MCAs can also look forward to multi-year allocations.
The DfE proposes to provide 23/24 and 24/25 skills fund allocations based on 22/23 allocations unless there’s evidence of a shortfall or over-delivery. Mayoral combined authorities will receive an indicative 24/25 budget with their 23/24 allocation.
Bringing down the data burden?
Officials are developing a new data collection system which could eliminate the need for regular ILR returns. According to today’s document, work is underway to develop “an online ILR collection approach where data is stored within DfE data storage”.
There were no timescales attached to this proposal.
However one of the benefits would be to provide timely data for the new FE performance dashboard and the new Unit for Future Skills.
Providers will certainly welcome a reduced data burden, however any excitement may be short-lived.
Said FE performance dashboard contains a range of new performance measures which seem to complement, rather than replace, existing measures like the performance tables, NARTs and outcome measures.
The new skills measure, proposed somewhat vaguely a year ago, will be a complex calculation of “expected progression rate” of students against their “actual progression rate” while also taking into account learner characteristics like free school meals and prior attainment, as well as the provider’s local economic context.
The dashboard will not include, as was originally proposed, the provider’s ESFA financial health grade because doing so “could negatively impact on learner enrolment and employer engagement, making a provider’s financial position worse.”
The dashboard will be rolled out in 23/24 and could look like this (click to enlarge):
Example performance dashboard
Providers, learners and representative organisations can see the proposals in full here and have until September 21 to respond to the consultation.
Providers without an Ofsted grade can now apply to deliver more T Levels sooner, along with those with a ‘requires improvement’ rating.
In an update to its T Level guidance for providers this morning, the Department for Education has made more providers eligible to deliver more T Levels from September 2023.
The Department says this is “to ensure as many young people as possible can benefit from them.”
The update also confirms that the T Level in animal care and management, originally planned to be introduced in 2023, has been delayed to 2024.
The new guidance states that providers with a ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted rating, and those without one at all, can now apply to deliver T Levels that launch this September from September 2023.
Those are T Levels in:
accounting
design and development for engineering and manufacturing
engineering, manufacturing, processing and control
finance
maintenance, installation and repair for engineering and manufacturing
management and administration
Before now, providers had to be rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ to deliver the 2022 T Levels in 2023. Earlier this week, £74 million in capital funding was awarded to colleges in preparation for 2023 starts.
All providers however are eligible to deliver T Levels introduced in 2020 and 2021 from September 2023 regardless of Ofsted rating.
The change signals the Department’s intention to grow the provider-base for T Levels when the national roll-out commences next year.
“Until now, only Ofsted ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ providers have been eligible to deliver T Levels first introduced in 2022 from 2023. We are now extending this to allow providers with a ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted or with no formal Ofsted designation to deliver these T Levels” the guidance states.
Providers graded ‘inadequate’ will still only be allowed to deliver the T Levels introduced in 2020 and 2021 in 2023.
Along with the appropriate Ofsted grade, providers need a 16-19 student programme contract to be eligible to apply.
This change comes just days before an upcoming registration deadline.
Providers wishing to deliver T Levels from September 2023 must register with the Department by July 29, 2022 in order to access up-front delivery funding.
Apprenticeship providers’ qualification achievement rates could soon be improved after the government changed its funding rules around breaks in employment.
New English and maths flexibilities have also been extended to apprentices currently on-programme, while a controversial rule that put funding at risk where apprentices drop-out without making enough progress towards their planned training has been removed.
The latest rules show that from next month, providers will no longer need to withdraw an apprentice where they have a break in employment for more than 30 days.
Instead, providers can place the apprentice on a break in learning but must withdraw the apprentice if they do not restart with a new employer within 12 weeks.
Until now every apprentice that changed employer partway through their programme was automatically counted as a non-achieving leaver if they did not commence new employment within 30 days. This would in turn bring down an individual provider’s retention and overall qualification achievement rate.
Simon Ashworth, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers director of policy, said: “The new eight week extension – through a break in learning – will reduce the number of non-completions.
Ashworth added: “This is also a step in the right direction with the success rate methodology. We know the current methodology is not fit for purpose and, without reform, will impact on the sector’s ability to meet the new 67 per cent overall success rate ambition by 2025.”
Several other amendments from the draft rules, which were published in May, have also been made to version one.
The draft rules said that people who start a level 2 apprenticeship without level 1 English and maths will no longer need to automatically attempt level 2 English and maths tests to complete their apprenticeship.
In version one, the ESFA has confirmed that this flexibility has been extended to all eligible apprentices – including those currently on-programme and not just new starts from August 2022.
Elsewhere, the agency previously said that where an apprentice withdraws from their programme and they have made “insufficient progress towards their training plan”, then funds will be at risk of recovery.
By insufficient progress the ESFA meant where the apprentice is “more than four weeks behind on the planned delivery of training, but the training has not been replanned or the apprentice has not been put on a break in learning”.
Additionally, the ESFA has introduced a new rule for training plans and documentation of prior learning.
It states that where an assessment has been made and the result of this assessment is that no relevant prior learning exists, providers “must agree this with the employer and document this in the evidence pack before starting the apprenticeship”.
Funds will now be at risk if a provider is not able to “show, upon request, an up-to-date training plan and current progress towards this training plan”. The agency said these rules have been strengthened due to feedback from audits and investigations.
Education employers will have to review holiday pay arrangements of term-time-only workers and may face legal claims for back-pay following a landmark court ruling.
An employment appeal tribunal ruled in 2018 that Bedford Girls School music teacher Lesley Brazel was underpaid because of the way her holiday pay was calculated.
It means employers with permanent staff on term-time-only contracts must from now on calculate their holiday pay based on the hours they work in a normal week, rather than paying them pro-rata based on the number of weeks they work each year.
Legal experts and professional bodies today warned the case would have huge ramifications for schools, colleges and other employers, with those paid incorrectly potentially entitled to back pay.
The Incorporated Society of Musicians, which supported Brazel in her legal action, said the case “could improve holiday pay for thousands of workers in the education sector and beyond”.
Chief executive Deborah Annetts said music teachers “often go above and beyond for their students but all too often they are not treated in the way they deserve”.
A spokesperson for the Harpur Trust said the ruling “will have significant cost implications for a number of sectors, including state and independent schools, the care sector and higher education”.
Ruling will create ‘significant financial burden’
Joanne Moseley, an employment lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said the “significant decision” would be a “blow to many thousands of employers across the UK who, up until now, have pro-rated holiday entitlement to reflect the number of weeks employees work each year”.
“Many employers have adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach but we’re now at the end of the road. We’ve seen that organisations have been caught out by previous holiday pay rulings and this one is sure to place a significant financial burden, which could run into millions of pounds, for many.”
Nick Hurley, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said the ruling would make “holiday pay much more expensive for employers who have this type of arrangement and is most likely to affect those in the education sector”.
“This could open the floodgates for other part-year permanent workers who have had their holiday calculated incorrectly to bring claims for unlawful deductions from wages for any difference in what they have been paid and what they should have received, although there is a two-year backstop on these claims.”
Trust was wrong to ‘pro-rate’ holiday pay
Brazel, who has taught the saxophone and clarinet at Bedford since 2002, took her case to employment tribunal following a change to her pay in 2011. She worked variable hours each week during term time and is only paid for what she teaches.
The trust had previously calculated her holiday pay based on what she would earn in an average week and multiplied it by 5.6, the statutory number of weeks of leave in England, ignoring any weeks in which she did not receive any pay.
But from 2011, the Trust changed its method and calculated the total number of hours Brazel worked each term, took 12.07 per cent of that figure and paid her for that number of hours.
This was based on guidance from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which has since been rewritten.
Although the first employment tribunal dismissed her claim, she successfully appealed, with the employment appeal tribunal ruling that her holiday pay should be based on a normal working week.
The Harper Trust appealed, but the Court of Appeal rejected their appeal in 2019, again ruling that the so-called “calendar week method” was the correct implementation of the law.
Employers must ‘immediately change’ practices
The Supreme Court ruled today the Court of Appeal was “correct” to reach that view.
“In short, the amount of leave to which a part-year worker under a permanent contract is entitled is not required by EU law to be, and under domestic law is not, prorated to that of a full-time worker.”
In an example included in the judgment, the court said Brazel’s pay for the Easter holiday in 2013 would have been £687.26 under the calendar week method, compared to £452.20 under the pro-rated approach.
Lesley Rennie, principal employment solicitor at WorkNest, said many employers would need to “immediately change their holiday pay practices”.
But they will also need to “assess their historic liability and make a judgement call on whether to make a back-payment in respect of any holiday pay underpayments or to bear the risk of a claim”.
“Employers should be mindful that if this case is widely reported, employees are more likely to be aware of it and assert their rights.”
Brazel said the case had been “long and arduous”, but she was “pleased to have secured my holiday pay rights, in accordance with the law and my contract of employment, in the highest court in the country”.
“I hope that others can now benefit from this verdict.”
The Harper Trust said: “We welcome the clarity that this judgement brings and will now focus on determining our next steps in ensuring that holiday pay is adjusted for those affected.”
Improving English and maths attainment is not exactly a new priority for government and it will be tough to do, writes David Robinson
I was pleased to read in FE Week that the vast majority of the first cohort of students taking T Levels, and their FE providers, found the new courses to be a genuinely positive experience.
Given the scale of this ambitious reform, it could easily have been otherwise. Looking ahead, it will be fascinating to see what these students progress onto, and what their eventual employment outcomes will be.
There have been concerns about the experience of T Level students, with the availability of work placements being amongst the most common.
However, whilst T Levels so far look like a rewarding qualification for students, the more pressing issue relates to which students will pursue them in the future, and what the options are for those that don’t.
The option for alternative programmes of study became clearer in May, when the Department for Education (DfE) published a provisional list of 160 qualifications that overlap with the initial T Levels.
Upon the completion of an appeals process, qualifications still on the list will be defunded from 2024.
Their removal is certainly a live issue, and was debated in parliament this week. This follows a petition urging the reversal of plans to remove funding for BTECs gaining 108,000 signatures.
Those against the proposals argue that reducing choice will harm progression for many young people.
On the other hand, the government point toward a need to streamline post-16 education, noting that some BTECs will continue to be funded.
To improve understanding of what the removal of these qualifications may mean for young people, the Education Policy Institute undertook an analysis.
We wanted to see how many students in previous cohorts took overlapping qualifications, and whether they would have been able to take T Levels instead.
Our analysis showed one-third of students taking level 3 technical or applied general qualifications were taking qualifications that may be defunded.
The issue is particularly acute amongst education students, where as many as nine in ten would be affected. Once the overlapping qualifications have been defunded, these students may be expected to take T Levels.
However, around a third of these students may not be ready for the more demanding nature of T Levels.
The challenge may be greater for construction students, with almost half potentially not ready for T Levels.
The demanding nature of T Levels may present barriers to significant take-up
Specifically, over a quarter of students (27 per cent) don’t achieve at least a grade 4 in GCSE English and maths.
Previously, it was necessary to achieve this threshold to secure a full T Level pass. This requirement has since been removed, but it nevertheless remains a common requirement, from providers in order to access T Levels.
Concerningly, almost a third (32 per cent) of health students haven’t achieved these grades. This is followed by 27, 26 and 22 per cent of education, construction and digital students respectively.
In addition, almost one in six students (16 per cent) were taking smaller study programmes than T Levels, suggesting they may not have the appetite or capacity for a larger qualification.
These figures are derived from cohorts without access to T Levels, and as the new qualifications are fully rolled out, many factors will influence their take-up.
Indeed, DfE has introduced a transition year to support students to progress onto T Levels, and this analysis does not take account of that.
Nevertheless, it’s clear the demanding nature of T Levels may present barriers to significant take-up.
This may particularly be the case for students interested in education qualifications, given so many alternatives may be removed, and for those interested in construction, given the step up in qualification size and how few students appear to have the necessary GCSE grades.
More broadly, policymakers will need to consider how to enable more young people to achieve the GCSE grades to access T Levels.
This will be tough. Improving English and maths attainment at age 16 would not exactly be a new priority for the government.
And, despite several years of the resit policy being in place, it’s still the case that (prior to the centre/teacher assessed grades of the pandemic) less than half of students improve their grade upon resit.
Without the government doubling down on existing efforts, many of these students may take one of the remaining non-T Level qualifications.
But the fear is that more students will instead opt for lower-level qualifications or drop-out of education altogether.
This is concerning, not least as almost two in five young people don’t achieve a full level 3 by the age of 19.
T Levels appear to be a good option for many students. But DfE must tread carefully to ensure the success of their new qualifications, without creating a new fault line in the progression of young people.
The government has updated a report that outlines the impact its controversial reforms to level 3 qualifications will have, after the original was based on incorrect data.
Officials have stressed that the revisions do not change the direction of policy travel, which includes defunding applied general qualifications such as BTECs that overlap with T Levels, but the changes do affect the potential scale of the impact.
The revisions show a marginal decrease in the proportion of government-funded qualifications currently available at level 3 that may be axed. But level 3 qualifications for adults face a slightly bigger impact than first estimated, while more awarding organisations will also be damaged.
But the Sixth Form Colleges Association warned that this updated impact assessment “still shows that a significant proportion of level 3 qualifications are unlikely to feature in the future landscape”, which doesn’t square with ministerial promises that only a “small proportion” of will be removed.
But this was based on an “incorrect cohort of 16- to 19-year-olds”, rather than the latest available data.
A new baseline list now covers qualifications approved for government funding in scope of the review in the 2019/20 funding year, as of May 2020.
And the enrolment, and associated characteristics, data has been updated from 2018/19 to 2019/20.
Slightly better outlook for 16- to 19-year-olds…
The previous impact assessment concluded that around 60 per cent of qualifications currently available at level 3 “may not fit into the future landscape for young people”. These qualifications represented 16 per cent of all 16 to 19 enrolments at level 3, and 62 per cent of non-A level enrolments at level 3.
Based on the revised mapping, the DfE now estimates that a slightly smaller proportion – around 54 per cent – of qualifications for young people at level 3 may now be defunded. These qualifications represent around 12 per cent of all 16 to 19 enrolments at level 3, and 40 per cent of non-A level enrolments at level 3.
…but a slightly worse outlook for adults
The original impact assessment concluded that of technical qualifications at level 3 that are available through adult funding streams, around 31 per cent may not fit into the future landscape. These qualifications represent 19 per cent of adult enrolments on technical qualifications at level 3.
But the revised estimate shows that 33 per cent of qualifications currently available to adults at level 3 may no longer be available.
No change to proportion of students unable to access level 3
The impact assessment previously estimated that around 4 per cent of 16- to 19-year-olds currently studying at level 3 may not be able to progress directly to level 3 following the reforms.
Repeating the same methodology using the revised mapping of current qualifications to the updated 2019/20 data, this leads to a “reduction in this estimate”. However, this reduction is “relatively small, and is lost within the rounding”.
A few more awarding bodies will be hit
Based on the first indicative mapping exercise, the reforms could have reduced up to seven awarding organisations’ publicly funded 16 to 19 year old enrolments by 80 per cent or more.
Using the same methodology, but with the updated data, the DfE now finds that up to 10 awarding bodies, out of more than 130, could see their publicly funded 16- to 19-year-old enrolments at level 3 and below fall by 80 per cent or more. Four of these AOs have over 500 government-funded 16 to 19 enrolments at these levels.
Black students no longer expected to be highly affected by reforms
The previous impact assessment concluded that 16- to 19-year-olds from SEND (special educational needs and disability) backgrounds, black and Asian ethnic groups, and males could be particularly impacted by the proposals. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds could also be particularly affected.
Based on the revised mapping, this assessment “remains broadly the same”, with those from SEND backgrounds, Asian ethnic groups, disadvantaged backgrounds, and males disproportionately likely to be affected.
But following the “additional flexibility on the future academic landscape, and the accompanying updated mapping and data”, students from black ethnic groups are “no longer anticipated to be disproportionately highly affected.
However, those from white ethnic groups are “now slightly more likely to be impacted”.
Revised impact assessment still concerns colleges
James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said: “This updated impact assessment still shows that a significant proportion of level 3 qualifications are still unlikely to feature in the future landscape. This is hard to square with the government’s assurance that only a ‘small proportion’ of qualifications will be defunded.
“As applied general qualifications have only recently been reformed, and many will be scrutinised through the T Level overlap process, they should not have to go through a further approval process.
“The uncertainty created by this interminable review process is very unhelpful, and the sooner it is brought to a conclusion, the better.”
Ofsted has raised concerns over some further education providers reverting back to online learning over the spring without a clear reason for doing so.
The inspectorate published its latest findings today into the recovery of education from the Covid-19 pandemic, with three reports covering early years, schools, and further education and skills.
It follows previous reports in the spring and autumn and assesses what the key issues are and how the sector has been recovering.
The report was informed by discussions among Ofsted staff and inspections carried out between April 25 and May 27 of independent specialist colleges, seven further education colleges, two sixth-form colleges and one local authority and adult education provider. Inspection findings from seven independent training providers with high-needs provision and adult education courses were also reviewed.
Here are the key findings…
Switch back to remote learning rings alarm bells
Ofsted reported that “in a small number of cases” some providers had switched back to, or retained, remote learning and off-the-job training in apprenticeships where there was no clear benefit for doing so.
It said that while remote learning can be useful in some courses, it can also narrow the opportunities for developing skills and limit social engagement with peers and staff.
That was especially problematic in instances where practical skills are needed, such as brick laying or car mechanics, and is especially important for younger learners in their social development.
Chief inspector Amanda Spielman said: “Across all phases of education, we’re seeing creative and resilient responses to the ongoing challenges of Covid-19. But I am concerned that some learners in a small minority of further education and skills providers are still not receiving sufficient classroom teaching or off-the-job training.
“This is narrowing their opportunities to gain practical skills and limiting their social engagement, which could have serious consequences on their readiness for the workplace.
“No matter how good online teaching is, it’s just not possible to change brake pads, cut hair or lay bricks remotely. And having just a few hours on site each week doing practical activity isn’t enough for younger learners to gain the skills and experience they’ll need in the workplace.”
Spielman continued: “It may be better from a business or financial perspective for providers to use online or remote learning, but this should only be done where there is a clear benefit for learners.
“We’ve seen how the youngest children, who spent most of their lives in lockdown, have struggled with starting school. But the transition from education or training to the workplace is just as dramatic. Learners need to have the confidence and social skills to work alongside their colleagues – not only other young people, but also adults who might be decades older than them.”
Release for off-the-job training stymied
Staff shortages and pressures on businesses resulted in some employers failing to release their apprentices for the mandatory off-the-job training element of their learning.
Ofsted said that firms were struggling to balance training with the day-to-day demands of running their businesses. Areas like hospitality, travel and tourism, and health and social care were particular areas this was happening.
Staff shortages had also amounted to high workloads on some apprentices who were having to fill the gaps.
Functional skills snubbed
Learners that missed functional skills during the pandemic often don’t understand the importance of the subjects, and opted to duck the learning coming back, according to Ofsted.
In some cases, timetables for maths and English had been compressed in an attempt to help learners catch up in practical and vocational skills, resulting in not enough time being allowed to make good progress in those two areas.
Changes for work placements in health and social care
Challenges in securing work placements are easing, the watchdog says, but industries which were hit hard by the pandemic, such as health and social care, still struggled.
It said some health and social care settings were too busy to train staff or were reticent about new people on their premises.
In addition, tasks they were doing were not always appropriate for their course, citing examples of some nursing associate apprentices having to carry out porter duties or work in pharmacies rather than in patient-facing care.
Ofsted praised the hard work of providers to secure new placements with either new contacts or re-establishing partnerships halted during the pandemic.
Paused learning continues for some apprentices
Elsewhere, some apprentices were still on an agreed pause in their learning or still on their programmes beyond their finish date because of delays in training and assessments, or they just were not ready.
Business closures had contributed to that, but in some cases apprentices had found better paid jobs elsewhere and abandoned their courses altogether, the report said.
Finding end-point assessment organisations had proved a struggle, the documents reported, either because there were not enough organisations to carry out the tests or because of sector pressures in areas such as driving tests.
Adult learners are staying away
Many providers have reported declining numbers of adult learners, with some courses closing entirely as a result. That was most prevalent in community learning settings.
However, in some employability courses, interest is higher because adult learners are looking to retrain in a new career.
Anxiety high in the run-up to exams
Ofsted has reported “high levels of anxiety” among learners who sat exams this summer, with many further education learners taking a “high stakes” exam for the first time.
The combination of usual exam pressures with the lack of familiarity of exam procedures had contributed to that, and prompted providers to put in place extra measures such as more mock exams, increased pastoral support or more revision time factored into courses.
Concerns around curriculum re-sequencing
The watchdog said that the curriculum had been “re-sequenced for many learners”, such as front-loading courses with the theory elements and focusing on practical skills later.
“As a result, we have some concerns that apprentices were not given enough time to learn curriculum content securely,” its report said.
Some providers added catch-up elements to the curriculum, while some learners reported feeling “overwhelmed” with the amount of content they were having to learn.
Over £74 million has been awarded to colleges to develop 86 T Level projects set to launch in September 2023, the Department for Education announced today.
The funding will be used to refurbish or upgrade buildings as colleges prepare to deliver new T Levels in courses such as agriculture, animal care and catering.
Additional funding will be dished out to colleges in early 2023 so that they can invest in industry standard specialist equipment – which will take the total pot for capital funding to over £150 million for wave four of the T Level rollout.
The DfE said this brings the total invested through the T Level Capital Fund to over £400 million.
The DfE has, however, refused to disclose how much each college has been allocated as this information about public funding is “commercially sensitive”.
Media, broadcast and production is one new T Level course set to launch for the first time in 2023, yet none of the winning building projects announced today were for this route.
Asked why this was, the DfE told FE Week that all applications that “meet minimum criteria are ranked according to the quality of their applications and funding allocated based on that ranking”.
A DfE spokesperson also said that all T Level providers receive payments for specialist equipment before their courses come online, and the amount allocated is determined using a formula. In waves one, two and three the allocation was based on the number of students a provider expected to have in the fourth year of T Level delivery (steady state).
The spokesperson said the DfE will confirm how the department will allocate specialist equipment allocations in wave four “later in the year”.
