Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Bootcamps evaluation rings spending review alarm bells

The government is oblivious to how many people from the first wave of its flagship skills bootcamps secured a job or received a pay rise due to unreliable data, researchers have found.  

Sector leaders have warned this will ring alarm bells in the Treasury ahead of next week’s spending review, which will decide whether more taxpayer cash is invested in the programme.  

A process evaluation report for the first digital skills bootcamps, which began delivery in six areas in England in autumn 2020 at a cost of £8 million, was published by the Department for Education today.  

Researchers found positive results from qualitative interviews and analysis of management information: 81 per cent of participants successfully passed their assessments.  

Most encouraging was that 48 per cent of people enrolled were women – a much higher proportion than seen in the digital workforce, which has reportedly sat at around 20 per cent for some time. The finding will help ease sector leaders’ fears about bootcamps becoming male dominated.  

However, the researchers warn that the data obtained by the DfE from training providers did not cover all the bootcamps and “more problematically” did not consistently cover all of the geographic areas involved.  

They therefore “cannot be viewed as an accurate picture of all bootcamp provision” and instead “offer an illustrative overview of the bootcamps that submitted full data”.  

The data obtained showed that over 2,500 people applied for bootcamp courses and of these, 820 gained a place.  

While characteristics of participants, attendance and completion data could be drawn from the sample, the researchers found incomplete data on job and salary outcomes, even though the DfE specifies this information must be captured.  

The report said: “It seemed likely that these data had not been completed consistently (if at all) by providers, since there was no data on starting salaries and three learners were recorded as gaining a job.”  

It added that employment outcomes could be reported up to six months following the start of training so this “may have represented outcomes not yet being achieved, or providers not yet being able to evidence them”.  

The researchers carried out surveys with some bootcamp learners to get a better idea of their progress in the absence of reliable management information.  

Concerningly, 81 per cent (56) of 69 respondents who had completed their course said they were not offered a job interview at the end of their course, even though this is supposed to be a guaranteed part of the programme.  

Just nine per cent had been offered an interview with an employer, while ten per cent said they “did not know”.  

The DfE previously told FE Week that bootcamp data will not be submitted through its individualised learner records (ILR) and instead providers will submit their own data through a form on a monthly basis.  

Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said bootcamps are a “good idea” but without “proper data we don’t know if they’ve succeeded in their aim of helping people into work”.  

“That makes it more difficult to know if they should be rolled out further and to persuade the Treasury to provide further funding,” he told FE Week. “With the need for skills and jobs only increasing, the DfE needs a much more robust approach to gathering data so we know whether bootcamps are working.”  

Some mayoral combined authorities that managed bootcamp contracts for their area even failed to gain consent from learners for their data to be used.  

Simon Ashworth, director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “There are high expectations on providers to achieve good outcomes for unemployed adults.  

“It’s shame that the dataset is incomplete, especially with a critical decision on whether to expand bootcamps expected as part of the spending review. The Treasury will want evidence to support this decision.”  

The researchers’ report says the DfE must make “amendments to the data collection sheets given to the providers” to measure success of bootcamps, and officials must relay the “importance of clear, accurate and timely information”.  

A DfE spokesperson claimed “robust” data collection on outcomes for wave one has been “ongoing from March to September 2021”. This data is “currently being validated and will be published by the end of November 2021” – a month after the spending review.  

Prime minister Boris Johnson announced the first wave of skills bootcamps in September 2020, plugging them as part of his new lifetime skills guarantee. A further £36 million has been invested in the courses since.  

The courses run for up to 16 weeks and are free to unemployed people, or where employed, their employer would pay a 30 per cent cash contribution.  

Across the six areas in wave one, digital provision operated in all areas, and covered topics ranging from digital marketing, women in software engineering, cloud services engineer, computer-aided design (CAD), coding, cybersecurity, IT, social media and digital leadership.  

Of the management information available, only 16 per cent of participants were already qualified to level 2 or below and 63 per cent were already in work or self-employed.  

The DfE spokesperson pointed to the researchers’ learner survey which “indicated that nearly four-in-five (79 per cent) were satisfied with their course overall”.  

However, only a little over two-in-five (44 per cent) survey respondents agreed that their bootcamp training and provision would be sufficient for them to apply for a job in their industry.  

The DfE spokesperson said: “We are pleased that this early evaluation report shows that wave one skills bootcamps were well received by all stakeholders involved and that there is overwhelming support for skills bootcamps to continue.”

Ofsted slams major NHS trust for rapid apprenticeship recruitment

England’s “largest” NHS trust has been slapped down by Ofsted for taking on too many apprentices while failing to recruit enough tutors to train them properly.

In a report published on Tuesday, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust was found to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in all three areas of a monitoring visit undertaken in July.

Apprentices could not be supported effectively, Ofsted said

Inspectors slammed leaders at the employer, which has 386 apprentices, for a “failure to put in place many of the principles of an apprenticeship”.

Despite this, “leaders continued to recruit large numbers of apprentices, even though they knew they would be unable to meet all the requirements of an apprenticeship”.

At the same time, a “small number” of tutors were responsible for a “large number of apprentices”, so could not support all of them “effectively”.

A large majority of apprentices study the level 2 healthcare support worker and level 3 senior healthcare support worker standards, but others studied the level 3 team leader and business administrator courses.

Insisting the provider’s problems could not be blamed on the pandemic, the report highlights how “none of the areas for improvement identified at the previous inspection has been fully resolved”.

The trust, which boasts on its website of being the largest in England, was given a grade three in a full inspection report published in February 2020.

That report told trust bosses to “rapidly” reduce the number of apprentices “who leave before completing their apprenticeship or continue in learning beyond their planned end-date”. Also, they were advised to include employers more in the planning of apprentices’ learning and to ensure staff delivering functional skills courses use apprentices’ starting points to plan the curriculum.

‘Too many apprentices fall behind in their learning’

This week’s follow-up monitoring report finds that when apprentices do not attend functional skills sessions, leaders did not intervene quickly enough. This meant “too many apprentices fall behind in their learning and routinely exceed their planned end-dates for functional skills”.

Apprentices’ line managers “do not know” what they need to do to help apprentices apply skills and knowledge at work, because the provider’s assessors do not involve them in planning courses.

Leaders were criticised for not ensuring assessors and tutors use apprentices’ starting points to plan and develop apprentices’ English and maths skills and put in place actions for apprentices to complete their functional skills courses in a timely manner.

The provider has brought in new processes to improve the collection of apprentices’ starting points, including one-to-one meetings to determine what learners already know at the start of their programme, the report reads.

Leaders and managers had not ensured apprentices receive high-quality careers information, advice and guidance, it was also found.

“Most” apprentices told inspectors they have not had the chance to discuss progression opportunities, even though the large majority have “clear and aspirational career aims” to become nurses or operations department practitioners, working to prepare patients and operating theatres’ equipment for surgery.

Under Ofsted’s inspection handbook, providers, like Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, that receive a ‘requires improvement’ judgment should expect a full reinspection within “12-30 months”.

A spokesperson for Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust said: “We greatly value our apprenticeships and have worked hard to address the recommendations made by Ofsted.

“Initial progress in this area undoubtedly slowed at the height of the pandemic as we prioritised the delivery of patient care, but the trust has since implemented a transformation programme to address all of Ofsted’s concerns.”

Four winners share the love our colleges prize

An abundance of talent has been on full display during Colleges Week, with four colleges having won the national Share the Love / Love Our Colleges competition this year.

Bicton College, Cornwall College, Newcastle College and Orchard Hill College will each receive a £50 shopping voucher to share between the winning students.

Colleges produced cakes, signs and floral arrangements

For the event, which uses the hashtag #LoveOurColleges, Bicton’s students put forward a video of military and protective services students marching into the shape of a heart (pictured top).

Cornwall College entered photos of an illuminated metal sign in the shape of a heart, Newcastle College 3D printed a Love Our Colleges sign, while Orchard Hill College baked a themed cake.

The competition was part of Colleges Week, an annual celebration of the further education sector run by the Association of Colleges, which this year took place between October 18 and today.

Week was also marked with visits, campaigning and blog posts

As well as the competition, students, staff and sector cheerleaders have been marking the week with visits, campaigning, and written pieces.

Shadow education secretary Kate Green visited City of Westminster College on Wednesday to meet learners, tweeting to the college afterwards: “Huge thanks for a brilliant visit today. From public services to plumbing, our colleges are giving young people the skills and work experience the country needs for the future.”

Strode College’s entry to Share the Love Our Colleges

The National Union of Students and the British Youth Council held a digital day of action to kick off lobbying for several demands that are part of the union’s #NewVisionforEducation campaign. The demands include maintenance support for learners and investment so students can access digital devices.

The Department for Education has also published a blog this week called “5 Reasons to Love Our Colleges”. The reasons include the fact that they “provide flexible courses to fit around you”, with the blog stating: “Gone are the days where a long university course was the only expected route to success.”

Another reason is that colleges “offer exciting, varied and wide-ranging courses”, with the DfE referencing T Levels, apprenticeships and traineeships as examples of “up-to-date qualifications designed with the needs of learners and employers in mind”.

Duchy College’s entry to the competition

Colleges themselves have also been celebrating the week, with St Helens College hosting a breakfast for local schools’ careers advisers so they could be updated on campus redevelopments and curriculum changes.

City College Plymouth fired up its 3D printer, one of just five of its kind in the UK, to “create an anatomical heart offering a fun twist on the popular heart theme often seen promoted during Colleges Week”.

The opening of multiple new college buildings was also timed to coincide with Colleges Week, including City College Norwich’s £11.4 million digital skills building.

City College Plymouth’s 3D printed heart

Opening the “digi-tech factory” during Colleges Week was a “natural link to make,” according to principal Corrienne Peasgood, “as a key strength of FE colleges everywhere is our ability to move with the times.”

Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi visited Barnsley College on Thursday to open its new SciTech Digital Innovation Centre, where Zahawi paid tribute to a “truly inspirational team and students”.

Interview: Jon Collins

Jon Collins, who is six months in as chief executive of the Prisoners’ Education Trust, explains how prison teachers feel cut off from their college colleagues

Perhaps it’s because Jon Collins, the new chief executive of the Prisoners’ Education Trust, is such a calm, precise and mild-mannered person that the scale of the scandal he describes in prisons sounds so shocking.

FE Week readers may not be aware, but you need sign-off from the Ministry Justice to go into a prison classroom – this journalist has tried unsuccessfully for six years to get it.

Setting aside the outrage that would follow if the Department for Education controlled access for journalists to colleges – there’s a safety aspect, of course, but it smacks more of a fervent desire to avoid scrutiny – the secrecy makes it difficult to understand what prison education really is like. There will be excellent practice, but it seems inexcusable not to be able to describe it.

But Collins, who is now six months into the job, is able to provide some proper insight. Of course, there have already been major leaks: back in 2014, the-then chief inspector of prisons said he was “very concerned” by the “extremely serious” situation in jails. By 2018, several prisons were described as in a “dangerous state”.

Then in November last year, the education select committee announced an inquiry into prison education, with Robert Halfon, the chair, particularly frustrated by the high proportion of prisoners with special educational needs who were neither assessed on arrival or properly supported during their sentences.

Collins presenting a Magistrates Association’s award in 2018

By last month, Ofsted and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons published a joint commentary with the devastating conclusion that “little improvement has been made” since the raft of reform recommendations from the landmark Coates review of prison education in 2016.

The bar could barely be lower: between 2018 and 2019, Ofsted judged only 38 per cent of prison education as good, 44 per cent required improvement and 16 per cent were inadequate. Compare that to FE colleges, where 68 per cent are judged to be good or better. And that’s before we talk about Covid.

Collins has seen a lot of the criminal justice system. He’s got a masters in it, has worked for NACRO, the crime reduction charity, for the Fawcett Society on women in prisons, was a director at the Criminal Justice Alliance and was deputy director at the think-tank The Police Foundation.

More recently he’s been chief executive of the Restorative Justice Council and before his current role, was chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association. It’s his first time working on prison education. He’s not a man given to hyperbole – but then, the subject doesn’t need it.

“It’s a very, very limited offer,” he replies drily, when I ask him what prison education entails. A brief overview: it’s usually level 2 English and maths (with no guarantee of GCSE provision, let alone A-level, T Level or BTECs), some “digital skills” training that doesn’t necessarily lead to a qualification (“it’s more just how to use basic equipment”, Collins says) and some English courses for speakers of other languages.

Prison education in HMP Bronzefield in 2017

The Prisoners’ Education Trust runs online courses – in 2020, the most popular was an Open University access module, followed by a business start-up course. But the numbers are tiny: 52 learners on the OU module and 47 on the business start-up course, out of a prison population in England and Wales of more than 79,000. Four providers are in charge of prison education, including two colleges: Milton Keynes College, Weston College, Novus and People Plus.

“Not only is it a very limited offer, but when you combine it with the way education is delivered, it’s extremely challenging for prison teachers,” Collins says. Classes tend to be three hours long, because moving people around the prison is difficult. Regimes can also be inflexible – inmates have to be in their cells at certain times of day.

“So you’re challenging teachers on how they can constructively use a block of three hours for people who have often not had a positive experience of education before.”

Teachers also face having to get prisoners who need a level 2 qualification to attend the non-compulsory classes, while “it’s very possible that people who have already got qualifications are doing the classes anyway to occupy themselves. One of the biggest challenges is how to engage and stretch these learners.”

It sounds like a nightmare. The surveys speak for themselves: 70 per cent of prison teachers are intending to leave in the next five years, a joint report from the Prisoners’ Learning Alliance and the University and College Union found in August. The teachers point to “no progression” and feeling like “hidden voices” in the teaching profession. What about Unlocked Grads? I ask, referring to the Teach First-style scheme that parachutes ambitious future leaders into prison officer roles. Is there something similar for prison teachers? Collins shakes his head.

“In terms of prison teachers, there’s not really a staightforward progression route in the same way […] there’s no equivalent to becoming a prison governor, if you’ve not been a prison officer. Prison teachers wouldn’t really go up via that route.”

Prison education in HMP Bronzefield in 2017

So despite the Coates review calling for more autonomous prison governors who prioritise education, Collins says the focus of most is not on teaching. This seems unsurprising if governors are mainly coming up through the prison officer route.

“Governors want good prison education, but for most, education is not their top priority. It’s about keeping people safe – and the challenge is how you can deliver good prison education in that environment. I’m really hoping the Ofsted review will give strong pointers on that.”

The challenges of accessing education have not gone unnoticed among inmates either. In the Chief Inspector of Prisons annual report for 2020-21, just 22 per cent said they could easily access education, while just 12 per cent said the same about vocational skills or training.

Prison learners also face various legal hurdles. At present, only prisoners within six years of release are eligible for student loans to cover tuition fees, a fact the Higher Education Policy Institute has said “beggars belief”.

“We think that rule should be removed altogether,” Collins says, pointing out that jail terms have lengthened, with the government last year scrapping automatic release half way through sentences for serious crimes.

“If you’ve got someone who’s come into prisons quite young on a long sentence, and you’re trying to think about how to use that time constructively, not being able to study for a degree doesn’t seem the most effective way of managing that.”

Would-be apprentices face similar hurdles with complexities around inmates being classed as employees. The government proposed a “prisoner apprenticeship pathway” in 2016, with close involvement from the Association of Employment and Learning Providers – but in 2019 the association was still calling for the pathway to get off the ground.

To top it off, prisoners sometimes turn their back on learning because they can earn money in a prison job instead, Collins says with a grimace.

Then Covid hit. The pandemic revealed prisons are in the “digital dark ages” in terms of remote learning, the Prisoners’ Education Trust has said. Launching its five-year strategy this week, it pledged to increase the number of inmates accessing its distance learning courses while calling for a “major investment” in digital technology in prisons.

Collins presenting in London in 2018

It criticised the government’s plans to roll out in-cell technology in just nine of 117 prisons next year. “But that mustn’t come at the expense of face-to-face education,” Collins says. “It must complement, not replace, face-to-face teaching. Many prisoners need a lot of support from prison teachers and officers to become learners.”

It seems that prison education, a bit like FE, is all the vogue right now. There’s a select committee inquiry, an Ofsted review, the 2019 Conservative manifesto promised a “prisoner education service”, and every justice secretary has made the right noises. But little has changed.

Collins is clear: “What’s currently on offer is as far as the money will stretch. If it’s going to be broader and better, that needs to be paid for.”

A complete revamp of the prison teacher career path, with better links between prisons and mainstream education, might also be long overdue.

“If you deliver education just for prisons, you end up with a one-size-fits-all approach,” Collins says. “But if prisons and colleges linked up more, then there would be access to a broader and more personalised curriculum. That’s one way you could move prison education closer to the mainstream.

“There’s also not a lot of thinking about how being a prison teacher fits into a teaching career. Could people do teaching in prisons as part of a more structured career?”

It’s a powerful suggestion. Distance learning is a commendable goal, but the Prisoners’ Education Trust is still trying to engage prisoners in institutions that largely don’t see education as the top priority. Perhaps Collins and others like him should be backing an exciting scheme akin to Teach First to support trainee teachers to the top in prisons.

Then, culture change might begin from the leadership down – and the scandal of our prisons, finally, will start to be resolved.

Make Black history matter for the other 334 days of the year

New networks in college are having a ripple effect, writes Arv Kaushal

We make a big fuss of our children or partners on their birthday, but we actually do so because we love them all year round.

This is the 95th year of celebrating Black History Month, and it’s time we looked at it the same way – something to be especially commemorated each October but also to be at the front of our minds for the other 334 days of the year.

Now that’s an easy aspiration to have and to express, but at Milton Keynes College Group, we’ve been trying to build structures and processes to make it a reality.

We’ve set up a series of employee resource groups to look at the way we work, and we’ve appointed chairs, which makes that responsibility an opportunity for individuals to grow and progress in their careers.

These are people who are already passionate and eager to try to create that better future, but who have never really had a mechanism through which to achieve it.

Each network also has an internal executive sponsor to give guidance and to be that essential voice at senior level. They are all people with strong voices within the organisation.

Our director of marketing sponsors the cultural diversity employee resource group, while our chief people officer looks after the LGBTQ network.

The principal for MK College’s prison education arm supports the women’s network and the principal at College and South Central Institute of Technology does the same for the men’s network.

Meanwhile our senior operations director supports the disability group.

Gradually, people who’ve had no other alternative but to “cheer from the sidelines” when it comes to issues of diversity and equality have a reason to get more involved, to go to those external events, to look for opportunities for change.

To give even greater weight to the networks, we’ve brought in external mentors who’ve kindly volunteered their services free of charge.

So we’ve been hugely fortunate to win support from some highly knowledgeable people, each with a very specific understanding of the areas covered by each network.

Among these we have some senior civil servants and highly experienced people from industry.

These include Justin Placide, from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who is co-chair of the Civil Service Race Forum; and Hayley Brown, co-chairwoman of the Ministry of Defence Gender Network.

Caroline Eglinton from Network Rail is the company’s disability and access ambassador and LGBTQ specialist; and Meena Chander, founder of Events Together Ltd.

The reaction has been so encouraging. At the beginning I was contacting people and asking, “Do you know about this event?”, or “Do you think it might be good to speak to this person?”.

Now the networks are getting in touch with me, telling me about the places they’ve been and the people they’ve met and the ideas arising from them.

Based on a model of allyship, the groups are taking on lives of their own

Based on a model of allyship, the groups are taking on lives of their own and each network is already creating a gentle ripple effect running through the whole college.

This approach can only hope to succeed with buy-in from the top. Management in many organisations can be reluctant to see employee networks of this kind grow in confidence, just in case they call for uncomfortable or expensive change.

It’s a risk, and we’re fortunate enough to have unstinting support from the executive level to the extent that the chief executive, Julie Mills, is the executive sponsor for the whole initiative. This leaves no one in any doubt as to the group’s commitment to positive change.

Black History Month is about celebrating individuals who achieved greatness in spite of the prejudice they faced. It is an aspiration but also a challenge, to make the fight for equality, diversity and inclusion in all its forms a 365-days-a-year campaign.

Black History Month should be regarded as a signpost, to black presents and black futures.

One day, we won’t need to remember it exclusively any more. Hastening that day, is surely what remembrance is all about.

Diversity toolkit launched to broaden apprenticeship intake

Employers have been handed a toolkit to improve diversity in their apprenticeships, as the latest statistics show little improvement in the proportion of ethnic minority starts.

Sector experts have produced an 82-page document with the Social Mobility Commission, with recommendations on hiring, progression and leadership to improve the socio-economic, ethnicity, disability and gender diversity of cohorts.

The report states that the apprenticeship workforce is “overwhelmingly white”. Apprenticeship data released last month shows black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) apprentices made up 14.2 per cent, or 35,100, of starts between August 2020 and April 2021.

That compares to 13.1 per cent for that period in 2019/20.

The proportion of female apprentices increased by 4.4 percentage points, from 48.5 per cent to 52.9 per cent, between the two periods, while the proportion of people with learning difficulties decreased by 0.5 points, from 12.6 to 12.1 per cent.  

FE Week has collated five key recommendations from the toolkit:

1. ‘Consistently’ collect and analyse socio-economic data on apprentices

The toolkit places a big emphasis on gathering data on the social and economic backgrounds of learners. This data provides an employer’s “foundation” since “comparing your data to relevant external benchmarks can be a great way to shape and drive your strategy forward”.

According to the toolkit, employers can ask a simple but key question: what was the occupation of your main household earner when you were about aged 14?

The answers can then be broken down into three categories: professional (teacher, nurse, business leaders); intermediate (clerical workers and small business owners); and working-class (technical and routine workers and long-term unemployed people).

This question “is easy to understand, gets the highest response rates in testing and is applicable to people from all ages and countries”. Employers should aim for a 66 per cent response rate.

2. Apprentice minimum wage ‘too low to live on’

The toolkit calls on employers to pay the living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation “wherever possible”. This is £9.50 per hour for those aged 18 and over, or £10.85 in London, compared to the current apprentice minimum wage of £4.30.

“Not offering more will exclude anyone who doesn’t have a financial cushion to tide them over,” the toolkit warns.

One of the toolkit’s authors, Anna Morrison from Amazing Apprenticeships, believes the £4.30 wage “completely undermines the value of apprenticeships” and “creates an immediate barrier” to would-be applicants.

Anna Morrison

Abolishing the rate “will mean that for many low-income families, apprenticeships become a viable opportunity for their children”.

Fellow author Alex Miles from West & North Yorkshire Learning Providers believes the rate ought to be retained for 16- and 18-year-olds, as “there is a lot more learning and development needed to do the role”, but that it ought to be abolished for adults.

 She said apprentices at all ages are taking on extra jobs in chip shops or supermarkets to “top up” their wages, which are “simply not enough to support living costs”.

Large employers transferring unspent levy funds (up to 25 per cent of their total sum) to smaller employers so they can offer apprenticeships could attach non-binding criteria that the receiving employer pays apprentices the living wage.

3. Provide more level 2 apprenticeships

That level 2 courses do not require pre-existing achievements in English and maths makes them “a great way of creating a pathway for people who have not had access to many opportunities”.

Level 2, or intermediate, apprenticeships declined by 6.4 percentage points between August 2019 and April 2020 and the same period in 2020/21.

4. More flexible apprenticeships encouraged

Working from home can be a “great enabler” for parents, carers and people who are disabled, who have additional needs or aren’t able to relocate. Opportunities to meet colleagues is also “a powerful way to create a sense of belonging”, though.

For apprentices who are remote working, employers are encouraged to check they have the right equipment, fast enough internet, appropriate conditions and the technical skills for it. They should “proactively” offer a budget to purchase kit, fast internet and also provide training.

Bosses should also consider the needs of parents, carers and disabled apprentices and find a schedule to accommodate their needs. Part-time apprenticeships can be offered if the programme’s overall duration is extended, the toolkit says.

5. Offer apprenticeships to all employees

Offering apprenticeships to every worker, including any frontline staff, will “help staff progress in their career and gain new skills” and identify talented individuals within the workforce.

Apprenticeships should also be “connected” to progression opportunities, but they have to be offered “in a way that works for staff”.

Monthly line manager meetings are an “ideal place” to advertise upcoming training and encourage people to sign up.

The system should recognise successful college drop-outs

Successful outcomes should not just be grade-related, writes Alfie Payne

I loved being in education, so when I had to drop out to focus on growing my business, I was gutted. I’d gone from being an engaged student to college drop-out in just a year.

Now, ten months after dropping out, I’ve got six employees, a client and partner list of 80 brands across four countries, and last month we at Ape Technology hit the mark of earning our first £100k.

This is an achievement I’m proud of – and it’s one I do not feel I could have achieved without the “leg up” of the education system (we don’t yet have investors, so it definitely isn’t that).

I couldn’t have asked for my college experience to have started any better, studying a BTEC in creative media production and getting distinctions in all my course work. I was making great friends and being taught by great lecturers. Then, Covid hit; I need not explain the challenges and changes that brought to student life.

The pandemic exposed what I now recognise to be my entrepreneurial personality: organisations that hadn’t previously needed it, now needed an online presence – and they needed it fast.

So, I started helping them to do this by designing websites and devising marketing plans (using the skills I’d been picking up from college). Then, people started paying me.

Then I had more work than I could handle by myself, so I needed other people to help – and I started paying them. Suddenly, I had a business.

It’s not been an easy ride, and I have to make difficult decisions as MD every week. One of the most difficult to date was last December, when I dropped out of college.

It was a frustrating decision to make: I’d outgrown the system and it appeared unable to accommodate my journey further.

I’d outgrown the system

The system wasn’t recognising my commercial success as educational success – despite the efforts of the likes of our media technician, who did everything to expand my coursework and assignments to stretch and challenge me further. The college itself even introduced clients to Ape.

The education system had been invaluable to me throughout my life, so to have to leave it behind was devastating.

Success should be measured in many ways, rather than just by your grades. My team and I were having a real-world impact on organisations and generating them revenue, yet because it wasn’t work produced for an assignment brief, it wasn’t recognised.

As MD, I was leading a team, while also dealing with legal, financial and HR matters, but it wasn’t formally acknowledged by the system.

What will have been acknowledged, though, is when I dropped out: I’m a failure, a bad mark, a black spot in the statistics. The student who was getting full marks had suddenly left ̶ that’s not going to look good.

Education helped to realise my goal of having the business, yet it shot itself in the foot because it couldn’t grow with my success. For the system to only be geared towards a set of fixed outcomes for progression is very damaging.

We’re constantly hearing about the cry for synergy between employers and colleges – so why is there not more support for young people who run their own businesses? Surely the system should recognise, and support, self-employment as an outcome?

For me, one area of improvement for FE is teaching students proper commercial awareness. Having an (at least basic) understanding of how a company and business work helps you to understand the impact your work has on a company.

Employers are keen to work with students and colleges on this – but because it’s not marked in an assignment, I fear colleges may not see it as a priority.

It all comes back to the same problem. The system must adapt to widen its scope of “successful outcomes”.

Double the cash incentives so more young people do apprenticeships

Since apprenticeship reforms, providers have had to front up more of the costs, writes Jane Hickie

The pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on young people and their employment and learning opportunities.

Since the advent of the 2017 reforms, fewer young people have participated in apprenticeships.

So the right balance of incentives and funding premiums are needed to encourage businesses in their decision-making process, while equally supporting social mobility.

Before the apprenticeship reforms in 2017, 16-18 apprentices were fully funded and apprentices 19 onwards were co-funded at 50 per cent by the state.

The government also ran an incentive scheme: Apprenticeship Grants England (AGE), where employers could apply for a £1,500 government for recruiting an apprentice aged 16-24.

In 2016, the government also removed employer liability for class 1 national insurance contributions for apprentices. This is still available, but it has not been well advertised.

When the apprenticeship reforms were introduced, funding rates between young people and adults were equalised and the AGE incentive scheme was replaced by a £1,000 “additional payment” incentive solely for 16-18 starts, paid to both the employer and the provider.

This has meant that employers are less incentivised to take on younger apprentices, and providers have had to front up more costs.

And we can see it in the very worrying figures.

In the last academic year, adult apprentices aged 25+ accounted for more than 50 per cent of all apprentice starts for the first time. Meanwhile, 16-18 apprentices accounted for just 20 per cent of all new starts.

The government could do three key things to “level up” apprenticeships. These would help to increase entry-level starts and the number of young participants, while providing crucial support for SMEs.

1. Give cash incentives to employers

The AGE scheme supported thousands of employers to take on young apprentices. The incentives made available through the Plan for Jobs have also been a fantastic success.

More than 100,000 new jobs have been created so far, of which 76 per cent have been for 16-24-year-olds. This is significantly more than the starts on the much pricier Kickstart scheme.

Cash incentives give employers flexibility to choose how they invest the grant, whether that’s an indirect wage subsidy or investment in infrastructure to support the apprentice.

So we need a longer-term employer incentive scheme to build on the success of the Plan for Jobs.

However, after January 2022, this should be targeted at the 16-24 age group and maintained at £3,000 per apprentice.

Apprenticeship job creation also means long-term sustainable employment, as over 90 per cent of apprentices are retained as staff.

2. Fund 16-18 apprenticeships from the 16-19 budget

This would remove these apprenticeships from the scope of either co-investment or levy funding and support more employers to employ younger apprentices.

3. Double the cash incentive for training providers

After all, training providers are the government’s salesforce for apprenticeships.

Training providers were previously able to access greater funding for 16-18 apprentices.

This was important, as the cost of finding, recruiting and supporting a young person in the workplace along with training and assessment is higher than supporting an adult already employed in the workplace.

The government needs to enhance the incentives it currently offers to training providers to support young apprentices through a young apprentice funding premium.

Training providers were previously able to access greater funding for 16-18 apprentices

There is a £1,000 provider “additional payment” incentive for 16-18 apprentices. But this is not high enough to drive effective positive change. The current £1,000 training provider “additional payment” incentive should at least be doubled.

Funding premiums should properly reflect the additional investment required to provide high-quality and attractive work-based learning for young people.

With these changes, the government could show it’s walking the walk, and not just talking the talk, about boosting apprenticeships.

BTECs: MPs to probe effect of defunding level 3 courses on learners

MPs have launched an inquiry into the government’s decision to defund level 3 qualifications that overlap with T Levels.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Youth Employment, chaired by Conservative MP James Daly, will spend three months exploring how the decision “will impact the choices available to young people and what that will mean for their employment prospects and outcomes”.

Sector experts, young people and employers will give evidence, including at meetings on November 23 and 26.

This comes after the Department for Education concluded its review of level 3 and below qualifications by announcing such courses would need to prove they give employers the skills they need to continue to be publicly funded.

Ministers facing mounting pressure over BTECs

The DfE said at the time it expected applied general qualifications, such as BTECs, will become “rare” when a new system is phased in between 2023 and 2025.

This new system will make T Levels, A-levels and apprenticeships the main options for post-16 qualifications.

Ministers and officials are under mounting pressure over this decision, with a group of school, FE and apprenticeship organisations starting the Protect Student Choice campaign to ensure applied generals “continue to play a major role in the future qualifications landscape”.

The campaign group is running a petition, calling on the government not to withdraw funding from BTECS, which has over 38,000 signatures at the time of writing.

As part of the campaign, 118 MPs and Lords penned a letter to education secretary Nadhim Zahawi this month asking him to “recalibrate” his department’s plans for BTECs.

MPs will look into whether T Levels will support learner and employer needs

The questions the APPG will attempt to answer include what impact the removal of funding will have, and will the government’s proposed ambition for T Levels, apprenticeships and A-levels support the needs of young people and employers in the future economy.

Written evidence submissions are being accepted and should be emailed to josh@youthemployment.org.uk by 5pm on December 3, 2021.

The inquiry will run from this month to January 2022, when a minister will be invited to give evidence and receive the APPG’s report.