Universities are stuck between a rock and a hard place on T Levels

Accepting students with T Levels is more complicated than it looks, writes Nick Hillman

There is just one objective of university admissions: getting the best match between applicants and places. Delivering this single goal can be difficult.

In pre-pandemic times, the job of university admissions officers was sometimes compared to landing a jumbo jet on a postage stamp. It is even harder now, due to soar-away grade inflation and record application rates.

One challenge is the multitude of level 3 qualifications, such as A-levels, BTECs and dozens of qualifications taken by international students. Nor is it a static picture, as shown by the current phasing out of the pre-U qualification and the rise and fall of Labour’s flagship level 3 diploma.

Now, the government wants level 3 BTECs, which are taken by around a quarter of a million students each year, to be largely replaced by T Levels.

In late 2021, ministers asked universities “to accept T Levels for entry to, at a minimum, all courses of study for which you currently accept other technical qualifications”.

But as FE Week revealed last week, not all universities have responded positively to this edict. This newspaper reported that less than half of all UK universities have confirmed they will accept T Levels for entry this year, with most Russell Group universities opting out. This is causing huge frustration for students and staff.

I share this frustration. Young people typically do not lack aspiration but they often lack knowledge on how to turn their aspirations into reality. So when some institutions are unclear if the new T Levels are an acceptable entry qualification, it is no wonder there is disquiet.

I have urged universities to ensure that they understand T Levels, and to consider these applications fairly. And when it seems T Levels will not provide effective preparation for a specific course, I have urged them to make this really clear too.

But despite the need for some institutions to do more, universities have been stuck between a rock and a hard place on T Levels.

Accepting T Levels now might look fair to applicants, but the situation is more complicated than that for at least three reasons.

1. The U-turn on maths and English

The rollout of T Levels has been far from smooth. In November education secretary Nadhim Zahawi abolished the requirement for T Level students to achieve GCSE-level English and maths by the end of their course.

This U-turn makes T Levels less effective preparation for higher-level study than was expected.


2. Possible drop-out rates

Universities will be rightly criticised if they let in more people who then drop out.

In the past, universities have been so flexible with regard to vocational qualifications that around one-quarter of students now arrive with BTECs. Yet BTEC students are twice as likely to drop out in their first year, according to research published last week by the Nuffield Foundation.

So it is not unreasonable for some higher education institutions to be wary about letting in students holding an untested vocational qualification.

3. Universities are autonomous

We have the best universities in Europe, because we have the most autonomous universities in Europe. That autonomy is reflected in primary legislation on admissions.

No one ̶ not even the education secretary or the new director for fair access and participation at the Office for Students ̶ can tell universities exactly who to admit. So policymakers would be better off using carrots rather than sticks.

Policymakers should use carrots rather than sticks

Ministers should discuss with universities whether there are enough resources to ensure applicants with T Levels will thrive on degree courses. In return, universities should, wherever possible, give the benefit of the doubt to those applicants who are T Level guinea pigs.

But in the meantime, it would be wholly premature to start shutting down the proven BTEC route.

Historically, education policy tends to go wrong when it is reduced to simple binary divisions, as with grammar schools and secondary moderns, or polytechnics and universities.

The idea that providing only two main educational routes for most young people – A-levels and T Levels – is a sensible response to the complexity of the modern world makes similarly little sense.

T Level mess is not a good look for universities – here’s what they should do

The HE sector needs to engage with the Department for Education and FE providers quickly, writes Mary Curnock Cook

New qualifications are always a challenge for university admissions practitioners, and it seems that the higher education sector has still to get its head around T Levels.  

T Levels have been designed for a very specific purpose – they are aligned to occupational standards and aim to qualify holders for a range of job roles.

The policy objective was to develop technical skills for the economy and to encourage students to progress directly into skilled employment or to higher technical qualifications (HTQs) at level 4 and level 5.   

T Levels are designed at level 3, which should also mean that they pre-qualify students to progress to degree level study (level 6) on appropriate courses. 

However, given that they are large qualifications (equivalent in size to three A-levels) in a single occupational area, they will always have narrower potential to support entry to HE than the traditional three A-level subjects. Or even the broader BTEC and applied general qualifications.   

And at a time when universities are under pressure from the government and the Office for Students to ensure that students should succeed on their chosen course, universities are being cautious before embracing T Levels in their entry requirements.    

Nevertheless, last week’s FE Week story that only 80 out of approximately 140 mainstream universities had confirmed that they would accept T Levels is not a good look for the higher education sector, because it has confused and disappointed staff and students alike.

But it did not come as a surprise to me. Some universities will not have courses that fit progression from the first wave T Levels in construction, digital and education/childcare. However, they might be able to accept T Levels from the subsequent waves. 

Some may judge that this technical qualification, which includes specialist skills and knowledge for specified occupations, is better designed for progression pathways other than degrees.  

Others may want to work with FE colleges to design a level 6 top-up after students have completed higher technical qualifications.   

And others – around 80 it seems – have clearly already signed up to recruit T Level candidates on to their programmes.   

But while I understand why the list of universities and courses accepting T Levels is limited at this stage, there is clearly a lot more that universities could do. 

The government must be much clearer about who and what T Levels are for

First, they should make things clear to T Level students – many of whom might have expected a wealth of HE course opportunities on the back of the fanfare about UCAS points being awarded. 

Even while there are good reasons for some universities to exclude T Level candidates for the time being, there’s nothing to stop the higher education sector articulating its position.

This means students making their post-16 choices know which doors are open, which are closed, and why.    

Second, if universities have doubts about the suitability of T Levels, they should engage with the DfE to ensure that future waves of T Level development take those concerns into account.

If T Levels successfully attract a significant proportion of level 3 learners in future years, universities surely don’t want to be excluded from recruiting these students where the progression pathway makes sense.

Thirdly, universities would do well to engage closely with FE colleges and other providers of first wave T Levels to get a thorough understanding of the curriculum, in the same way they did when BTEC Nationals started to become an important pathway to higher education.

This is vital to ensuring students not only get into higher education courses but also get on and succeed.

Finally, all of this would be easier for universities, T Level providers and students if government were clearer about exactly what and whom T Levels are for.

A qualification highly specified against occupational standards and clearly tilted towards specific job roles might never do well in supporting pathways to higher education.

Positioning T Levels as all things to all pathways is unfair to students when the choices they make at 16 are so critical to their future working lives.

Here are 5 targets for the levelling-up white paper

This next white paper is critically important. Ministers must focus on the right measures, writes Naomi Clayton

The long-awaited levelling-up white paper is due to be published this month. Michael Gove, leading on the levelling-up agenda, has called it the “defining mission of this government”.

But with few details, many are struggling to understand what levelling up means, or to have confidence in it. 

What do we know so far? There are four objectives: empowering local leaders and communities, growing the private sector and boosting living standards, spreading opportunity and improving public services, and restoring local pride. 

A leaked draft paper outlines plans to deliver this through a “new devolution framework for England”. 

So what would progress look like? We say that employment and skills must be a measure of success. The government should aim for tangible improvements in five key areas: 

What would progress look like? Employment and skills must be a measure of success

1. Work 

Employment rates vary from 90 per cent in East Cambridgeshire to 61 per cent in Gosport, Hampshire. 

Geographic inequalities can be persistent: several of the high unemployment areas targeted by the 1934 Special Areas Act still have some of the lowest employment rates today. 

2. Earnings

Average hourly earnings are partly a reflection of the types of jobs accessible in different parts of the country, and are one measure of the quality of work. Workers living in Blackpool earn less than half average earnings in Kensington and Chelsea. 

3. Skills 

Less than 60 per cent of people in Sandwell in the West Midlands are qualified to at least level 2 (equivalent of five good GCSEs), compared to over 90 per cent in Brentwood, Essex.

Regional disparities have widened over the past decade, with a 15 percentage point increase in residents in London qualified to at least level 2, compared with just ten percentage points in the north east.

4. Opportunity

Access to higher education can increase young people’s employment and earnings opportunities. 

Only about a quarter of young people from state schools in Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria go on to higher education by the age of 19 (including that delivered with further education providers), whereas closer to three-quarters from state schools in Harrow, Middlesex, do.

5. Child poverty 

More than half of children in Tower Hamlets in London are estimated to be living in poverty, compared to one in eight in parts of Surrey. 

Rates of child poverty are also high in other big cities, including Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle.

Combining these measures gives a picture of the neediest areas for levelling up (see the main image).

The areas that stand out in dark blue are noticeably coastal and traditional industrial areas.

Hull, a city that has struggled with the decline of its maritime and fishing industries, has one of the lowest overall scores, and many other northern areas sit in the bottom 25 per cent.

But there is no clear north-south, inland-coastal or urban-rural divide: London has some of the highest rates of child poverty.  

Instead, skills are one of the most important determinants of economic prosperity. More adults need to upskill and retrain – but the cuts to adult education funding since 2010 mean fewer are doing so.

The government needs to go much further than the partial reversal of cuts in the spending review. 

How that money is spent matters too. Local leaders are best placed to align policies and integrate services. We’ve previously argued for “local labour market agreements”, which could be used as the basis for devolution deals.

Meanwhile, the constant reinvention of policies around local economic growth, regional and local governance, and further education have created instability and fragmentation. 

The government must develop a clear framework for devolution, showing what powers it is willing to devolve and compelling reasons for those excluded. 

It needs to establish longer-term funding settlements for local government, moving away from resource-intensive competitive bidding rounds that make planning around local priorities difficult.

Improving opportunities and living standards for people in places like Blackpool and Hull requires a strategy built on greater institutional capacity that creates genuine, long-lasting, transformational change.

Owner of defunct awarding body demands Ofqual repays £115,000 fine

The boss of an awarding body that fell victim to a high-profile case of qualifications fraud is threatening to take Ofqual to court unless it repays a £115,000 fine.

Industry Qualifications (IQ) Ltd’s board dropped an appeal following an investigation from the qualifications regulator in 2019 due to spiralling legal costs that led to the firm paying the six-figure sum.

But the decision was made without the blessing of IQ’s owner, Raymond Clarke, who suffered two strokes in 2017 because, he claims, of the stress of Ofqual’s pursuit. This left him paralysed and unable to work.

Clarke has now reignited the case after recovering to a stage where he feels fit enough to challenge the regulator again. He claims Ofqual’s investigation was carried out despite conflict of interest concerns and alleges there was “manufactured evidence” against his firm.

He also claims to have a stronger case now because IQ was censured for offering free appeals to students caught up in the scandal – an approach that Ofqual adopted during the recent A-level fiasco.

Clarke wrote to the regulator last month demanding repayment of the £115,000 by March 30, and warns that he will also set out a case for damages to his health and the fact that IQ went bust as a result of Ofqual’s investigation.

A spokesperson for Ofqual refused to comment on Clarke’s claims but told FE Week IQ was fined for breaching the regulator’s rules and that it took regulatory action to “protect learners”.

Case sparked by undercover sting operation

Ofqual’s inquiry into IQ began in March 2016, a year after one of the training provider’s it awarded – Ashley Commerce College, in Ilford – was subject to an undercover BBC investigation that alleged staff were prepared to sit exams for students training to work as security guards.

IQ revoked 251 level two and three door-supervision and CCTV surveillance qualifications it certificated in 2015 following the BBC’s exposé.

Ofqual’s report said that IQ had failed to “identify the potential for conflicts of interest to arise” or to manage any such conflicts when it approved the college to deliver its qualifications.

The head of the college was also an assessor and moderator for IQ qualifications and had a financial interest in the provider “such that it was in his interest for learners to pass assessments”, the report said.

The awarding organisation’s monitoring of the college was deemed “defective” as IQ had “failed to recognise” the proportion of learner work reviewed by its external verifier was “substantially less” than was required by IQ’s policy, the report added.

Ofqual accused of institutional corruption

Clarke, in his new letter to Ofqual, claims the regulator was “institutionally corrupt” in its pursuit of enforcement action against IQ.

Among a list of complaints, he alleges the “vengeful” regulator failed to manage conflicts of interest because the person responsible for leading the investigation had been the subject of a previous complaint by his awarding body.

He claims the investigation team also planned to use “false” allegations made by a whistleblower in the case, which showed IQ exam papers were being distributed online before they were sat by students. Clarke said Ofqual was going to use this as evidence of an organisation which “was not learning and is consistently failing”.

Clarke also takes issue with Ofqual’s annual report from 2017 which cited the enforcement action being taken against IQ prior to the conclusion of the case, which he says was “unfair and prejudicial”.

His main new complaint is that IQ was “heavily censured” by the enforcement team for offering free appeals to “manage any potential adverse effects” for students who had their certificates withdrawn following the BBC investigation.

Ofqual allegedly stated at the time that this breached the conditions of approval but then went on to adopt “an identical approach during the recent A-level fiasco, evidencing double standards and a lack of clarity in the conditions of approval”, Clarke said.

He told FE Week: “If Ofqual doesn’t repay the fine, I will go to the Civil Service Commission, and the parliamentary ombudsman. We’ll then look to court if we need to.”

The FE white paper has galvanised support for the sector

The government still needs a national strategy but there are positive signs, writes David Hughes

A year on from the publication of the Skills For jobs white paper is a good time to reflect on any progress made since.

At the time, I was one of many who welcomed the white paper because it affirmed the central place that skills and colleges had achieved in the government’s plans for recovery from the Covid pandemic and for the long-term success of the nation.

A year later, with the pandemic still having a major impact on life and work and with a new education secretary, it is heartening to see that central place maintained, and indeed built upon over the year.

The skills bill has been a key focus for parliamentarians over the course of the year, with many more senior MPs and peers now informed advocates for the sector.  

The chancellor’s autumn spending review also gave skills a prominent place – strongly in the rhetoric, perhaps less so in the substance for adults, but very much so for young people. This was one of the key ‘wins’.

The white paper specifically set out to achieve three things.

First, a new system of lifelong learning, which works for everyone. Second, a more empowered and collaborative skills system, freed up to meet needs, not controlled from Whitehall. And third, a more strategic relationship between providers and employers.

Unsurprisingly, it is too early to judge whether these will be fully achieved. But there are positive signs.

Colleges are working together in many areas of the country, with government funding, to agree higher level skills priorities. They are collaborating on stimulating demand and helping create a more joined-up offer to communities and to employers.

Meanwhile, employer organisations are developing the first local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) in partnership with colleges, working hard to engage employers and assess needs.

Put together, these changes could lead to a clear, strategic and pivotal role for colleges in local economic development, business innovation and skills delivery.

I say “could” because it is early days and there are risks. It would be a disaster, for instance, if an LSIP was simply presented to colleges as a wish list of skills and qualifications demanded by employers – we know that will not work.

The promise of a simpler system for funding and accountability is a critical element of this reform but perhaps the most difficult to achieve in a complex sector.

Other major challenges include getting the balance right between immediate skills issues and the longer term, and recruitment difficulties about pay and conditions versus those driven by skills shortages.

There are, of course, gaps in the reforms that we have been highlighting all year, not least through parliamentary debates on the skills bill.

We want to see an overarching national strategy for skills. This would help set the framework for policy, including LSIPs. We also want to see funding which supports national priorities, and which holds the government to account for its skills policies.

A second key gap is how we ensure that education and training is a realistic option for everyone. That means better student maintenance at lower levels and more freedom for people on universal credit to access courses.

I remain optimistic about the direction of travel

The third and most worrying gap, though, is that the white paper has focused mostly on level 3 and above, at the expense of the rest of the system, overlooking people who need basic literary, numeracy, ESOL and digital skills as well as levels 1 and 2.

We have seen the funding for this plummet over the past decade.

I remain optimistic about the direction of travel and have witnessed across the year how Department for Education officials as well as ministers have endeavoured to involve college leaders in the reform discussions. Long may it last.

But more than anything, we need to use our moment in the spotlight to keep winning over more advocates and supporters.

DfE keeps T Level placement capacity proof a secret to protect policy ‘safe space’

The government has refused to share evidence that it alleges will prove there will be enough T Level industry placements as the programme grows to tens of thousands of students.

Releasing that information would, in their words, “intrude” on the policymaking “safe space” which should be “sheltered from external distractions”.

Officials are also concerned that releasing the modelling would lead to the setting of a public target for the number of T Level students in each year of the rollout, something they are adamant they will not do.

A former adviser to multiple skills ministers criticised the secrecy, especially as the government continues with its plans to remove funding for most competing qualifications at level 3, such as BTECs, on the basis that T Levels will be a success.

But another ex-top DfE civil servant has backed the department, saying the reasoning is “understandable”.

Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi told FE Week in November he had seen evidence that shows enough employers will offer substantial 45-day work placements to tens of thousands of students each year when T Levels are fully rolled out.

His claim came amid concern from some college leaders who are delivering the first T Levels that they can’t find enough placements now for their small number of learners.

After an initial refusal from the DfE to share the modelling, the department has now rejected a freedom of information request from FE Week.

In its response, the DfE admitted there was a “general” public interest in being able to see if ministers are being “briefed effectively on the key areas of policy the department is taking forward”.  

However, it deemed it more in the public interest to withhold the information to ensure the “formulation of government policy and decision-making can proceed in a self-contained, ‘safe space’ to ensure it is done well, sheltered from external interference or distractions.

“Without protecting the thinking space and the ability for ministers and senior officials to receive free and frank advice, there is likely to be a corrosive effect on the conduct of good government, with a risk that decision- and policy-making will become poorer as a result,” the DfE said.

Ed Reza Schwitzer, who worked in the DfE for six years in a variety of senior roles before becoming an associate director at public policy think tank Public First, defended the department’s refusal. “Whilst it is frustrating when ministers cite evidence that their departments are then unwilling to provide, it is understandable that officials have made this judgement,” he told FE Week. 

“After all, it is vital that officials are able to advise ministers on deliverability of government policy honestly – and this would not be possible if such advice was made public.”

But Tom Richmond, a former adviser to two skills ministers, criticised the secrecy. “If the government removes funding for other level 3 qualifications, only for T Levels to stumble because they cannot secure enough placements, then the stability of the whole 16-to-19 system will be put at risk,” he said.

“On that basis, civil servants should be trying to reassure the sector with their supposedly robust evidence on the viability of compulsory work placements instead of keeping everyone in the dark.”

The DfE is also concerned that the release of industry placement modelling would “undoubtedly have the effect of setting a public target for the number of T Level students in each year of rollout”.

Such a target “would be likely to lead to both providers and government prioritising T Level student numbers above other factors, for example, the quality of courses being offered, which would be to the detriment of students studying these qualifications”.

The DfE has previously been criticised for shying away from setting T Level targets, including by Conservative MP and former skills minister John Hayes.

Jon Yates, who advised then education secretary Damian Hinds when he was developing T Level policy, questioned the reliability of any industry placement modelling. “In this case you’re asking people if they might take part in something they haven’t thought about, heard of, or know anyone who’s done it,” he said. 

“It’s responsible to survey people here, but it’s probably about as reliable as asking people in February 2020, ‘would you support a national lockdown if there was a coronavirus?’”

T Levels began to roll out in 2020 and to date almost 7,000 students have enrolled.

Finalists announced for the 2022 AAC Apprenticeship Awards

The national finalists for this year’s FE Week and AELP AAC Apprenticeship Awards have been revealed.

The awards, now in their fifth year, are a celebration of the very best in apprenticeship delivery and provide well-deserved recognition for the people, teams and organisations that make excellent apprenticeships happen.

A record-breaking 370 entries were received from training providers, colleges, universities and employers and we can now reveal the worthy finalists going forward to the national awards ceremony in March.

Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week’s publisher Lsect, said: “We have once again been blown away by the quality of nominations and especially of this year’s finalists.

“It’s been an incredibly challenging couple of years for apprentices, employers and providers, so to be able to return to in-person celebrations this year feels extra special.

“The ingenuity, creativity and care taken by our finalists to give apprentices the best experience possible throughout the pandemic has been inspirational. I can’t wait for the entire apprenticeships sector to come together this March to mark their exceptional work.”

This year’s awards, in association with NOCN, will feature 23 categories, including the illustrious apprenticeship provider of the year, which will be won by either Manchester Metropolitan University, Myerscough College, Realise or Remit Training.

The organisations up for apprentice employer of the year are Barratt Developments PLC, Great Ormond Street NHS, Iceland Foods and Lloyds Banking Group.

AELP chief executive Jane Hickie said: “I am delighted that for the fifth year, FE Week and AELP have come together to host the AAC Apprenticeship Awards.

“We received so many strong nominations across all categories, highlighting the amazing work of providers and employers. This shows the real strength of our sector, despite the challenges of the past few years.

“Throughout the judging process, we saw so many impressive examples of best practice in delivery for our learners and employers. I am really looking forward to the AAC gala dinner on March 22, where the winners will be announced.”

Four individuals are in the running for the outstanding contribution to the development of apprenticeships category.

They are Amy Smith, head of talent at Framestore (visual effects); Carole Carson, non-executive director at DBC Training; Ian Bamford, chief operating officer at Paragon Skills; and Sharon Blyfield, head of early careers GB at Coca-Cola Europacific Partners.

Winners will be announced at the FE Week Annual Apprenticeship Conference taking place on March 21-22 in Birmingham.

AAC Judges:

Ben Blackledge, Deputy CEO, WorldSkills UK

Sharon Blyfield, GB Apprentice Lead, Coca-Cola European Partners

Charlotte Bosworth, CEO, Innovate Awarding

Thomas Burton,  Group Director (Apprenticeships), NOCN

Rob Colbourne, Chief Executive Officer, Performance Through People Training

John Cope, Director of Strategy, Policy, & Public Affairs, UCAS

Patrick Craven, Director, City & Guilds

Sharon Green, Professor of Vocational Education and Deputy Head of School, NCFM

Jane Hadfield, National Senior Programme Manager – Apprenticeships, Health Education England

Jane Hickie, CEO, AELP

Jason Holt, Chair, Apprenticeship Ambassador Network

Susanna Lawson, Founder, OneFile

Anne Milton, Former Skills Minister       

Sharron Robbie,  MD, Devon & Cornwall Training Provider Network

Stewart  Segal, Board member, AELP Board

Sue Taylor, Joint Chair, Association of Learning Providers Surrey

2022 Annual Apprenticeships Awards Finalists. Click to enlarge.

The white paper was promising – but why are ITPs still fighting for recognition?

Research out next month will prove the value of independent training providers, writes Jane Hickie

The past year saw significant challenges for learners, employers and training providers as Covid continued to affect us all. But the Skills For Jobs white paper, whose anniversary it is this week, offered an excellent opportunity for the sector to shift towards an outcomes-focused approach.

It was good to see the white paper finally recognise the massive contribution independent training providers make in delivering skills training. It was particularly heartening to see the extra emphasis the white paper placed on providers working closely with employers.

We also welcomed the expansion of digital skills provision, moves towards an all-age careers service, better Baker Clause enforcement measures and investment in workforce development across FE.

Yet there is still much to be done if we are to realise an adult education sector that truly prioritises the needs of learners and employers.

For instance, the extension of the Baker Clause to year 7 pupils and better enforcement measures were incredibly positive aspects of the white paper.

So it was surprising and disappointing to see these measures omitted from inclusion in the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill.

We know from our work with Lord Baker and the Department for Education that most schools are still not adhering to the Baker Clause as they should, despite the landmark legislation. The skills bill’s own impact assessment noted that there was only a 40 per cent rate of compliance.

This needs addressing to ensure that that all young people get fair and equitable access to appropriate careers information, advice and guidance – with parity for academic and vocational routes.

As ever, our biggest challenge is to overcome the lack of parity between ITPs and other FE providers. Recent procurement outcomes and the inability for ITPs to access Covid support packages have hit ITPs hard.

Why this lack of parity? We are all working toward a common goal which is to get the economy back on its feet. ITPs are key to that success. It is high time to level the playing field and give ITPs their rightful place in the system to support that recovery.

It is high time to level the playing field

Functional skills qualifications are another example where that lack of parity continues to cause problems for work-based training providers and their learners.

The UK government recently removed the English and maths qualification “exit requirement” for T Levels. As this hasn’t been extended to apprenticeships, the result is a worrying discrepancy between classroom and work-based learning.

Whilst AELP does not advocate for the removal of English and maths from apprenticeship requirements, parity of treatment for learners is a matter of fairness.

Therefore we want to see the same flexibility at the point of exit at the very least, as well as a review of funding for functional skills qualifications.

The announcement on T Levels has added extra pressure for training providers, who are currently being asked to deliver maths and English within an apprenticeship at a rate of just £471 per qualification.

Disappointingly this amounts to just half of the funding available for delivery in a classroom-based setting. It is a situation that is clearly unsustainable.

Despite these challenges, we do know there is a lot of support for, and interest in, what ITPs do.

AELP has been undertaking wide-ranging research on the role and impact of ITPs in the FE sector, which will be released on February 22 in the House of Commons. This will be hosted by Lord Aberdare, who has a long history of advocating for ITPs.

The research will present strong evidence outlining the unrivalled role that ITPs play in supporting the training needs of learner and employers and will support our calls for ITPs to be treated as an equal partner within the further education system.

Although there have been some steps in the right direction through the white paper, ITPs are still being considered an afterthought by FE policymakers.

If we are to achieve our collective ambition of a vibrant, world-class skills system, ITPs must be placed front and centre in a partnership between all providers.

The skills bill is the blueprint for transforming the country

Apprenticeships are extraordinarily popular – and more progress is being made from the skills bill, writes Alex Burghart

Skills lie at the heart of levelling up. Skills will help people drive their careers forward.

Skills will help towns and cities attract and nourish new businesses and developments. Skills will help the economy thrive and public services deliver. 

Our blueprint for a major shift forward in the way we develop people’s skills – the Skills For Jobs white paper – was published a year ago today.

We want everyone at every stage in their life to have the opportunity to step up and move on – be it the school leaver who needs an apprenticeship, or the career changer who wants a higher technical qualification, or the person who sees opportunities and needs a skills bootcamp course.

Something so everyone can switch on, log in and skill up.  

This is why, over the next four years, we are giving new support to post-16 technical education.

My department has secured a massive £3.8 billion to invest in further education and skills over this parliament, including an extra £1.6 billion boost by 2024/25 for 16-19-year-olds, to roll out ambitious, game-changing programmes.

This comes on top of the £1.5 billion we are investing to transform college estates and make them fit for the future.

We have rolled out skills bootcamps, our free courses for jobs offer, the digital skills entitlement ̶ and the chancellor has made a huge investment in basic adult numeracy through the Multiply programme.

Nine new Institutes of Technology will bring the total to 21 across the country. Created in collaboration with companies such as Microsoft, Esh Group, GKN Aerospace and the Met Office, they are playing a critical role in delivering the higher technical skills needed for our future success.

The rollout of T Levels – our new gold-standard technical qualification at level 3, to rival academic routes – marches on, with ten courses now available in over 100 providers.

And we are continuing to build on the almost five million apprenticeship starts since 2010, creating additional flexibilities to help more sectors and employers get the most out of this extraordinarily popular programme. 

And, vitally, we have cemented our vision for lifelong learning, making an iron-clad guarantee that from 2025 there will be a lifelong loan entitlement, giving people the opportunity to train, retrain and upskill throughout their lives. 

These changes will help our businesses get the talented, highly skilled workers they need, delivering productivity gains and an ever-stronger economy. 

We are putting employers at the heart of our revitalised skills system.

As we have seen through the skills bill, there is real cross-party support to make sure we are training people with the skills that businesses need.

Already, we have established eight trailblazer areas where the first local skills improvement plans are being developed by employer representative bodies.

Alongside LSIPs, we are investing £65 million in delivering cutting-edge equipment, upskilling teaching staff and developing new courses across 18 pilot areas, realising the ambitions that providers and employers have for our young people.

These trailblazers and pilots are spurring new collaborative working.

Trailblazers and pilots are spurring new collaborative working

There are great examples of colleges, universities and other providers working hand-in-glove with employers to shape the training provision that local communities and businesses need (for example, in green construction).

With the hard work and support from the sector, we are making leaps and bounds in transforming skills across our country. 

Rarely has there been a time when the economy has been so hungry for skills. As we look toward another crucial year, our reforms will gather pace and deliver a newly skilled and work-ready stream of talent to feed this appetite.

More courses, more opportunities, better life chances.