MPs to investigate ‘new way of doing FE’

Government policies on further education funding, curriculum and staffing are under the spotlight in a new wide-ranging inquiry launched by parliament’s education committee today.

MPs have opened a call for evidence with 21 areas of interest including “funding issues” in apprenticeships, GCSE resits, the FE workforce, barriers for SEND learners, attainment gaps and mental health support for students. 

Education committee chair Helen Hayes said: “In this inquiry, we will listen to both the education sector and figures from industry and public services to investigate how DfE could design a new way of doing FE that helps young people into the careers they desire, serves vital sectors that struggle to recruit, and catalyses growth across the country.”

Individual policies, like capital investment, T Levels and the role of Skills England, will be scrutinised. The inquiry’s terms of reference also asks for much broader evidence around how to improve student outcomes, how to “resolve the skills shortage,” and improving collaboration with employers and local authorities.

Anyone can submit written evidence by the March 7 deadline. It is expected sector figures will be invited to answer questions from committee members in oral evidence hearings later this year. 

Long way off parity

The inquiry comes amid industrial unrest due to growing pay gap between teachers in schools and colleges.

Rising numbers of young people not in education, employment and training are also on the committee’s radar as new figures next month are expected to show the number of 16-24 year-olds who are NEET has surpassed a million.

The committee scored an early win this year when education ministers seemingly heeded their advice not to proceed with plans to remove funding from level 3 qualifications that rival T Levels in the short term.

Hayes added: “In recent years I have seen a political consensus develop that technical education deserves parity of esteem with A levels and routes into university. But on the ground we are a long way off from this being a reality, and the further education sector has instead experienced real terms funding cuts and continued uncertainty about the qualifications they can offer. 

“We will also look at how FE settings can support students with mental health and SEND to deliver better outcomes, particularly for the young people who are the most at risk of falling out of education, training and employment.” 

Early years qualification rules relaxed amid recruitment crisis

Strict rules around qualification levels of early years staff are to be relaxed from September to give the sector “respite” from a long-running recruitment crisis, the government has announced.

In a consultation response published today, the Department for Education (DfE) confirmed details of a new “experience-based” route for early years staff.

This route will waive a staff-to-child ratio rule stipulating that at least one staff member must hold an approved level 3 qualification in each early years age group.

The government hopes the plans – set in motion by the Conservatives early last year – will help early years providers “address the challenges they are facing recruiting and retaining the right educators”.

Experts say the move will help address urgent staff shortages but have warned that the crisis is caused by “huge disparities” in pay and working conditions.

Staffing shortages in the sector are likely to limit the number of new early years places available, despite the government increasing “free early education” hours to 30 hours per week for all under-fives from September this year.

Experienced based route

About 1,200 people and organisations responded to the consultation – which ran from April to June last year – with the majority agreeing that early years providers should be able to award experienced-based staff themselves.

Under the new rules, managers at Ofsted ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ providers will be allowed to count staff who have a level 2 early years qualification or a “relevant” level 3 qualification as being at level 3, for the purposes of staff-to-child ratios.

The staff member must have at least one year of experience in early years and meet at least 50 percent of the criteria for level 3.

Before making a final decision, the manager – who must have worked in early years for at least two years – will be required to supervise the staff member for about 30 days.

The government said it is “clear” that the experience-based route will eventually be “phased out” and replaced with a “long term assessment-based route” for experienced-based level 3 staff to “gain a full and relevant qualification”.

However, it is unclear when this is likely to be rolled out.

‘Welcome respite’

Sector bodies hope that the rule change will encourage more diverse staff to enter early years.

However, Neil Leitch, chief executive officer of the Early Years Alliance, said while the new route will likely offer “some welcome respite” from the staffing crisis, it should be part of a “wider recruitment and retention strategy”.

He added: “Ultimately, if the government not only wants to attract new educators into the sector but also ensure they stay in the long term, it needs to ensure that those working in the sector get the respect – and crucially, the pay – they so clearly deserve.”

Highly qualified teachers needed

Shortly after confirming the plans, the government also announced a new early years teacher degree apprenticeship standard.

Education minister Stephen Morgan said the three-year course would be a “vital step” to delivering an early years system that ensures children start school “ready to learn”.

Professor Eunice Lumsden, head of childhood youth and families at the University of Northampton, said research shows that children benefit from a “high quality, graduate-led” early childhood education.

She added: “However, there is no doubt we have a sector in crisis; I know how many are struggling to recruit, and this new route offers opportunities for experienced practitioners whose qualifications do not meet the full and relevant criteria. 

“There are no easy solutions to the current situation, but it is important that one of the unintended consequences of this direction of travel is that expectations for qualifications are lowered.”

College retains ‘outstanding’ for third time

A Lancashire college group has been awarded its third consecutive ‘outstanding’ grade from Ofsted.

Nelson and Colne College group received top marks in almost all areas in a glowing report by the watchdog published today.

The college group was inspected between December 10-13 and had enrolled 2,301 16-18-year-olds, 3,421 adult learners, 512 apprentices and 122 high needs students at the time.

It last was graded ‘outstanding’ in 2022 and first received a grade one 20 years ago in 2005.

Ofsted inspectors said the college group fosters an “exceptionally inclusive” culture and a strong sense of community where learners and apprentices feel like they are “part of a big family” and feel they grow academically and socially.

Inspectors lauded the college group’s “highly ambitious” curriculum, a timely judgment given that the group’s principal and CEO, Lisa O’Loughlin, is on the government’s curriculum and assessment review panel.

The report praised the college group, which offers A-levels, T Levels and a range of other vocational courses to young people, for providing “highly effective tailored support” to learners to ensure they finish their qualifications.

O’Loughlin said it was an “absolute privilege” to show Ofsted how “phenomenal” the college’s staff and students are.

“I am so proud of this achievement and that the inspectors witnessed what I see every day, that we are an amazing college group which is 100 per cent focused on delivering the best possible outcomes for our learners,” she said.

“For the inspection team to note how we are powered by English and maths and that our learners achieve their goals and grades, while also feeling part of a big family which supports them, is testament to us being an outstanding organisation.”

The watchdog rated the college group ‘good’ for its apprenticeship provision as most apprentices acquire “substantial” new knowledge, skills and behaviours to take into the workplace.

For example, the report said that apprentices respect gender identity and business administrator apprentices “accurately, confidently and respectfully” use he/him, she/her, and they/them preferred pronouns when working with clients, customers and colleagues.

However, it did find that teachers do not effectively monitor apprentices’ progress “in a few instances”. While leaders are aware of their progress, inspectors found that too many apprentices have fallen behind on their learning.

“Achievement in a few apprenticeships is too low. Leaders and managers have put in place actions to improve the quality of training that these apprentices receive. It is too soon to see the impact of these actions,” Ofsted inspectors explained.

Meanwhile, those on T Levels benefit from “well-planned” work experience placements, some of which attend placements across Europe. 

The report praised the curriculum for building on learners’ knowledge over time. For example, young people on the digital production, design and development T level learn about emerging technologies and business environments in their first year, helping them apply more complex knowledge and skills in year two, such as when they write project proposals.  

Ofsted applauded the college group’s teachers for using assessments “exceptionally well” to monitor progress and adapt teaching accordingly.

“For example, on the level 3 access to higher education health pathway, teachers use online quizzes to test learners’ understanding of enzymes, specifically the bonds in enzyme structures,” the report said. “Teachers and learners receive immediate feedback from the quizzes and these assessments help teachers to identify specific areas where learners have gaps in their learning.”

For adult learners, inspectors said this cohort was “highly successful” in achieving their individual goals and qualifications.

The college offers part-time adult courses at Lancashire Adult Learning consisting of higher education courses, ESOL and English and maths.

The watchdog also commended the college’s work with learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as careers advisers working “skilfully” with care leavers in their early weeks at college to ensure that they are on the right course.

Elsewhere, high needs learners receive a “supportive and ambitious” curriculum, which leads them to quickly develop skills.

“Consequently, almost two-thirds of learners with high needs undertake voluntary work while they seek employment,” the report said. “Over one-third move into paid employment.”

Ofsted deemed the college group to be making a “strong” contribution to meeting future skills needs by developing a five-year curriculum plan.

It found that college leaders have “highly effective” links with employers to support important industries in the pan-Lancashire area, such as digital skills and cyber security, health and social care, engineering and manufacturing sectors, and consequently introducing T Levels in all these areas.

In one example, inspectors found a range of adult learning programmes that meet local needs across the county to “re-engage” adults into education, and to reduce social isolation and deprivation, and improve mental health.

Meanwhile, Ofsted said the college managed their subcontracting provision to three providers well by conducting “frequent and rigorous quality assurance activities” such as observing live masterclasses and checking learner outcomes.

It also praised the college group’s governance. Board members meet with learners, apprentices, and curriculum managers in low-performance areas and are aware of the apprenticeship interventions in place.

Pictured (left to right): Kyle Lord – Level 2 Digital learner, Oryna Mokhnal – ESOL learner, Principal and CEO Lisa O’Loughlin, Caius McGuinness – L3 Sport & Exercise Science learner

SEG chair Stott quits awarding group

The chair of the Skills and Education Group (SEG) board has resigned with immediate effect on health grounds.

Atholl Stott stood down as chair and trustee of the awarding and professional development charity earlier this month, ending 15 years in non-executive roles in further education.

Nottingham College principal and chief executive Janet Smith, already a trustee of the group, has been made interim chair before a permanent chair is recruited later this year.

The group is now led by an interim chair as well as an interim chief executive.

Paul Eeles, its long-standing CEO, resigned and was then suspended pending an investigation in October.

SEG hired law firm Eversheds Sutherland to lead an investigation into Eeles “in response to new information that has emerged since his resignation”.

That investigation remains ongoing.

Stott joined what was then the Emfec trustee board in 2016 and took over as chair in 2017. Emfec became Skills and Education Group in 2018, following the acquisition of ABC Awards and Certa Awards. The group grew further to include a grant-giving foundation, awarding and assessment arms and the British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body acquired in 2021.

Yultan Mellor

In a message to SEG staff last week, interim chief Yultan Mellor said: “Atholl Stott has made the difficult decision to stand down from his role as chair of the group board and as a trustee with immediate effect for health reasons.

“I know you will join me in thanking Atholl for all the support he has offered Skills and Education Group over the years he’s been with us.”

Stott was a board member of North Nottinghamshire College from 2009, seeing through its 2016 merger with Rotherham College to form the RNN Group. He chaired the group until 2019 as it was placed in FE commissioner intervention.

Other roles in the sector included serving four years on the board of the Association of Colleges and chairing its governors’ council from 2016 to 2019.

Stott declined to comment.

FE colleges should let their teachers work from home

The Boomtown Rats did not like Mondays. Kylie had the Monday blues, and Monday found the Mamas and Papas to be cryin’ all of the time. In contrast, South Essex College really does not like Fridays – despite there being no anti-Friday supporting discography.  

Back when Liz Truss was/was not crashing the economy (sub editors – please check for libel), South Essex College announced that rising energy bills meant that they would close most of their campuses and not teach on Fridays, with staff working from home on that day. Their opinion piece last week highlighted some of the benefits the switch had brought. 

With a caveat I will get to later, this is basically a good idea and others should follow in their footsteps.  

We know that people like working from home. A lot. When a large US tech firm offered half its workers (decided randomly by birth date) the chance to work from home on Wednesdays and Fridays, that group were 35 per cent less likely to quit than those who had to come in every day. They worked fewer hours on Wednesdays and Fridays, but did more work at the weekends.

In fact a lot of Americans, given the chance to “work from home”, play golf in the afternoon, and make up the hours in the evenings and at weekends. Afternoon golf course use has more than trebled.

Turns out playing golf in the light, and working after dark suits a lot of people. And work they do – those workers randomly allowed to work from home produced 8% more code than those who came into the office.

People worry about being seen to slack, and they appreciate the saving of commuting time, and they work harder.  

Now whether or not my readers play golf, being able to sort your own work routine is likely to appeal to most people. I am quite literally writing this at home, in the early evening. There is a whole lot of prep-work, marking, report writing, end of year summaries, all sorts that can be done at home perfectly well.  

Offering this flexibility matters more in the UK than elsewhere, because working from home is 40 per cent more common in the UK than in other English speaking countries, and it is particularly common for graduate workers.

Workers expect it. Since workers like it, employers offering flexibility can offer lower pay and still recruit well, and have happy staff. Turns out that employees value the flexibility at about 8% of salary.

Given the cash constraints on colleges, that seems like a win-win for South Essex, and others. We can’t pay you more but we can give you flexibility.  

Many, although not all, further education staff could work in schools. Schools will find it much harder to offer this level of flexibility – they pretty much have to be open five days a week in term time.

Colleges pay less well, but hopefully this sort of flexibility will help them attract and retain staff who might otherwise choose to work in a school.  

So three cheers for South Essex. I have only one quibble – and it is a quibble. They shut campuses on Fridays. But if you have enough floor space to do your teaching on four days, it sounds to me as though you have too much floor space.

It might be sensible to reduce the size of the campuses by about 20 per cent, then assign each member of staff to a different day working from home. That way one fifth of workers would no longer find their Mondays manic.

Even better, they should ask their staff what their preferred work patterns are. Maybe lots want Fridays off. Maybe others want to be on campus five days a week, but for fewer hours each day.

It isn’t just working from home that people value, it is flexibility as to when you work from home. South Essex is scoring highly on the former, but it would be even better if the right to work was more flexible.  

Students still haunted by Neolithic instincts in the social media age

Walk around any college and you’ll hear the same conversations. You’ll even hear identical phrases – ‘And then she…’, ‘Who does she think…?’, ‘So he says…’

You’ll then hear unfold a deep analysis of some interaction, usually filled with plenty of side-taking, side-swiping, and general sniping.

It’s often the sort of analysis I struggle to get students to do. But they can do it here in the corridors with ease. I’d estimate such chat accounts for 80 per cent of students’ conversations and consumes 90 per cent of their energy.

When all this is going on it can be a real distraction from academic learning.

Expecting a student to analyse a poem when they’ve just been excluded from their friendship group is a big ask. They’re engaging in learning that seems far more urgent, visceral and essential than anything I can present them with. 

But they are learning. This shouldn’t be mistaken for mere distraction. A teacher’s job is simply to direct that learning spotlight onto a particular subject.

Young people need to know how to navigate their social worlds, filled with complexities us older souls have long since left behind. They are still knee-deep in the swirling social milieux of in-groups and out-groups and urgent deep relationships. Underlying this, their survival instincts are engaged.  

Social complexities once occupied us all; they had to because social survival and personal survival have always been interlinked.

In fact, social status has often been a lot more important than academic learning. Imagine yourself as the inhabitant of a Neolithic village, where you must fit in to be fed; where exclusion means exile and almost certain death.

The Neolithic human still resides deep inside, our modern manners serving only to hide the self-same creature within.

Survival used to centre on being accepted or excluded from the group, and we’ve not come too far from our ancient ancestors’ villages, where decoding social cues was an essential skill to develop. Our students are experts at this.

I’ve lost count how many times a student has sought me out to confide about some social crisis crucifying them. Social insults and slights can fill their horizons.

One student recently sadly said she was being excluded from her social group, and then added they were the group who didn’t even fit in anywhere else. Where else could she go?

You could hear her despair as she saw her social road running out before her eyes. How could I brush that aside? In that moment, my work was taking a solid back seat to her survival needs. I had to help her process this before she could study. 

We’ve taken our Neolithically-minded kids and thrust them into a cyber world. We’ve opened a Pandora’s box of social media and left them at the mercy not just of their limited circle of peers in the Neolithic village but of a worldwide morass of confusing and conflicting social signals and stimulation populated by millions, where acceptance is ever unattainable and the pressure always on.

Put that together with a young adult’s unformed frontal lobe, which should help them regulate their emotional responses and assess risk and consequence but can’t yet, and it’s a recipe for disaster.

No wonder anxiety is at record levels amongst our youth, and there’s the constant cry of mental health preventing academic learning. No wonder so many feel they have run out of road before they’ve even begun their journeys.

Meanwhile homework still has to be done. So what do we teachers do?

The old Neolithic village might have been built with a stockade around it, providing a safe space to slowly develop social skills. In the 1990s, the anthropologist Robin Dunbar suggested most of us could only really manage social relationships, of differing degrees, with 150 people.

In 2013, a Pew Research project found that people have, on average, around 425 ‘friends’ on social media. Maybe our young people simply need smaller social circles.

Australia is currently trying to erect a legal stockade around their young people. Do our youth here not deserve similar protection? Tech-savvy teens might find ways around any ban, but some might still be saved.

It’s dumb to leave adults lagging in the AI revolution

The government’s announcement that it will leverage AI to transform productivity holds vast potential. But will this technological advancement equally benefit all societal sectors?  

When we examine it through the lens of adult and community education and the HOLEX membership, the answer is more complex.

While AI offers enormous promise, it can also be overwhelming, especially for adults who haven’t grown up with this fast-evolving technology.  

The reality is, without significant and targeted investment many adults risk being left behind.

As a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report highlights, “by 2024-25, total skills funding will be 23 per cent lower than in 2009-10, with classroom-based adult education funding still over 40 per cent below 2009-10 levels.”

This severe underfunding directly affects the communities that could benefit most from learning, especially when adult education is key to boosting productivity, social cohesion and educational attainment.  

The £50m overlooked the adult education sector

The recent announcement of an additional £50 million for the FE sector is a further disappointing blow to adult education.

While any investment in education is welcome, this funding is solely directed towards general FE colleges and sixth forms, completely overlooking the adult education sector.

This exclusion only deepens the divide and risks marginalising millions of adults who need essential skills development.  

The decline in investment is widening the skills gap. Why is it so difficult for the government to commit to supporting the nine million adults in need of essential skills development?

These people are integral to achieving its ambitions in AI, health, construction and the green economy, yet are still treated as secondary to other educational priorities.  

AI technology is complex, requiring an understanding of new tools and concepts. Many adult learners will need extra support to grasp AI’s potential, and adult education providers must be part of this investment.

We need flexible, local environments to ensure all adults can benefit from AI.  

The so-called grey digital divide is another key challenge. Older adults with low digital literacy could greatly benefit from AI-enabled jobs but are disconnected from this digital transformation.

AI won’t necessarily replace jobs, but those able to use AI to enhance their performance will replace those who can’t. This widening divide is concerning.  

Funding fight

My key arguments for government investment in adult learners during this revolution focus on four areas:  

Digital literacy – Basic digital skills are necessary to fully utilise AI. Adults who are not digitally literate need support to improve their confidence and proficiency with technology.  

Workplace adaptation – As AI transforms the workforce, workers need to adapt to new tools and processes. Training and support can help bridge the gap between traditional methods and AI-powered innovations.  

The learning curve – While younger generations may seamlessly integrate new tech into their lives, adults often need help finding practical and meaningful ways to incorporate AI into their routines – whether for work, learning, personal use or hobbies.  

Trust and security  – Understanding ethical and other potential risks associated with AI is crucial. Support is needed to help adults make informed decisions, use AI responsibly, and feel empowered to navigate this new digital world. AI and fake news widens the digital deficit and harms social discourse. 

Dipa Ganguli, principal of WM College and chair of HOLEX, recently said: “By recognising the role we play and actions we can take to arm and deploy adult colleges in the fight against disinformation, we can be an effective part of the arsenal against activities that undermine all that we – as educators – are trying to achieve in building a cohesive society”.  

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that everyone can benefit from AI, regardless of age or background. Providing support helps level the playing field and empowers people to take advantage of the opportunities AI offers.

However, if the government continues to underestimate the investment required to engage adults in the AI journey we risk deepening the socio-economic and educational divide.  
  
It’s essential to equip adults and educators with professional tools, resources and support to actively participate in this revolution, rather than leaving them as ‘at risk’ bystanders.  

No teaching experience? You’ll fit right in at the DfE

“Now that you’re in,” I was told on my first day working in the Department for Education, “there are loads more jobs you can apply for”.

While some civil service roles are advertised externally, far more are open to existing staff.

It facilitates a system where less-effective staff can always be moved around because the bar to bring in outsiders is set high.

It can mean that key posts within the DfE are open to those struggling in other departments such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or the Department for Transport, while not being open to anyone with relevant, successful experience from a college or school.

It was soon clear that, for a few, applying for jobs was a bigger priority than doing their own job. And it paid off, because civil service recruitment is usually abstractly detached from reference to either your past performance or suitability.

Not doing your job at all and writing 20 applications a day provides better odds of promotion than trying to achieve something.

While FE English and maths was (probably concerningly) my dream government role, I did occasionally indulge in some wistful cross-government job browsing.

From head of nuclear submarine strategy to exotic animal welfare inspector, the posts I clicked into were an exciting list of what I might once have liked to be when I grew up.

What I came to notice though was that those roles, outrageously, required actual experience to be eligible to apply. As I had neither commanded a submarine nor achieved a veterinary degree, those doors were closed.

For education on the other hand, we are so lacking in reverence, so culturally opposed to being exceptional, that non-specialists are actively preferred.

The absence of domain knowledge in the DfE has led us into what I would describe as postmodern policy making; non-teacher lobbyists telling non-truths to non-teacher civil servants. It is a simulation of governance that has no concern for young people.

The rub for FE is that the distance from reality is even more severe, because most in Whitehall can at least imagine some version of a school.

The scale of colleges, the delivery of technical education, and its genuinely diverse student populations are not things that boarding school and a degree in ancient cartography familiarise you with.

The problems this causes are plain to see. Transition of exam access arrangements from schools remains unacceptably burdensome for colleges because civil servants picture a SENDCO having a friendly chat with their opposite number from the local comprehensive about a dozen learners. They cannot conceive of 50 feeder secondaries and half of your students with a specific need.

I’m sure we wouldn’t have been made to wait until just a few weeks ago to learn which level 3 qualifications can run this September if DfE officials had ever tried to predict staffing needs while on shoestring FE funding. It’s not like throwing Mr Chetwyn-Jones some cricket coaching because his A-level geography numbers are down.

Personally, I see it in the department’s credulous parroting of laughable lobbying lines. The recent retreat on condition of funding suggested that English and maths might have an impact on those “at risk of dropping out”. Those who’ve actually worked with students on the edge of NEET-dom will be all-too-aware how trivial lessons are compared to the real-life issues, barriers and anxieties of the vulnerable.

A warm classroom and a warm teacher never made anyone NEET.

The same DfE, in a crude effort to boost apprenticeship numbers, killed a lifeline for those students; traineeships. Again, the idea that those learners didn’t need extra support prior to an apprenticeship could only come from the professionally-clueless.

Imagine being in a meeting weeks after the decision to end traineeships and the senior civil servant responsible remarks that ‘what we really need is a form of pre-apprenticeship’.

If you’re unfamiliar with the jauntily absurd soundtrack to Terry Gilliam’s dystopian film Brazil, just know that I was whistling it in my head non-stop for five years.

We’re currently awaiting confirmation of the appointment of the Skills England CEO, knowing that the ad was seeking ‘senior leaders from government’, and pitched at the level of a DfE director (typically managing around 50 people, so about equivalent to a college middle manager). We can be confident that it won’t be someone with experience in either the classroom or industry.

If we are going to reverse the perverse distaste for education in England, I propose a simple benchmark for those shaping policy: Could they cover a lesson?

MPs to examine job centres’ new skills and careers role 

Plans to offer skills development and career guidance at job centres will be scrutinised by MPs later this year.

The work and pensions committee announced on Thursday it will examine reforms set out in the government’s Get Britain Working white paper, published in November.

These include merging the Department for Education-funded National Careers Service with job centres across England in a bid to raise employment rates.

Committee chair Debbie Abrahams said the cross-party group of MPs would examine how job centres could support people with careers advice and training alongside its “current priority of overseeing benefits”.

She added: “Due to the way the job centre touches peoples’ lives, being both an access point for benefits and employment opportunities, getting this formula for reform right, if it needs it, is essential.”

The committee is inviting submissions to its inquiry until March 3.

Extra two million in work

The government has set a target of raising the employment rate from 74.8 to 80 per cent – which would mean an extra two million people finding work.

It has also announced a “youth guarantee” of a job, training or apprenticeship, and has suggested the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education, health services and mayoral authorities work more closely.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, claimed “too many” people who want to work miss out on support, with only one in 10 jobless disabled people getting help to find work each year.

He said: “That needs to change, meaning a more open-doors approach from Jobcentre Plus and joining up with other services including learning and skills.”

Gareth Thomas, a skills policy adviser and former director at the Learning and Skills Council, said it was important to offer outreach services since many people lived far from their nearest job centre.

Jobcentre Plus is a job support service run exclusively for benefits claimants by the DWP.

The DfE-funded National Careers Service offers free advice and guidance on training and careers to anyone over the telephone, online, or face-to-face in some locations.

In England, the service is currently outsourced to eight regional “prime contractors” that subcontract the service out to about 70 smaller providers at a cost of about £53 million per year.

A DWP spokesperson said: “We welcome the committee’s review of our plans to transform Jobcentres into a fully equipped public employment service, delivering personalised support to help everyone secure employment and get ahead. 

“This is just one part of our plan to Get Britain Working which will deliver the biggest employment support reforms in a generation, boosting growth in every corner of the country and putting extra pounds in the pockets of working people.”