Shock as half of apprentices drop out

Nearly half of all apprentices dropped out last year, new government data has revealed.   

And revised figures for the year before show the drop-out rate has shot up by a huge amount for 2019/20 after officials fixed an “error” in their original calculations.   

Experts have expressed “deep concern” at the high drop-out rate, which one says would result in a “national outcry” and calls for an independent inquiry if it happened with A-levels.   

The government has admitted that “more needs to be done” as it investigates the reasons behind the issue for apprenticeships.   

National achievement rate tables (NARTs), which show how many apprentices passed, achieved and stayed on to complete their apprenticeship, were published on Thursday morning for the 2020/21 academic year by the Department for Education.   

Also published yesterday were revised NARTs for 2019/20. Original figures for that year were published in March 2021 but had to be removed and recalculated when DfE officials identified a blunder.   

The data includes a breakdown of the figures for those on the government’s new-style apprenticeship “standards”, which are designed to be tougher and of higher quality than the old-style “frameworks” which are being phased out.   

Included is a “retention rate”, which showed that only 53 per cent of apprentices on standards stayed on their programme until their end-point assessment in 2020/21 – meaning that 47 per cent dropped out.   

The drop-out rate for frameworks was 17 percentage points lower than standards in 2020/21.   

The figure was even worse in 2019/20: original data said the retention rate for standards that year was 60.2 per cent, but this has now been revised down to 46.6 per cent – resulting in a 53.4 per cent drop-out rate. In 2019/20 the revised drop-out rate for frameworks was 22.6 percentage points lower.   

The overall drop-out rate for apprenticeships was 41.3 per cent in 2019/20 and 41.2 per cent in 2020/21. 

By comparison, latest DfE data shows the drop-out rate for A-levels in 2019 was less than one in ten (8.7 per cent).   

There are increasing numbers of apprentices taking the government’s new-style standards, which makes the high drop-out rate all the more concerning.   

In 2018/19 the proportion of apprentices on standards stood at 18.5 per cent. In 2019/20 that proportion had increased to 46.3 per cent and for 2020/21 the proportion had reached 65.9 per cent.   

Former skills minister Gillian Keegan ordered an investigation into the “astonishingly” high drop-out rate for apprenticeship last year after the fudged 2019/20 figures were published.   

Asked for a response to Thursday’s revised figures and those for 2020/21, a DfE spokesperson said: “Covid-19 had a big impact on achievement rates in 19/20 but even in normal years there are many reasons why people move on from apprenticeships, such as changes in family circumstances or getting a promotion.   

“We have replaced the old style ‘frameworks’ with high-quality ‘standards’ that better reflect employer needs. Standards are rightly more difficult to achieve than frameworks, so lower rates on standards are not unexpected.”   

The spokesperson added that the department is aware that “more needs to be done to ensure as many people as possible complete their apprenticeship when that’s right for them”.   

Speaking to FE Week in February, the DfE’s joint minister for FE and HE Michelle Donelan said another reason for drop-outs is because some apprentices achieve professional qualifications to start a job and are offered employment before they sit their end-point assessment. The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is now looking to align to apprentices’ final assessments with professional qualifications to remove this incentive to leave early, she said.   

But Donelan insisted there is “no one reason” for the issue.   

Tom Richmond, a former adviser to two skills ministers and now director of think tank EDSK, was shocked by the figures.   

“If half of A-level students were dropping out of their courses before taking their final exams, there would be a national outcry and calls for an independent inquiry,” he said.   

“We should be equally concerned by these new figures on apprenticeships, as they suggest that there could be some fundamental problems with the delivery of apprenticeship standards.”   

Simon Ashworth, director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said his membership body is “deeply concerned at the high drop-out rate for apprenticeship standards”.   

He told FE Week that although the employer cash incentives for hiring apprentices “successfully” boosted starts, he claimed “Covid-related disruption” has now impacted the numbers completing their apprenticeship.

Yesterday’s data shows the overall achievement rate for all apprenticeships hit 57.7 per cent in 2020/21.   

This was a slight increase on the achievement rate for 2019/20 which now stands at 57.5 per cent after being originally stated as 64.2 per cent before the DfE’s recalculation.   

For 2020/21 the achievement rate on standards was just 51.8 per cent, while in 2019/20 it was 45.2 per cent.   

The St Martin’s Group, which comprises some of the country’s largest apprenticeship training providers and employers, warned that the data could deter people and businesses from starting an apprenticeship.   

A spokesperson said: “Thursday’s achievement rates will not surprise many in the sector as they have been significantly affected by Covid and by people leaving and moving jobs, especially in longer apprenticeship standards.   

“Unfortunately, these rates could negatively impact the perception of apprenticeships, making it more challenging to attract prospective apprentices and increase the number of businesses offering them.”   

Provider-level achievement rates have not been included due to the disruption caused by the pandemic. But they will be shared with Ofsted.   

Amanda Spielman, Ofsted’s chief inspector, told FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference last week that low achievement rates on their own will not result in lower inspection grades. 

‘Frustrating’ for some but ‘not surprising’: ESFA extends AEB contracts for one more year

National adult education budget (AEB) procured contracts are being extended for another year, the Education and Skills Funding Agency has announced.   

Training providers that were successful in a controversial tender to win adult education funding from central government in 2021/22 will have their allocations renewed into 2022/23 for one year.   

In total, £74 million was allocated to private providers this year, which was down by one-fifth on the £92 million in the last AEB tender from 2017.   

FE Week analysis shows the number of private providers with a direct ESFA AEB contract has now shrunk by almost 60 per cent, from 208 to 88.   

Several long-running providers who missed out on the contracts previously accused the ESFA of using last year’s AEB tender process to “manoeuvre its hidden agenda” of shrinking the private provider market – as they spoke out about “horrendous” bid rejections.   

There has been a mixed reaction to the announcement that there will be no new procurement for 2022/23.   

Mark Dawe, chief executive of The Skills Network, said: “After the disappointment of missing out on a contract in the last procurement by one mark, and no real explanation as to how we dropped marks, we would obviously like to go for it again.   

“However, I’m not sure the sector could take another procurement at the moment after the mess we had to endure last year and the disruption it causes. The ESFA needs to get their procurement processes right before they run another one.”   

Simon Ashworth, director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the contracts extension is a “sensible decision”, given the “difficulties” of procurement last year.   

“An extra procurement exercise covering a single year period would have resulted in a disproportionate level of disruption as well as unnecessary added costs for providers and taxpayers,” he added.   

Jill Whittaker, managing director of HIT Training, said the contracts extension is “not exactly surprising” but expressed frustration at the decision.   

“As a provider who lost their AEB contract of 15 years last year due to a submission error that left the information incomplete, I am very disappointed at not having the opportunity to rectify the situation,” she told FE Week.   

The majority of HIT’s AEB was used for functional skills. Whittaker said her provider still has large volumes of these learners, and the only current option is to put them on to an apprenticeship instead, which she says is a “mammoth task” and “off-putting” for some. 

The skills bill endgame ushers in a new age of paternalism

The skills bill brings to a head over four decades of state-ist beliefs, writes Tom Bewick

The skills bill has entered the last of its parliamentary stages, known as ‘ping-pong’. This rather cute verb, like the game of table tennis, is an apt way of describing the battle of wills now under way between the elected Commons and the appointed House of Lords.

Considering the government has a majority in the Commons, and the most seats of any one political party in the Lords, the outcome has never been in doubt. Ministers and senior officials will get their way.

But it is worth reflecting perhaps on why the government has endured so many defeats in the upper house. A number of chunky amendments have passed with cross-party support, only to be overturned in the Commons.

When historians come to look at this landmark piece of legislation they may wonder why two towering titans of post-war education reform ̶ Lord Baker (Conservative education secretary, 1986-1989) and Lord Blunkett (Labour education secretary, 1997-2001) ̶ found themselves in such agreement trying to change so many aspects of a fundamentally flawed bill.

From the get-go, ministers have been clear that their desire is to give themselves and related quangos more statutory powers to design, fund, defund and direct technical education reforms from the centre.

As Baker observed in his speech last week: “At no stage have any government or minister said that a student cannot take two qualifications that are funded and available. This has never happened before in our history, so why is it being done now? The government have never justified this, and it is extraordinary.”

Similarly, despite the introduction of local skills improvement plans, officials in Whitehall will ultimately sign them off.

Amendments were tabled to significantly strengthen the role of elected mayoral authorities, but what we’ve got instead is watered-down devolution.

The same is true of qualifications reform. The view appears to be that colleges, course leaders and learners cannot be trusted to make informed choices.

Students in future will not be able to combine A-levels and T Levels. It seems we’re entering a new age of paternalism where decisions are best made by the state in the form of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

And don’t believe all the hype about this being some employer-driven skills revolution. It’s nothing of the sort.

Don’t believe all the hype that this is an employer-led skills revolution

The parliamentary under-secretary, Alex Burghart, proudly boasts of 250 employers being engaged in the design of these technical education reforms to date.

Is he seriously trying to tell us, in a British economy of 5.6 million firms, that a cohort equivalent to just 0.0045 per cent of all employers is some groundswell example of popular reform?

No, this is a top-down technocratic revolution that brings to a head over four decades of state-ist beliefs that the answer to our relatively poor productivity and skills performance is more bureaucracy. It does not matter if the ministers are Labour or Conservative.

The architect of these reforms, Lord Sainsbury, wrote a book in 2020, praising the authoritarian impulses of the Chinese Communist Party. What more need I say?

Indeed, without any apparent irony about who has been in charge this past decade, chancellor Rishi Sunak recently lamented the UK’s comparative inability to equip adults with vocational technical qualifications, and the fact employers invest about half the European average on workplace training.

Of course, the government would say the post-16 skills and education bill is the answer. Instead we will end up with an imperfect law that future generations will be able to build on.

For instance, the genie is out of the bottle on the lifetime skills guarantee. It’s only a matter of time before we see a statutory right to lifelong learning.

As in all great parliamentary and policy battles, the committed among us will live on to fight another day.

Highlights from Annual Apprenticeships Conference 2022

In this special souvenir supplement, the FE Week team round up the highlights of the 2022 Annual Apprenticeships Conference.

Over two days in Birmingham, more than 1,000 delegates and exhibitors got together for the first time in two years to discuss, learn and debate the big issues in apprenticeships. The sense of excitement and, in a way, relief that the event could go ahead at all reflects a sector that is eager to move forward from the challenges on the pandemic. 

That eagerness and enthusiasm was palpable. If you were a delegate at this year’s AAC, I hope you find that reflected in the pages of this special FE Week supplement. 

Download now

Focus on vocabulary, and you improve attainment across subjects

Staff can prevent ESOL learners from needing to stay an extra year if they get targeted vocabulary interventions early, writes Saqib Brook

Vocabulary and attainment are tightly linked in education. We know this – the research proves it. As far back as 1995, Hart and Risley showed that the size of learner vocabulary related to their academic success.

At my college, like at many others, we have plenty of students from overseas, including from Syria, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. Soon, we also expect to welcome students from Ukraine.

For many of these students, English is not always their second language but sometimes their third or fourth. 

Understandably, many students have good skills in maths and science, but their English needs improving.

This includes understanding basic vocabulary, but also idioms. For instance, they might think someone literally means it when they say “I’ve got butterflies in my stomach”.

But there is also a culture gap. Some students come from classrooms where they haven’t been encouraged to discuss and debate. Without the right vocabulary, they are even less confident about doing this.

All this causes real problems for students in terms of attainment. They may get good A-levels, but if they do not make their GCSE English grade, they will be prevented from further study. For more competitive courses at university, such as medicine, they will need a grade 6 in English GCSE.

So I set up a project to improve the literacy of our students who are English speakers of other languages (ESOL). About 85 of our 150 learners are ESOL.

I started the project in September by delivering four staff development sessions on literacy attainment effectiveness.

We did an initial literacy assessment of the students in September, another in January, and we obtained student feedback. These showed we were closing the gap in literacy attainment and that students felt more confident.

This improvement also translated into the sciences, where students need a good flow of language to answer six-mark questions, for example.

So how can you do it?

Alongside more targeted teaching, consider what material to give students to read.

Teen fiction does not offer the academic vocabulary needed for high-level GCSE and A-level.

You can also encourage students to read academic subscription magazines. These can be extension activities and provide a more rewarding alternative to ‘extra work’. With online platforms such as Teams, you can also link to subject-specific literature databases in channels. 

Encourage students to read academic subscription magazines

Use vocabulary books and give students ownership of how they utilise these – some may wish to section alphabetically, while others may prefer to categorise by topic and use pictures.

Exposure to subject-specific vocabulary can be done through low-stakes assessment, such as quizzes ahead of an essay.

In my science lessons, my students keep a list of command words (explain, suggest, describe, etc) on file, and they look up their meaning before attempting a question in an exam. Eventually, students can be weaned off this support.

It is important to not overkill the errors made by ESOL students, as this will only demotivate them. Instead, ask them to proofread their work and identify their errors.

Develop oracy through discussion, and teach active listening skills, such as finding key information in a podcast.

When using idioms, do explain them, so that “taking a rain check” is not taken literally.

Most importantly, get their names right! This will convey respect and inclusion. If you can pronounce Tchaikovsky, you can also pronounce Abdulrahman.

Also, make sure staff are onboard. Get staff feedback early on, so any issues around workload can be resolved.

I’m delighted about how this has helped. One of our students from Hong Kong, for example, was doing very well in maths but was going to have to spend an extra year at college to get their English.

Because of this project, they don’t have to stay another year but can move on to their next steps.

Vocabulary is so important. It should be a core part of our teaching – ESOL students particularly, but for all students.

Let’s have a new era of skills devolution to local leaders

Being given responsibility for the AEB has allowed City Hall to drive an increase in Londoners retraining, writes Jules Pipe

The mayor’s delivery of London’s adult education budget shows how a locally driven approach can lead the way in supporting more people to get the skills they need to support the UK’s recovery.

The government’s levelling up white paper has set out a new mission to boost high-quality skills provision across the country, and we know adult training can make a real difference to people’s lives.

Since taking over responsibility for the AEB in 2019, City Hall has enabled over 400,000 Londoners to gain new skills, with nearly 200,000 supported in the last academic year alone.

The pandemic hit employment and incomes in London particularly hard. Having responsibility for the AEB allowed us to take steps to address the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on our city. 

For example, we improved access to AEB-funded level 3 qualifications so people with existing qualifications, who would otherwise be prevented from training, are now able to re-skill.

This led to a 45 per cent increase in Londoners retraining in different industries and occupations, improving their chances of finding or progressing in good jobs. We were able to do this quickly and in advance of similar changes government is making nationally. 

Next academic year we will be extending our offer and funding even more level 3 places through the national skills fund.

We also supported more training for Londoners in low-paid work because we know that the higher levels of qualification lead to higher paid employment for Londoners. This helped almost 20,000 more Londoners access learning last year.

We know that the AEB is targeting Londoners who are most in need of support. Last academic year 69 per cent of learners were women and over half were from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds.

The levelling up white paper made the case for a devolution dividend

City Hall’s leadership over skills provision has also enabled us to forge strong relationships with London’s adult learning providers – the engines of our skills system.

This means we can quickly enact policy changes that respond to local need, such as reinvesting part of our budget to help providers deliver remote and online learning, which has risen greatly across London. 

Sadiq Khan has made jobs a priority for his second term in office, and was re-elected with a commitment to champion London’s skills sector. Both he and I want to support more Londoners to get the skills these sectors – and the UK’s recovery – needs.

In January we launched a major new approach to skills, once again demonstrating the power of local decision making.

This included the £44 million mayor’s academies programme (which is supporting Londoners into good work in sectors key to London’s recovery) and a new campaign to raise awareness of adult learning opportunities in the capital. 

During the launch of these initiatives, I was delighted to meet learners who had benefitted from City Hall-funded training and progressed to get good jobs in London’s growing creative, digital and green industries.

I met Shevone, whose story about starting her own hospitality business demonstrates how our funding has helped Londoners impacted by the pandemic to reskill into growing sectors.

I also met Jacy, whose theatrical make-up and hair course helped her “get back on track and regain confidence” after taking time out to look after her family.

Following the publication of the government’s levelling up white paper, we want to see a new era of skills devolution to London and other cities and regions.

The government’s approach to delivering programmes, such as skills bootcamps and Multiply, through the Greater London Authority and Mayoral Combined Authorities are steps in the right direction.

However, we want to see local leaders being given more autonomy over skills to support economic recovery in their areas by joining up budgets and providing assurances on funding over multiple years.

Empowering local leaders to shape and align skills and employment provision – including apprenticeships, careers information, advice and guidance, and the skills elements of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund – would allow us to build on the devolution of the AEB to better meet skills needs across the country.

The levelling up white paper made a clear case for a devolution dividend. The path to its delivery must now run through our cities and regions.

Specialist SEND colleges go unmentioned in the green paper – that must change

The government should mandate local authorities to include specialist colleges in the new inclusion plans, writes Clare Howard

Nadhim Zahawi introduced the long-awaited SEND green paper on Tuesday with the promise of “a more inclusive and financially sustainable system, where every child and young person will have access to the right support, in the right place, at the right time”.

But will the proposals work for further education? And will they help specialist colleges to contribute to the system in a meaningful way?

Unfortunately, FE and preparation for adulthood make up only two of the 100-plus pages, and much of that has already been announced. As for specialist colleges, they are barely mentioned!

None of this would matter if all of the issues and solutions applied equally to colleges as well as to schools. Some of them do – proposals for standardised EHCPs, consistent national standards and local inclusion plans could all bring benefits for FE if properly implemented.

But much of the green paper is taken up with issues that predominately affect schools.

Where there are measures specific to FE, specialist colleges are mostly out of scope, for example, in relation to the skills bill requirements and the FE performance dashboard.

Overall, at the heart of the green paper is an ambition for a SEND system that is “more inclusive” and “financially sustainable”. So, for instance, the government argues that more pupils should remain in inclusive, less costly mainstream provision.

But how does this relate to colleges? With 90 per cent of college students with EHCPs already in mainstream settings, we don’t need any drivers to increase the proportions of students with SEND in mainstream settings.

What we do need is a reasonable level of funding, and access to more specialist expertise.

So the government must increase funding for those on SEN support in colleges, to match what is available for school children. Colleges also need help in addressing the recruitment and retention crisis for specialist staff across the sector.

The green paper also has a section on investing in high-quality specialist placements, but it focuses on developing local maintained and free special schools, to reduce the reliance on independent special schools.

It has nothing to say about supporting specialist FE provision.

What we need is a clear acknowledgement of the role of different types of FE providers, and a funding and commissioning system that is consistent across both general and specialist FE colleges. This would allow LAs to commission joint placements and encourage joint working.

An end to the binary place-planning system would open up new opportunities for students with SEND.

Let’s turn now to achieving financial viability. Spend on specialist FE provision has not risen in the same way as it has for schools.

Local authority data show that spending from the high-needs pot on post-16 specialist providers for 2021/22 is actually lower than it was in 2017/18.

So there is really no financial imperative to save money by reducing the number of placements in specialist colleges.

Government should acknowledge the critical role played by specialist colleges, and mandate LAs to include them within new local SEND partnerships and inclusion plans. The uncertainty of annual funding agreements should also end.

Specialist college buildings should be eligible for the £2.6 billion capital funding

At the very least, with 58 per cent of specialist college buildings now in need of urgent repair, government should make them eligible for the FE capital transformation fund and mandate LAs to invest a proportionate amount of the new £2.6 billion SEND capital funding to FE.

Finally, inclusion plans must end the knee-jerk creation of new colleges and replace that with planned investment into existing colleges to meet demand where that is more appropriate.

Any new national banding system either needs to be extremely flexible to accommodate young people with the most complex needs who do not fit neatly into standard categories – or it should be acknowledged that these individuals sit outside of it.

We cannot afford another legislative framework that does not deliver on its intentions, and we are determined that this opportunity is not lost.

2020/21 apprenticeship achievement rate hits 57.7% – and just 51.8% for standards

Almost half of learners on the new-style apprenticeship standards failed to successfully complete their programme last year, new figures for 2020/21 reveal.

National achievement rate tables (NARTs) published this morning by the Department for Education show that the overall achievement rate for all apprenticeships increased slightly from 57.5 per cent in 2019/20 to 57.7 per cent in 2020/21.

The rate for 2019/20 has been revised downwards from 64.2 per cent which was calculated in “error” last year (click here full story here).

Today’s data shows that apprentices on old-style frameworks, which are being phased out, hit a 68.9 per cent achievement rate in 2020/21, but the new-style standards only achieved 51.8 per cent.

The revised achievement rate for standards in 2019/20 was actually just 45.2 per cent – compared to the 58.7 per cent originally stated.

The overall retention rate for all apprenticeships in 2020/21 was 58.8 per cent, which drops to 53 per cent when just looking at the retention rate for standards – meaning 47 per cent on standards dropped out.

Peter Mucklow, the DfE’s director of apprenticeships, warned last week’s FE Week Annual Apprenticeship Conference that his department would “not be satisfied with those levels” and pressed that “we need to get those achievement rates up”.

Responding to today’s figures, a DfE spokesperson said Covid-19 had a “big impact” on the rates but admitted “more needs to be done” to improve them going forward.

“Covid-19 had a big impact on achievement rates in 19/20 but even in normal years there are many reasons why people move on from apprenticeships, such as changes in family circumstances or promotion,” they said.

“We are pleased achievement rates have improved, but we know more needs to be done to ensure as many people as possible complete their apprenticeship when that’s right for them.”

The spokesperson added: “We have raised the bar to make apprenticeships more rigorous and we are also taking steps to drive up quality and ensure apprentices get a great experience. This includes more support for providers and employers and making sure prospective apprentices get the best possible information, advice, and guidance so they can make informed decision about their futures.”

Commentary published by the DfE alongside today’s data states that care are should be taken when comparing the rates with previous years “due to the effects of the pandemic”.

It said: “A number of things will have impacted the data. For example there was an increase in the number of breaks in learning which meant learners being reported in a different year to the one in which they were expected to complete. In 2018/19 only 6,000 learners were carried forward whereas 24,000 and 28,000 were carried forward in 2019/20 and 2020/21 respectively.”

The statisticians also say it is important to consider the “impact of programme change” in the nature of the provision resulting from the transition of frameworks to standards.

“Standards are designed to be more demanding than traditional frameworks,” they said.

“The assessment process is also more rigorous with a specific end point assessment phase following completion of training designed to ensure the apprentice is ready to do the job they have been trained for.”

In 2018/19 the proportion of learners on standards stood at 18.5 per cent whilst for 2019/20 the proportion had increased to 46.3 per cent. For 2020/21 the proportion has now reached 65.9 per cent.

Revised 2019/20 apprenticeship achievement rates reveal huge drop

The overall achievement rate for apprenticeships in 2019/20 has fallen to 57.5 per cent – 6.7 percentage points lower than what the government had originally calculated, revised data published today has revealed.

And the drop-out rate for that year on the new-style standards has increased by 13.6 percentage points from 39.8 per cent to 53.4 per cent.

Original figures for 2019/20 previously published by the Department for Education had stated the overall achievement rate sat at 64.2 per cent, with the new-style standards achieving 58.7 per cent.

The DfE was forced to remove last year’s published achievement rates in February due to an “error”.

Revised figures have been published today and show and overall achievement rate of 57.5 per cent.

The revised achievement rate for standards in 2019/20 is 45.2 per cent, while the rate the old-style frameworks is 68.1 per cent.

Retention for all apprenticeships continues to be an issue: the rate fell from 66.1 per cent in 2018/19 to 58.7 per cent in 2019/20.

The retention rate for standards was 60.2 per cent under the original calculations – meaning that 39.8 per cent of apprentices dropped out before taking their end-point assessment.

But under the reviesed figures, the retention figure has dropped by 13.6 percentage points to 46.6 per cent – meaning there was a 53.4 per cent drop out rate.

New achievement rate data for 2020/21 was also published today (click here for full story).