MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 362

Amanda Hart, Senior recruitment consultant, FEA

Start date: September 2021

Previous job: HR director, NCG

Interesting fact: Her last meal on earth would be Thai green curry followed by Ben & Jerry’s Phish Food ice cream.

Stephen Exley, Head of public relations and public affairs, LTE Group

Start date: September 2021

Previous job: Director of external affairs, Villiers Park Educational Trust

Interesting fact: Stephen spent two summers working in a chocolate factory –
and was allowed to eat as much chocolate as he wanted. He says the novelty soon wore off.

Liz Barnes. Chair, Achieve Training

Start date: September 2021

Previous job: Vice chancellor, Staffordshire University

Interesting fact: She was awarded a CBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list in 2019 for services to higher education

Reformers demand action in face of yet another prison education review

Prison reformists have demanded the government act to fix prison education in the face of yet another review into the “extremely poor” provision.

Ofsted and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons announced last week they will be conducting a joint review of prison education this autumn, starting off by looking at reading skills.

Having already had Dame Sally Coates’ landmark review of the provision in 2016, and as the education select committee prepares its own report, sector bodies are instead calling for action.

‘There is no shortage of ambition for education in prisons’

“It seems there are plenty of prison education reviews knocking about, but prison education itself is in short supply,” said Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

While she welcomed the Ofsted-HMIP review, Crook argued prison education “is at the mercy of larger forces which the Ministry of Justice has little desire to tackle”.

“Indeed, the Ministry of Justice seems set on continuing restrictions to prison regimes that were introduced during the pandemic, restrictions which will see prisoners locked up in their cells for longer.

“These are the very conditions which prompted this latest review in the first place,” Crook said, referring to how Ofsted had found on remote and monitoring visits that prisoners were learning from in-cell work packs, with little face-to-face teaching or feedback.

Due to the pandemic, face-to-face teaching was called off in prisons for six months, which Ofsted-HMIP found meant some prisoners had little to no education until September 2020.

Although prisoners could access phones and providers set up hotlines for them to access educational support, prisoners were not aware of the service, and some had to resort to writing letters to their teachers.

Prison Reform Trust director Peter Dawson welcomed this latest review, saying: “There is no shortage of policy ambition for education in prisons.”

But he said the issue was “whether policies ever get turned into reality or are simply superseded by a new announcement by a new minister.

“The inspectorates are ideally placed to answer that question,” Dawson believes.

Ofsted hopes to ‘encourage’ government to focus on prison education

Coates’ review, ‘Unlocking potential: a review of education in prison’, led to prison governors being handed responsibilities to hire providers, rather than the then-Skills Funding Agency.

This is after she found three-fifths of prisoners leave custody without an identified employment, education or training outcome, and more than half of prisons were rated ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted.

  • prison
    Amanda Spielman

Alongside the announcement of a review, Ofsted published a joint commentary by Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman and her counterpart at HMIP Charlie Taylor stating that “little improvement has been made in the quality of prison education” since Coates’ review.

This is based on 25 remote visits to adult prisons in early 2021 and 10 progress monitoring visits undertaken by Ofsted between May and July this year.

In the last five years, the pair wrote, around 60 per cent of prisons have been graded inadequate or requires improvement for education, skills and work, compared to 20 per
cent of FE providers overall.

As the pandemic closed off face-to-face tuition, as well as workshops and employment opportunities for vocational education, “prison education is in a very poor state and it is time to give it the attention it deserves,” the commentary reads.

The education watchdog hopes “to encourage a much-needed focus on prison education —including from government — through the review,” a spokesperson said.

The joint review will differentiate itself from the previous ones, they added, by focusing on the quality of education.

The details of the inquiry have yet to be confirmed but Ofsted has promised to consult with the FE and skills sector throughout the initial look at reading in prisons.

The education select committee is looking to run further evidence sessions for its own prison education inquiry, with a report due out later this year.

Management, I advise you to trust your staff

Show faith in your staff, and support them to trial innovation, writes Laura Kayes

Like my colleagues across the sector, I ended last year fuelled by the vapours of forgotten coffee and the stumbling velocity of an entire sector trying to regain its balance atop a treadmill of pulled rugs.   

It was a year that we could have never anticipated. Looking back from a slightly safer distance, I’m struck by the near-constant stress of changing goalposts.

It felt like that funfair attraction when you try to hit a moving target with a football as coarse, atonal music increases in speed and volume. 

The fluctuating flow of changeable information from the government was strenuous. Planning for a grand return to the classroom, then adapting to deliver in my living room, was exhausting. 

Ending for summer in an eerily empty college felt like a sad contrast to previous 

years. Campuses are usually bustling with student celebrations, with people clearing out lockers and promoting proms. 

Often your desk will have cards from students you’ve taught for years – this year there was nothing but discarded masks and crusty hand sanitizer.  

I left feeling deflated.  

So had someone asked me in June if I fancied hiking Ben Nevis this summer I would have had to remove them and their toxic negativity from my life forever. Yet on a camping trip I found myself doing exactly that thanks to the whimsical tendencies of my wayfaring partner.  

I learnt a few lessons on that mountain.  

Around 5.30am we emerged from the tent bleary-eyed, and approached the base 

of the mountain. It was already thronged with hiking groups and I was immediately struck by the huge range of equipment on display.  

I considered my own and felt a little apprehensive. I compared myself to everyone around me as we set off. I felt embarrassed as people strode past me. I wondered why everyone around me seemed far less out of breath than I did. I fretted so much about this that I saw very little of my upwards journey. 

As fate would have it, we passed a woman resting by the path at my lowest ebb. 

She grinned at an unseen hiker behind me and joked about the length of time it had taken her to get there.  

A voice shouted back that it was irrelevant, because “the journey belonged to no one but her”. That one sentence sparked a change in me. 

Bolstered by the words of a stranger I pondered my internal beration. I thought back to occasions I had pleaded with my learners to be kinder to themselves. 

I remembered how viciously they had scolded themselves against perceived criteria that omitted all their strengths. I spent a great deal of time thinking of them as I renewed my stride. 

I considered how many arrive at college as apprehensive as I felt at the foot of the mountain. How many feel ill-equipped and vulnerable in ways that aren’t immediately obvious? I made a note to seek out those braving new landscapes. 

I recognise that my colleagues are also managing anxiety about the year ahead as uncertainty lingers behind clouded regulations. We have flexed and adapted tirelessly.  

We must remember we have developed skills we’ll carry forever, and are better prepared for the unexpected as a result. My experience also reminded me we have the potential to make things a bit easier for our colleagues too, with a helping hand and just a few kind words.  

My experience also reminded me we have the potential to make things a bit easier for our colleagues

Finally, my request to management on our return would be to trust your staff this year. 

My own management have been exceptional in these trying months. I have had their unfaltering trust in new strategies I wished to try, and a safe space for authentic reflection when those strategies fell apart around me.  

The need to succeed with every try can suffocate creativity. So show faith in your staff, and support them to trial innovation. 

 At the summit of Ben Nevis, the celebratory atmosphere was contagious. 

It occurred to me that I didn’t recognise a single one of the climbers around me from our ascent. I had no idea when they had set off, nor did I care. We had paced ourselves. 

Pace yourself, this year, too.  

Want to write for The Staffroom? Get in touch with commissioning editor Jess: jess.staufenberg@lsect.com

Reshuffle: Alex Burghart appointed apprenticeships and skills minister

Alex Burghart has been named as the Department for Education’s new apprenticeships and skills minister.

He replaces Gillian Keegan who was promoted to the Department of Health and Social Care as a minister of state yesterday.

Sources inside Westminster had reported that universities minister Michelle Donelan had been telling staff she would be responsible for all post-18 education after being confirmed as a DfE minister on Wednesday and promoted to attend cabinet.

But last night Burghart, the MP for Brentwood and Ongar, was announced as new parliamentary under secretary of state in the DfE and tweeted an image of him holding the Skills for Jobs white paper with the caption “here we go”.

The DfE’s webpage has been updated this morning and states Burghart will take on the apprenticeships and skills brief.

But he will share responsibility for “strategy for post-16 education” with Donelan.

The DfE told FE Week, however, that full portfolios are still being finalised.

Making up the DfE ministerial team is new education secretary Nadhim Zahawi, school standards minister Robin Walker, children’s minister Will Quince, and Baroness Berridge who stays on as school system minister.

Burghart said following his appointment: “I am very pleased to have been given a role in the Department of Education in the prime minister’s reshuffle this week.

“I am joining the new education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, ministers Michelle Donelan and Robin Walker, and my Essex colleague Will Quince as a parliamentary under secretary and look forward to the new challenge.

“Having had the pleasure of visiting every school in the Brentwood and Ongar constituency since being elected in 2017, I have no doubt our local headteachers and school staff, parents and pupils will continue to share their views on education policy with me, and I thank them for being so frank about the issues they have faced in recent years.” 

What we know about the new skills minister

In contrast to his predecessor Gillian Keegan, who often boasted of having started her career as an apprentice, Michael Alex Burghart won a scholarship to the private Millfield School then went on to study a master’s in history at Oxford. He then completed a PhD at King’s College London on The Mercian polity, 716-918.

He is the son of two teachers and is himself a former teacher, having taught at King’s College London while studying for his PhD. He was also a governor of a school for students with autism.

He worked for the Department for Education on the 2012 Munro Review of child protection.

Burghart also brings think tank experience to this ministerial role, having led on education and family policy for the Centre of Social Justice. And while working at another think tank, Policy Exchange, he wrote a paper entitled: ‘A Better Start in Life: Long-term approaches for the most vulnerable children’.

Counts ex-skills minister among his neighbours

Burghart represents the Brentwood and Ongar constituency, which neighbours the seat of Burghart’s predecessor as skills minister, Education Select Committee chair Robert Halfon.

He has served as a parliamentary aide to prime minister Boris Johnson, then-attorney general Geoffrey Cox, and then-Northern Ireland Secretary Karen Bradley. He was a member of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and co-chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adverse Childhood Experiences.

The posting as a parliamentary under-secretary of state to the Department for Education is Burghart’s first ministerial role.

While he does not have any colleges in his constituency, there are several dotted around its boundaries, including New City College’s Ardleigh Green campus, South Essex College, Chelmsford College and Harlow College.

Burghart has spoken up for apprentices and against ‘inadequate’ vocational courses

The 44-year-old has previously spoken in parliament about supporting people leaving care into further education and employment.

In 2018, he questioned then-education secretary Damian Hinds about improving the quality of social workers in the country “to ensure that children in care can move on into employment and further education”.

A year earlier, he led a debate on support for care leavers, where he argued apprenticeships “do not offer care leavers the same advantages as young people living at home with their families,” and the system assumes they are still living in the family home.

He cited care leavers who were having to manage bills and finances on “about £3.50 an hour,” and asked the government to look into the issue.

In 2019, he spoke in Commons after having heard from “a lot of employers complaining that vocational courses do not adequately prepare young people for the workplace,” and asked Hinds if he would commit to including businesses in the development of T Levels.

Colleges denied chance to speak out over free speech legislation

Colleges and FE student unions have been left out of discussions about new free speech legislation which would leave them open to legal action for “de-platforming” controversial speakers.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is currently being considered by a special committee of MPs, before the legislation goes back to the wider House of Commons.

Universities, the National Union of Students’ higher education vice-president and the Free Speech Union set up by right-wing commentator Toby Young were all invited to give oral evidence to the committee.

Yet MPs have not heard evidence from any FE representatives and a committee spokesperson said that oral evidence sessions for the bill “have concluded”. It means FE providers and student unions will not get the chance to speak.

“The decision as to who is invited to give oral evidence is made by the committee itself following discussions by the whips,” the spokesperson said, adding that written submissions can still be emailed in.

MPs on the committee include DfE minister Michelle Donelan, former Conservative skills minister John Hayes and ex-DfE special adviser Richard Holden.

When asked whether it had consulted the FE sector about the legislation, the Department for Education (DfE) said it had engaged with the sector following the publication of its policy paper.

However, it refused to name any providers or representative bodies with which it had engaged.

A DfE spokesperson did point out that the bill committee had heard from Office for Students (OfS) chief executive Nicola Dandridge, “and the OfS’s remit is all registered providers, which includes FE colleges delivering HE”.

‘Appalling’ government not giving FE chance to debate bill, says NUS

Salsabil Elmegri, the National Union of Students’ vice-president for further education, said she was “incredibly concerned my FE members have had their voices silenced”. Colleges and their student unions “cannot be ignored”, she added.

“It is appalling, given the lack of opportunities and protections for free speech in FE, that the government is not giving us a platform to talk about the issues that impact us.”

The bill allows a person to bring civil legal proceedings against an FE provider registered with the OfS, or a students’ union, if they deny the use of their premises to anyone based on their ideas, beliefs, or views. The college student unions which now could face expensive legal action are noticeably smaller than their university counterparts.

FE Week was able to find on the Charity Commission register, which students’ unions must sign if they have an income of at least £5,000 a year, just two college unions: Bradford College Students’ Union and Derby College Students’ Union.

DfE says legislation will not be a ‘disproportionate’ burden

Association of Colleges deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt tweeted last week: “170 colleges and their (unincorporated) student unions are covered by these new duties and face the same legal risks despite there having been few/no cases in the sector warranting the extension of regulation.”

An impact assessment for the bill said the government had decided against keeping FE providers out of the legislation as that “would make regulation for the OfS much more complicated going forward”.

As FE providers “already have to meet the current duties for all students”, the DfE believes “it should not be a disproportionate burden for them to comply with the strengthened duties”.

Gravatt sarcastically noted that this would be “reassuring” to an “18-year-old T Level student in 2025” when they are facing legal action.

Anyone wishing to submit written evidence to the committee has until 23 September to send it in a Microsoft Word document to scrutiny@parliament.uk.

Paragraphs need to be numbered, but pages should not be numbered. Essential statistics or further details can be included as numbered annexes, the committee said, but submissions should not exceed 3,000 words.

What will the freedom of speech bill mean for colleges?

The governing bodies of all higher education providers registered with the OfS must “secure freedom of speech” for students, staff and visiting speakers.

They, and student unions, must not deny use of their premises to anyone based on their ideas, beliefs or views and must produce a code of practice for running meetings and activities on their sites.

The government has acted after repeated instances where speakers have been prevented from speaking on campuses by people opposed to their views.

New secretary of state, new choices

It was no surprise to see Gavin Williamson announce his own departure from office before any official statement from Number 10.

After all, after two years of own-goals, blunders and indecision, many have at times had to wonder how bad it would have to get before Boris Johnson would bring the axe down. 

Gavin Williamson appeared to be the bulletproof education secretary, so it is only fitting that he should be the one to fire the starting pistol on his own departure. 

As you read this, Nadhim Zahawi’s inbox will be filling up with invitations, well-wishes and offers of meetings and speaking opportunities.

But how much power and influence can a new education secretary wield this close to a spending review, where the battle lines have already been drawn? 

How much power and influence can a new education secretary wield this close to a spending review?

The prime minister will have to appoint someone who he can be confident will toe the line and front up some unpopular spending decisions. Yet, responses to the Stratford-upon-Avon MP’s appointment seem to have ignited a long-lost sense of hope and optimism. 

Of course, every new cabinet minister will want to make their own mark but a new boss at the DfE is more likely to gently swerve than slam on the brakes on any major policies or reforms.

This is particularly the case in further education at the moment with Number 10 itself heavily invested in keeping the DfE and other departments in check for the delivery of its priority reforms around “levelling up”, pandemic recovery and the post-Brexit economy. 

Protecting student choice

With fresh eyes can come fresh perspective.

A good first move for the new education secretary would be to do what his predecessor failed consistently to do – show that they are listening.

In our view, a good place to start would be to commit to protecting student choice at level 3. 

To accuse the Williamson administration of being completely deaf to the sector might be overly harsh, but it did take six months to U-turn on AEB business cases.

Then another 14 months between the AELP arguing for more traineeship providers and a procurement finally being launched. 

Education leaders, students and unions are unusually unified behind the Protect Student Choice campaign, launched in June this year, with a simple proposition; that T Levels and applied general qualifications can co-exist peacefully and the removal of funding for the latter would deprive huge numbers of young people with a viable level 3 option. 

Education leaders, students and unions are unusually unified behind the Protect Student Choice campaign

FE Week proudly supports the campaign. 

On level 3 qualifications, the landscape has shifted slightly from a completely binary A or T Level proposition for 16-year-olds to something that is definitely better, but by how much is not yet clear.

In the House of Commons last week, Gillian Keegan said that BTECs that “meet new quality criteria for funding approval” may be allowed, in response to a question from one of many concerned MPs. But we don’t know what that criteria will look like.

With young people making decisions about their futures now, this prolonged ambiguity is not good enough. 

It is possible to look too closely into these things but, in his first statement following his appointment, Zahawi said he wanted students to have access to “a brilliant education” and “the right qualifications”. 

On the one hand, he does not have to be as unilaterally wedded to T Level exclusivity as his predecessor. On the other, why reference qualifications at all unless you had a position? 

In the meantime, show the new administration that this is not an issue that will go away by signing the petition on protectstudentchoice.org.

Protect Student Choice https://www.protectstudentchoice.org

College seeks ‘positive disruptor’ to champion EDI policy

A “positive disruptor” is being sought by a college to become its new vice principal for equality, diversity and inclusion. The proposed hiring is thought to be the first of its kind.

Bradford College is looking for applicants from within and outside the further
education sector to fill the £80,000 per year role.

Principal Chris Webb told FE Week he wants to “fast track” EDI issues at the college. The postholder will be expected to make conversations between senior leaders about advantaged versus disadvantaged learners “the norm, not the exception”.

‘Anything that helps us support our community is a good thing’

Chris Webb

Bradford is “hugely diverse,” said Webb, with the largest proportion of people of Pakistani ethnic origin – 20.3 per cent – in England. In 2-17, 63.9 per cent were of white origin.

So “anything that helps us to support our diverse community has got to be a good thing”, Webb added.

EDI policy is becoming increasingly prominent in the FE sector. The Association
of Colleges has created a dedicated EDI steering group led by Kirklees College principal Palvinder Singh, and the Black FE Leadership Group has been formed to add its voice on race equality issues in the sector.

The Department for Education is also coming under increasing pressure over the lack of black, Asian and minority ethnic take-up of T Levels and apprenticeships.

Webb said he was seeking someone who is “an expert, emotionally intelligent, who is going to come in and be challenging, supportive, but disruptive”.

Recruitment for the role is being led by FE Associates. Managing director Matt Atkinson said the “positive disruptor” would be “talking to the finance team about policies and accessibility of student support, talking about how accessible the curriculum is for different aspects of the Bradford community, and they might be talking to Chris about workplace practices”.

The Association of Colleges told FE Week it believed the role was the first of its kind in a college.

Applications close on 13 October. Anyone wishing to apply should visit https://www.fea.co.uk/bc-vpedi/

Any focus on learning outcomes needs a long-term learning strategy

Nadhim Zahawi needs to think carefully about what outcomes we want to measure and what the long-term plan is, writes Stephen Evans  

Nadhim Zahawi has arrived in post at a crucial time. We are weeks away from a spending review, various reforms are already in train to implement the skills white paper, and it is more crucial than ever that we ensure everyone has access to high-quality learning options. 

It is the funding and accountability consultation I want to focus on. The government proposes a greater focus on the outcomes of learning. This will include accountability agreements setting out how colleges will meet local and national skills needs, and a new skills measure looking at the employment outcomes of learners. 

For me, some of this is in the right direction. But it is not ambitious enough. 

A new report from the Learning and Work Institute and the Association of Colleges looks at what we can learn from other countries. First, what do we mean by outcomes?

I would say we should focus on more than just employment outcomes of learning. What about the social impacts, such as improved health and wellbeing, social contacts and increased earnings? 

We need to look beyond the headlines, which can be distorted by local economic circumstance or demographics. 

Let’s also look at value-added measures, including economic and social outcomes for groups such as disabled people who too often miss out. 

Second, what are we using data on outcomes for? 

It should be about more than central government holding colleges to account. 

Why don’t we publish outcomes data for colleges like the US does, so it can help inform people’s and employers’ decisions about what and where to learn? 

So we are arguing for a new employment and skills data lab, building on the Ministry of Justice Data Lab, which makes it easier for providers to check if their projects are reducing reoffending. 

We have the data, because individual learning records are linked to HMRC data. 

Why don’t we publish outcomes data for colleges like the US does? 

We also have an employment data lab in development in the DWP. We should expand and accelerate this. 

In other words, data should be open and contextualised – it can be a powerful tool for people, employers and providers. 

Third, what is the scope? The government seems to be looking fairly narrowly at the adult education budget and National Skills Fund. I would argue for a much broader look across the whole learning, skills and employment systems. 

The government should also be more ambitious in devolving funding to local government. This would be underpinned by outcome agreements on how this will deliver improved results, building on the Canadian model of Labour Market Development Agreements. 

The current partial devolution of a single funding stream (AEB) leaves everyone with one arm tied behind their backs. 

Independent evaluation shows the Canadian approach led to more people finding work and improving their skills. 

That is one for the new secretary of state to pick up with Michael Gove in his new role focused on “levelling up” at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 

None of this will be possible without increased, longer-term, simplified funding. The two must go hand in hand. 

The good news is that the consultation recognises that. The bad news is that ministers will always be tempted to announce a new fund for a pet initiative that then takes time to develop, bid for, deliver and manage. 

More fundamentally, the spending review feels unlikely to be one where everyone is a winner: the Treasury wants to limit public spending and there are huge calls from all public services for more money. 

We have argued for an extra £1.9 billion per year to get adult participation in learning back to 2010 levels (of course, we would like to go beyond that too). 

But I won’t be betting the mortgage on that happening. 

Extra money won’t solve everything, but reforms cannot fix the challenge without adequate investment either. Which brings us back to the start: the new secretary of state faces many of the same challenges as his predecessors.

A focus on outcomes is the right thing to do, but it needs to be alongside a long-term lifelong learning strategy, backed by investment. 

Ofsted raps business school over management apprenticeships

A high-profile business school that made millions of pounds by quickly recruiting more than 800 management apprentices has been criticised by Ofsted.

The Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust, an arm of Hult International Business School, faces a government ban from taking on new apprentices after inspectors found it had made “insufficient progress” during a new provider monitoring visit.

Leaders were pulled up for not knowing the progress that apprentices were making, for failing to liaise with employers, weak governance and a failure to take account of apprentices’ prior learning.

But the provider did receive some praise for the quality of its training and safeguarding.

Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust had 810 apprentices on its books at the time of Ofsted’s visit in June, all of whom were on management apprenticeships from levels 4 to 7.

The firm boasts that it is “ranked within the top 20 business schools worldwide” and is among “less than 1 per cent of institutions to be triple accredited” by the management institutions EQUIS, the Association of MBAs and the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.

The provider is also audited by QAA, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. The agency’s latest review of Ashridge’s provision was published in 2017 and found the provider was meeting all expected quality standards.

Ashridge moved into the apprenticeships market in 2019. The firm’s latest accounts state that “most” of its qualification revenue, which totalled £4 million in 2020 and £5.8 million the year before, relates to apprenticeships.

The accounts, which also show reserves totalling £16.6 million, add that the company deems the collection of this revenue to be “low risk” because it is funded through a government agency.

Hult International Business School offers management courses in Boston, New York, San Francisco, Dubai, Shanghai and London. They typically cost tens of thousands of pounds.

Mark Coleman, the senior vice-president for enrolment at Hult International Business School, told FE Week that the Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust had seen a “great increase in interest” by employers for its management apprenticeship programmes over the past 18 months.

Management apprenticeships have grown to dominate the sector since the levy reforms in 2017 and now sit among the most popular sectors in terms of starts.

Several prominent sector figures, including Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman, have expressed concerns about the rise in management training as apprenticeships.

Spielman warned in 2018 that graduate schemes were “in essence being rebadged as apprenticeships”, which kickstarted the decision for Ofsted to inspect level 6 and 7 apprenticeships. The courses were the responsibility of the Office for Students until April 2021.

In 2019, the National Audit Office reported that levy-payers weare “replacing their professional development programmes – for example, graduate training schemes in accountancy or advanced courses in management – with apprenticeships”.

But the move to publicly funding management courses has been defended by Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education chief executive Jennifer Coupland, who said in January 2020 that the practice was “perfectly legitimate”.

Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust’s Ofsted report criticised leaders and managers for not having “effective oversight of the skills that apprentices develop”.

They also “do not liaise with employers to design apprentices’ training programmes” or to “ensure the training employers provide reflects the requirements of the apprenticeship standard”.

The board of directors also “do not receive feedback on the quality of training that apprentices receive” and are “unable to challenge senior leaders and managers to provide training that meets the requirements of successful apprenticeships”. 

Managers, meanwhile, “do not assess the starting points of apprentices accurately” and “do not explore what apprentices can already do or have a good understanding of”.

Praise, however, was given to the provider’s workplace mentors who “usually have an appropriate understanding of the topics that apprentices learn in their theory sessions” and provide “good support” to apprentices.

Under Education and Skills Funding Agency rules, any provider with at least one “insufficient” rating in one of Ofsted’s new provider monitoring visits is banned from taking on any new apprentices until the grade improves.

Coleman said his provider “will work closely with Ofsted in preparation for a full inspection”.