Three apprenticeship providers slammed for off-the-job shortcomings

Three private training providers have been slammed by Ofsted over the past week for failing to meet apprenticeship off-the-job training rules.   

England’s biggest apprenticeship provider, Lifetime Training, was among those criticised for not meeting the requirement in a grade three report published last Friday.   

One To One Support Services Limited, which provides domiciliary care services, was also slated for off-the-job shortcomings in an ‘inadequate’ full inspection, while new provider Next Level Impact Limited received an ‘insufficient’ rating following an early monitoring visit.   

Under current Education and Skills Funding Agency rules apprenticeship providers must ensure apprentices spend at least 20 per cent of their working week doing off-the-job training.   

Ofsted found that Lifetime Training apprentices “too often” spend their own time completing their off-the-job training assignments at home outside of work hours.   

Carl Cornish, Lifetime’s chief operating officer, said the “unexpected number” of apprentices not getting their entitlement to high-quality off-the-job training was due to the “challenges brought by the pandemic”, including increased staff turnover rates and high sickness and absence, particularly in the hospitality and care sectors.   

One To One Support Services Limited, which now faces being booted off the government’s register of apprenticeship training providers owing to its grade four, was also called out by Ofsted after finding that most apprentices “study in their own time, and this impacts negatively on their progress and personal lives”.   

However, a spokesperson for the provider said they did not feel Ofsted’s report “accurately reflects the work we have done, and continue to do – particularly in the support that we have provided over the last few very difficult years”.   

“In the health and social care sector employers have experienced extreme challenges in staffing to release the off-the-job hours for their employees,” the spokesperson said.   

“Whilst we do acknowledge that there are areas where we can improve – and, naturally, always seek to develop, we do not recognise the comments made in the report, particularly when we have spoken to managers and apprentices and, it appears, the inspectors based their report on very limited access to both, resulting in an inspection that poorly reflected the work carried out in engaging employers in sectors where employer engagement is difficult to maintain.”   

Next Level Impact, which is based in Belfast but trains eight apprentices on the level 5 departmental manager standard in Norfolk, was criticised for not working “effectively” with employers to plan off-the-job training and for failing to ensure employers understand the requirement.   

“Most apprentices have struggled to complete their self-study off-the-job training hours. They do not receive enough time from their employers to study away from their work duties,” Ofsted said.   

“Additionally, leaders do not check the quality of the self-study training activities that apprentices carry out.”   

Next Level Impact’s leaders also faced criticism for having planned a programme that places too much emphasis on apprentices completing their level 5 Chartered Management Institute diploma qualification rather than their apprenticeship.   

“Leaders have been slow to plan activities that would substantially enhance the wider learning experience of apprentice,” Ofsted said.   

Next Level Impact, which now faces a suspension on apprentice recruitment, was approached for comment. 

CPD is about taking teaching from the ‘parlour’ to the ‘kitchen’

A history of CPD in FE reveals huge changes in attitudes – but we still need to scrap mistrustful auditing, writes Alison Scott

I started out in FE back in 1979 as an English and liberal studies teacher, and the CPD I remember then was ad hoc and thin on the ground.

New teachers were expected to know how to apply the theories of their teacher training course to the challenges of day-to-day teaching. This was a lonely baptism of fire, and you struggled on your own unless you were lucky enough to have friendly colleagues with survival tips.

New standards from the Further Education National Training Organisation (FENTO) appeared in 1999, and it was all change post incorporation. 

Professional development monies, which were once held by colleges, were diverted to organisations such as LSIS, LLUK, IfL, ETF – each charged with developing and setting sector teaching standards in tandem with government policy agendas. 

Ofsted had a defining role, with successive inspection frameworks creating judgmental descriptors of teaching and learning practice. This led to teachers’ performance being graded with Ofsted’s crude numbering tool – now roundly discredited by researchers.

Something wasn’t right. Quality improvement teams sprang up. Good teachers were diverted away from teaching students to training colleagues.

An audit-driven approach to improving teachers’ performance ruled, which was top-down and demoralising for many.

It forced some teachers out of the sector and rewarded those who could pull a grade 1 lesson out of the bag when an inspector called.

In 2004, the city college I worked at received a grade 4 from Ofsted and the team I worked with was given the job of turning this around within a year.

An inspirational, experienced principal was helicoptered in and a whole organisational effort led to success. The next time Ofsted came to call we received grade 2s across the board.

I mention this transformation because much of what we did was based on an attitude to CPD that I have held ever since.

At the time, it felt like a radical bottom-up approach rooted in respect for the values and attitudes of the teachers themselves. Time was given for collaboration between peers and across curriculum areas, to share ideas around student success. 

It felt like a radical, bottom-up approach rooted in respect for values

A shared understanding of what needed to change grew exponentially with the determination to escape the shame of a grade 4 judgment. 

Yes, we had to instigate the improvements we knew Ofsted would value. Only after this process could genuine improvements begin. As a result, this powerful experience led me away from teaching students into teacher development.

My theory is that a great deal of teaching is in ‘the parlour’ – putting on a show for visitors.

At the other end is teaching in ‘the kitchen’ – the student-centred classrooms and workshops where real progress happened, with laughter, tears and hard struggle.

It is heartening to see that Ofsted’s latest inspection framework has dispensed with the emperor’s new clothes approach to teacher improvement. 

But going forward, sector CPD needs to focus on what we need to do our job better in meaningful ways.

For a start, Covid-19 prioritised digital skills professional development because of online teaching. Much was learned about digital tools in a very short space of time. So, we know that ‘just in time’ CPD can be highly effective. 

At the same time, we need to hold on to the basics of what teachers need to engage students.

I think it was the educator Ted Wragg who said that teachers need just two things to be successful: up-to-date subject knowledge and an ability to form productive relationships.

Let us focus CPD on what we know teachers need – subject and industry updates and a greater understanding of how to form supportive relationships with their students.

My research has also shown the pivotal role of leaders in effecting CPD improvement. We need to move the culture away from mistrustful audits.

We must facilitate and expect teachers to develop their ‘kitchen’ professionalism, enabling powerful peer networking and collaboration.

We can learn from the ‘kitchens’ of other sector organisations too. Inspiration is important.

Police will not investigate Burnley College over Christmas party that broke Covid rules

A college that was found to have breached Covid health and safety laws after the death of a teacher will not face police investigation.   

Burnley College was reported to Lancashire Constabulary by the family of Donna Coleman after the Health and Safety Executive found the college held a Christmas party on December 18, 2020, which failed to meet social-distancing rules despite increasing coronavirus cases among staff.   

The party took place on the same day as one of the Downing Street parties which received a penalty notice from the Metropolitan Police.   

At the time, the country was in “very high alert” tier 3 restrictions, where outdoor and indoor socialising was banned, and hospitality and entertainment venues were closed.   

But Lancashire police has decided that it will not be further investigating Burnley College or be issuing fixed-penalty notices to those involved.   

Coleman’s family said they were “extremely disappointed and disgusted in the way the police have dealt with this”.   

In a letter to the family, Lancashire police detective chief inspector Tim Brown said a retrospective investigation means the force could not conduct three of the “four E’s” approach to fixed-penalty notices relating to Covid of “engaging, explaining and encouraging”. To move straight to “enforcement” would be “inconsistent with our policy throughout the pandemic”, Brown said.   

He added that the police also considered the HSE’s ruling for Burnley College to pay a fee for “contraventions of health and safety law” and was “satisfied that this is an appropriate and proportionate response”.   

Coleman’s family requested that the police also considers if the individuals involved at Burnley College should be fined, since government officials were following similar allegations.   

Brown said that representatives and staff of a college “do hold a position of responsibility and influence and have a degree of authority over others” and are expected to “conduct themselves professionally and uphold high standards”.   

But “they are not, however, public officials, they are members of the public”, Brown said, adding: “In my view, their positions in the community and at work do not set them apart from any other member of the public when considering how this matter should be dealt with.   

“Government officials, however, are responsible for drafting the relevant legislation, setting the tone as to how it is enforced and showing leadership to the rest of the country as to how they should conduct themselves in a time of national emergency.”   

Donna Coleman’s sister Victoria was outraged with the police response.   

She told FE Week: “We sent video evidence to the police of an illegal Covid Christmas party, with alcohol and karaoke, whilst Burnley had the highest number of Covid cases in the UK at the time. We feel that the principal of the college had a responsibility and a duty of care to protect the wellbeing and safety of the staff and the wider community.   

“It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to us as a family that somebody in a position of authority could act with such moral turpitude and not be prosecuted.”   

The HSE – the government agency that polices workplace safety – opened a fatality investigation into Donna Coleman’s death after the University and College Union raised Covid health and safety concerns at Burnley College during the pandemic.   

Coleman tested positive for coronavirus on December 14 and died on January 6, 2021, aged 42.   

The HSE found the college failed to meet social distancing and ventilation requirements, failed to enforce the wearing of face coverings by some staff and senior managers, and that staff were being encouraged not to report close contacts of Covid.   

However, the HSE ultimately ruled that it was “impossible to conclude that from the evidence presented, on the balance of probabilities, that Donna Coleman’s exposure to Covid-19 took place within the workplace”.   

But the HSE did rule that health and safety laws were “broken”, and Burnley College is being forced to pay a fee to cover administrative costs due to these “material breaches”.   

The UCU and the Coleman family are appealing the HSE’s inconclusive ruling.   

UCU regional support official Marie Monaghan claimed the college has yet to offer Coleman’s family an apology for her tragic death and has “doubled down on insisting its reckless behaviour had no impact on Donna contracting Covid”.   

While there will be no police investigation or enforcement, Brown said he does intend to bring his report to the attention of Burnley College, “so that they can consider themselves whether it would be appropriate for internal action to be taken”.   

Burnley College did not respond to requests for comment. 

Providers must seize the opportunities of the new provider access legislation

The new legislation is a call to action for renewed partnerships between schools and providers to deliver meaningful encounters for learners, write Oli de Botton and Jane Hickie

The new provider access legislation presents a timely and important opportunity to take advantage of the growing interest in high-quality technical pathways.

The conversation about technical and vocational education is changing for the better. Surveys report parents and young people are becoming more positive about technical and vocational routes.

There is growing awareness of these pathways and, crucially, evidence shows this increased awareness leads to more young people taking these routes.

The challenge now is to make sure all young people in our schools know about these brilliant and life-changing pathways.

The statutory requirement in the new legislation (skills and post-16 education act 2022) for schools to give opportunities for providers of technical education and apprenticeships to talk to year 8 to 13 pupils is crucial. It is so important that young people have the opportunity to discuss all their potential education and training options.

How can we ensure the new legislation is implemented effectively?

The government is currently asking for ideas and best practice on how to implement the new legislation to give providers better access to school pupils.

The increased focus in this area is welcome and we must take this opportunity to amplify these routes so learners can take whichever next step is right for them.

The Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) and AELP are committed to working together to make the most of the opportunities ahead. There is already some great work being done by schools and providers across the country and we are determined to build on that.

Through building networks (including careers hubs), providing support (through our technical education pathway resource, for example) and promoting the benefits of work-based routes, we want to make sure everyone is set up for success.

This legislation is not just about schools, though. It’s a call to action for renewed partnerships between schools and providers to deliver meaningful encounters for learners. Encounters that can inspire, inform and enrich the experience for students.

Providers themselves have work to do to prepare for the opportunities the legislation presents.

And alongside the CEC we will work with a range of stakeholders to see what support we can provide and what barriers we can remove. 

Over time there is also the chance to build stronger and enduring partnerships across sectors – schools, colleges, providers and employers at a national and local level. This will not only support the implementation of the legislation but generate lasting collaboration and learning. This can only be a good thing for young people.

Rebalancing young people’s options

Historically we know there has been a default towards traditional academic routes. High-quality, high-impact careers education is a way of rebalancing that. At its best, this has the power to open up pathways based on ambition and skill, not circumstance or stereotype.

It is also fundamentally inclusive as it will remove barriers and rebalance young people’s options towards technical and vocational pathways.

We are optimistic the new legislation will ensure those working with young people are focused on the importance of careers education. This is critical because high-quality, work-based routes are so often the answer for students. This is about the young person who knows their passion but doesn’t know how to make it their career.

It’s about the young person who thought certain jobs were closed off to people from their town or their background. It’s about the young person who doesn’t know how their skills might translate to the world of work. 

Of course, this legislation on its own won’t change perceptions of vocational routes. It’s up to all of us  ̶  providers, schools, employers and careers professionals – to come together and make the most of the opportunity it gives us.

We won’t get there overnight and there will be challenges along the way. But our goal is to make sure young people and their parents look with fresh eyes at all pathways.

That parity of esteem, making sure young people understand all the educational routes that are open to them, will lead to fairer outcomes.

Five reasons apprentices like me are dropping out

Training providers are struggling to give clear instructions on what’s expected of apprentices, writes Dexter Hutchings

I started my level 3 in digital marketing in February 2017 and throughout my degree apprenticeship, I have felt like dropping out. But never have I been closer to doing so than now, as I tackle my end-point assessment (EPA).

Unfortunately, figures for 2020/21 showed 47 per cent of apprentices on standards dropped out.

Here are a few of my concerns regarding the new apprenticeship standards, and in particular, the EPA:

1. A lack of forward planning and communication from the training provider

Apprentices must complete a training log as evidence of their off-the-job training. Unfortunately, my cohort was not given access to our training log until the beginning of year two, which led to an increased workload.

While the EPA was mentioned when we started our apprenticeship, it was not spoken about in detail. I believe apprentices should be given a detailed lesson on what will be required to complete the EPA, so they can begin thinking about it.

2. The burden of raising quality has fallen on the apprentice

Standards were introduced to raise the quality of apprenticeships, but it seems like the wrongdoings of training providers has cost apprentices themselves.

Over the years, I have read far too many shocking stories about training providers offering poor training and failing to meet the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement ̶ in fact, I experienced this myself during my first apprenticeship, with 3aaa.

However, it seems that in a bid to boost quality, we have increased the apprentices’ workload. Apprentices are responsible for logging their 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement and ultimately proving they are work-ready.

3. Occupational standards are a one-size-fits-all approach

A group of employers, described as ‘trailblazers’ by the Institute for Apprenticeships, develop the standards for their relevant occupation themselves.

In my case, I have to prove competency in 29 skills, knowledge and behaviours (SKBs). The problem is that occupational standards can be designed by a group as small as ten employers. In an industry such as digital marketing, ten employers is unlikely to be very representative, and this can be seen in a few of my SKBs.

I completed my apprenticeship whilst working for a relatively small foundation with a marketing team of two. I found that both the course and occupational standards were targeted at apprentices likely to be working for a for-profit business. So it was much more difficult for me to evidence certain SKBs, and probably for other apprentices in similar positions too.

While occupational standards cannot be tailored to meet every individual’s needs, perhaps apprentices could only be obliged to meet a percentage of a larger range of occupational skills but all occupational knowledge and behaviours.

4. The process is overly complicated and repetitive

The paperwork apprentices are given to help them understand the process of the EPA is unnecessarily lengthy and often confusing.

It seems we are guinea pigs

To start their EPA, an apprentice must find a suitable work-based project that will allow them to showcase that they are competent in each and every SKB. Apprentices must consider the implications of confidentiality and commercial sensitivity when choosing this project.

For my EPA, I had to write a report that was then put into a presentation. Throughout my apprenticeship, I have found myself duplicating work, which takes time and seems a little repetitive.

5. There is a lack of knowledge and support

One of the biggest problems throughout the EPA process was a lack of knowledge and support.

This started with our project selection, in which the lack of support ultimately led to apprentices in my cohort changing their project, having already reached their project presentation mock with an external panel.

As the first year to undergo an EPA for the standard I am completing, it seems that we are guinea pigs. Our training provider has almost always struggled to give clear instructions on what is expected of us. Unfortunately, this is understandable when the Institute for Apprenticeships paperwork is so unclear

Transparency concerns build over level 3 review ‘independent assessors’

The names of the six “independent assessors” who have been tasked with deciding the future of thousands of BTECs and other level 3 courses have finally been revealed.   

But concern over a lack of transparency in the controversial defunding process are building after the government refused to publish the evidence base being used to decide which qualifications should be axed.        

The first provisional list of qualifications that the Department for Education deems to overlap with the first ten T Levels and which face being defunded was published in May.   

In total, 160 vocational and technical qualifications – including 38 BTECs – of a possible 2,000 courses that were evaluated now face being axed, from 2024. More courses will be removed in future years.   

The DfE previously told FE Week that it hired six “experts” to evaluate the qualifications – but the department refused to share their names.   

Following a freedom of information request from Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Tom Bewick, the DfE finally revealed who the six are: Advanced Consultancy in Education, E James Consultancy Ltd, Learner First, Paul Johnstone Consultancy Ltd, Sharon Moore Ltd and Sue Tate Consulting.   

However, the DfE refused to share details of their backgrounds in terms of their skills, experience and knowledge of the qualifications sector. FE Week contacted the six to seek this detail, but every request was refused.   

Vicky Foxcroft MP tabled a parliamentary question on the topic, asking for the timeline for when the six experts started and concluded their work, as well as the evidence base used.   

In response, then skills minister Alex Burghart revealed that the assessors spent less than a year reviewing the qualifications, starting in the summer 2021.   

He added that the experts considered evidence such as qualification specifications to determine whether three “tests” were met, and said that to “ensure the rigour of this process”, recommendations were moderated internally.   James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said Burghart’s response highlights the “lack of transparency in the qualification defunding process”.   

“DfE paid six consultants to review hundreds of qualifications that are sat by tens of thousands of students each year. We know very little about these ‘independent assessors’, other than they took almost a year to conclude that 160 qualifications in a wide range of subject areas should be defunded,” he told FE Week.   

“No evidence base for their decisions has been published, and their involvement in the defunding process was only made public in May of this year.”   

Kewin continued: “We now know that the recommendations made by the independent assessors were ‘moderated internally’ by DfE, which makes the process even less transparent. The lack of external input from practitioners, students, or employers is a real concern and does not bode well for the qualification reapproval process, where many more qualifications will be in scope for defunding.   

“These are high-stakes decisions that should not be made in isolation by DfE officials and a small group of consultants.” 

Don’t expect much from this zombie government

FE Week’s publication cycle for the year comes to a close at the end of a dramatic week in politics. A cascade of ministerial resignations, the shortest tenure of a secretary of state for education in history and, ultimately, the downfall of Boris Johnson.

Burghart leaves office as skills minister with two major qualification reviews unfinished.

Donelan quit as the primary cheerleader for the lifelong loan entitlement and was the Department for Education’s culture-war flagbearer; she leaves a government bill (the freedom of speech in higher education bill) still making its way through parliament.

Zahawi, famous for sporting a “TL” badge in support of T Levels, left his post, ironically, during the Department for Education’s ‘T Level celebration week’.

For those hoping for any progress on policy this summer though, think again.

Burghart at least saw through the skills and post-16 education act. While not in office to oversee much of the act’s implementation, he did at least see the trailblazer local skills improvement plans and got draft statutory guidance on provider access to schools out the door.

As a (contractually obliged) champion of T Levels, he will look on from the outside as the first cohort of T Level students receive their results in August.

Early on in his 294-day tenure as minister for skills, Burghart talked about how he wanted to make sure that people without lower-level qualifications “weren’t forgotten”. Yet an unfinished piece of work of his is the ongoing review of qualifications at level 2 and below, which training providers, Ofqual and awarding bodies all warned would damage choice and confuse the qualifications landscape even more.

Similarly, DfE gave awarding bodies until today to appeal against proposals to cut public funding for level 3 qualifications they believe overlap with T Levels.

Burghart was also hoping to announce a new wave of employer representative bodies next term to write the next set of local skills improvement plans.

The prospect of a new prime minister, a new cabinet and a new ministerial team at DfE could significantly slow down operations in Whitehall.

Meanwhile, the sector battles a crisis in staffing, budgets not keeping up with costs and an economy heading for recession.

New education secretary James Cleverly doesn’t have the authority – or the time – for a reform agenda of his own.

The remnants of the Johnson administration are a zombie government just waiting to be replaced.

Changes to GCSE blamed for ‘crisis’ drop in A-level English exam entries

Entries for A-level English have fallen by more than one-third in the past decade in England, latest statistics show, prompting calls for the government to roll back on key reforms in order to tackle this “crisis”. 

Ofqual provisional data for summer 2022 showed there were 53,965 entries this year across all English A-levels – a 20 per cent drop on 67,865 in 2018, and a 35 per cent fall from 2013, when 84,250 entries were recorded. 

Education chiefs agree that changes to the GCSE English course in 2017 have contributed to the drop. These included removing the spoken assessment in the language portion and placing greater emphasis on 19th-century texts at the expense of modern fiction. 

David Duff, chair of the English Association and the Common English Forum, which have launched campaigns to safeguard the subject, said that it was “undoubtedly a crisis” and explained that there was no issue with the quality of the A-level courses themselves but the GCSE reform had impacted negatively. 

He said that the changes introduced to be more rigorous have “made it more difficult to teach in an exciting way and made for some quite deadly dull exams, which gives people a bad experience of English”. 

“We are trying, through the Common English Forum, to persuade the Department for Education to change tack on this and undo some of these changes,” he said. 

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said he was “saddened” by the decline, adding: “The feedback we receive from leaders is that the reformed GCSE English literature qualification can be something of a grind. 

“It is heavily focused on traditional texts, which are obviously very fine works but are not necessarily always the most engaging for young people in a modern society, and the exam requires large amounts of memorisation, rather like an old-fashioned O-level. As a result, it does seem that this may be putting off students from continuing to study the subject at A-level.” 

The Common English Forum has been meeting periodically with the DfE to discuss the issue, with another meeting planned this summer. 

Duff said: “They have made encouraging noises but there is not an appetite in the system to change dramatically the GCSEs at this point. They might be right, but certainly the perception in schools is that aspects of the GCSE language especially need to change as soon as possible because it has taken a lot of life out of what used to be a very popular GCSE.” 

Barton said the high costs of university courses may also have put students off pursuing the subject beyond GCSE, and added: “English is, of course, an excellent choice for a wide variety of careers, including, critically, teaching, and there is a real danger of a deepening supply crisis in this subject. 

“We do need to be careful that the current system does not end up having such a damaging impact on English that it becomes extremely difficult to remedy.” 

The English Association believes it is a pattern seen across arts and humanities subjects, at the expense of the government’s drive for STEM – science, technology, engineering and maths – subjects. 

There are fears, too, that a bad experience at GCSE may put off college students who were re-sitting exams as part of their post-16 courses. 

The English Association has launched the ‘Choose English’ campaign to directly address 14 to 16 year olds and highlight the benefits of the subject at A-level, as well as boosting further education staff in its membership and facilitating tie-ups between universities and schools to bolster links. 

Duff said the take-up of maths A-levels had been “transformed” after intervention by the DfE, with English now needing similar recognition. 

The Department for Education did not respond to requests for comment at the time of going to press. 

This year’s A-level students will find out their results on August 18.

Pearson vying to keep a third of its BTEC level 3 courses under threat

Awarding giant Pearson is appealing to keep one-third of its BTEC courses under threat of being axed by the government as part of plans to reform level 3 qualifications. 

In May, the Department for Education published a draft list of 38 BTECs that are planned to be culled. These are among 160 level 3 qualifications the DfE is looking to defund from 2024 as they “overlap” with the government’s flagship T Levels. 

The deadline for awarding bodies to appeal is today, July 8. 

Pearson had the greatest number on the list – 41 – and has confirmed it is appealing the closure of 14. 

A spokesperson told FE Week that over half of their qualifications on the defunding list are already being withdrawn “as part of our usual cycle of updating and renewing our products, or are designed primarily for apprenticeships learners, which means they will not be affected by this process”. 

Pearson said the 14 it is appealing are “valued by 16-to-19 learners, colleges, universities and employers, and are not replaced by T Levels”. The courses being appealed are mostly linked to mechanical engineering.  

Pearson confirmed it is also developing content and assessments for five of the new T Level qualifications. It includes two of the first three courses – digital production, design and development; and design, surveying and planning for construction. 

This September it will deliver T Levels in finance and accounting, with the legal services T Level to be added in September 2023. 

FE Week approached all awarding bodies with four or more courses on the under-threat list. City & Guilds, which has 36, Training Qualifications UK (five) and Gateway Qualifications Ltd (four) did not wish to comment on which courses they are appealing. 

NCFE is appealing five of the 19 it has on the list, largely health and social care courses. A spokesperson said the awarding body “welcomes” the DfE reforms but added: “We believe these specific qualifications should continue to be funded as they serve progression to job roles not yet covered by T Levels, specifically in the social care sector.” 

OCR said it would not comment on any specifics around the seven it has on the list, but a spokesperson said: “We will be appealing a limited number of qualifications where we believe there are clear grounds for appeal.” 

NOCN said it is likely to appeal the level 3 diploma in adult care of the four qualifications it has on the defunding list, while iCan Qualifications confirmed it would not be appealing any of its five on the list. 

Among some of the popular courses are Pearson’s national foundation diploma in engineering, which had 3,500 completers in 2021, with 3,299 on the course this year, while 2,200 finished its national extended diploma in engineering last year, with just over 3,000 on the course this year. 

The health and social care diploma BTEC had around 3,000 youngsters finishing the course last year. 

For NCFE, four of its five are among the top 20 most popular courses on the defunding list, according to the Association of Colleges’ defunding position paper published last week. Learners on those four health and social care courses this year total 11,705. 

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said: “A number of popular, established and well-respected qualifications feature on this list. That should come as little surprise, given the simplistic definition of ‘overlap’ adopted by the government and the lack of transparency in the review process.  

“If the appeals regime concludes that qualifications like the diploma in health and social care, or the suite of BTEC engineering qualifications, are no longer required, that will further damage the credibility of the government’s approach to reviewing level 3 qualifications. This is certain to be raised at the #ProtectStudentChoice debate that takes place in parliament on July 18.”    

Cath Sezen, AoC senior policy manager, said: “We are concerned around the defunding of these engineering qualifications as the new engineering T Levels are only being introduced this September.” 

Sezen said some who were working up the levels would not have a one-year level 3 option in a couple of years’ time, and a two-year T Level may not be appropriate. She added that sufficient placement opportunities must be available for learners in all parts of the country. 

She added: “There needs to be greater investment in the transition year – currently funded in line with other study programmes – to prepare students for T Levels and, of course, English and maths, which are a hurdle to starting a T Level.” 

Pearson’s 14 appeals, BTECs level 3 

National Diploma in Manufacturing Engineering 

National Extended Diploma in Manufacturing Engineering  

National Diploma in Mechanical Engineering  

Foundation Award in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

Award in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

Certificate in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

Diploma in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

Extended Diploma in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

National Foundation Diploma in Engineering National Diploma in Engineering  

BTEC Level 3 National Extended Diploma in Engineering  

National Extended Diploma in Mechanical Engineering 

National Extended Certificate in Construction and the Built Environment 

National Diploma in Health and Social Care 

  

NCFE’s five appeals, level 3 

Certificate in Health and Social Care 

Extended Diploma in Health and Social Care 

Technical Level 3 Certificate in Health and Social Care 

Technical Level 3 Extended Diploma in Health and Social Care 

Diploma in Adult Care 

  

NOCN’s appeal 

Level 3 Diploma in Adult Care