A confidential document that shows the criteria the government used to choose the level 3 courses in the prime minister’s lifetime skills guarantee has been leaked to FE Week.

It shows the methodology adopted by the Department for Education involved wage outcomes, alignment with government “priorities” and the “ability to address labour market need”.

The list of nearly 400 qualifications that made the cut, which will be available to adults to study from April for free if they do not already hold a full level 3 qualification – equivalent to two A-levels – has been unveiled today but controversially excludes major economic sectors such as hospitality, tourism, media and arts.

So how did the government decide which courses were in and which were out? The documents show a two-step approach was used. Here are the details.

 

Step 1 – wage outcomes

Firstly, the DfE analysed the existing sector subject areas (SSAs) to “understand the strength of their average wage outcomes, which is the most robust source of evidence we have to indicate the labour market value of approved qualifications”.

The data sources used were as follows:

1. • “Median earnings per SSA five years after study for full level 3 achieved in 2011/12. This is our lead criterion, as this gives the most robust sense of long-term earnings potential.
   • “Median earnings per SSA three years after study for Full L3 achieved in 2013/14. This was included to sense-check earnings data five years post-achievement.
   • “Median earnings per SSA one year after study for Full L3 achieved in 2016/17. This was also included to sense-check earnings data five years post-achievement.”

The DfE says it then set a “sensible minimum threshold” for wage outcomes of £19,000, which is “broadly equivalent to the median wage for all level 3 SSAs considered when looking at wage outcomes five years after completion”.

“We then sifted through filtered qualifications data to understand which SSAs included 100 or more learning aims for certificates or diplomas amongst adult learners with prior attainment below level 3 in 2018/19,” the document continues.

“This is to ensure that the evidence base for our wage outcome data was large enough, and to ensure that will be sufficient learner demand to make delivery viable from 2021.”

 

Step 2 – expanding scope to include government priorities and areas of labour market need

The DfE says it acknowledged that wage data alone is “not an appropriate means of identifying qualifications with labour market value across the country” and that relying solely on this “may not result in a list that is inclusive enough to generate strong uptake and good labour market outcomes”.

Recognising that it may also be “appropriate” to include SSAs in which the government would like to see growth, despite low current uptake amongst adults, the department ensured qualifications with under 100 19+ learning aims in 2018/19, alongside those with potentially lower wage outcomes, were included in this evaluation.

“We have therefore taken the below steps to widen the scope of SSAs, which gave us an assessment of each SSA’s alignment with government priorities and ability to address economic need,” the document explains.

1. “We performed a qualitative evaluation of all SSAs regardless of the number of existing learning aims and wage outcomes. To do this, we assessed each SSAs’ alignment with the 2017 Industrial Strategy in the first instance (as per the existing High Value Course Premium (HVCP) methodology). 
2. “However, using the Industrial Strategy alone may not produce an inclusive list of qualifications, and is not necessarily reflective of more recent government priorities. We therefore expanded the scope of ‘government priorities’ to include sectors referenced in more recent government announcements.
3. “We then scrutinised the list of SSAs against published analysis of current and future labour market need (such as the Migration Advisory Committee’s Shortage Occupation List at RQF level 3-5), which factored in impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit. We should note that measures of labour market demand are imperfect, and difficult to predict accurately in the current economic climate.”

 

So what qualifications are included?

By carrying out both of the above steps, the DfE identified those SSAs for inclusion in the targeted level 3 entitlement (see list pictured below).

The department adds that they believe these SSAs have the “strongest wage outcomes, alignment with government priorities and ability to address labour market need”.

In total there are 379 qualifications on the list (click here to view in full), which includes a mix of existing vocational and technical qualifications and A-levels.

There are 76 A-levels in total, including 10 A-levels in physics which are offered by different awarding organisations.

Others, like the Advanced Certificate in Bookkeeping, are too small to be counted as a full level 3 qualification.

Meanwhile, all Access to HE qualifications have been excluded as these are eligible for advanced learner loans that are written off upon completion of an HE course and are “not primarily aimed at facilitating immediate labour market outcomes”.

The DfE concludes that they believe the qualifications in scope for the level 3 targeted entitlement extension should focus on “providing the skills that will have immediate labour market value (i.e. they should not be primarily focused on gaining access to higher qualifications)”.

 

Can the list change?

Yes. The DfE says it will keep the list under review and used its confidential briefing to ask awarding bodies to provide evidence for why other qualifications should be added, or why those included should be removed.

 

The current apprenticeships rate review is set to undergo its third consultation as the Education and Skills Funding Agency steps in to consider changes to its eligible costs policy.

The agency is expected to launch a review of its rules that decide what costs count towards apprenticeship training tomorrow – inviting 600 organisation to take part.

It comes after the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education announced last week that it would delay the outcome of its funding rate review until the agency’s work in this area is complete.

The IfATE’s funding band consultation was first launched in February and proposes a controversial new model that could see rates cut by over 40 per cent.

The institute then opened a second consultation on a revised “rates-based variable model” in August, but concerns were raised that apprenticeships would become unprofitable if current ineligible costs are excluded from the new model.

Ineligible costs for apprenticeships, under current ESFA policy, include “enrolment, induction, initial assessment, initial diagnostic testing, or similar activity”.

Writing for FE Week at the time of the IfATE’s second consultation, Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief policy officer Simon Ashworth questioned how these costs can be deemed ineligible “when these are activities mandated by the ESFA and/or an expectation of what Ofsted would expect to see during inspection”. 

He said: “It is too easy for IfATE to pass the buck to the ESFA and argue that their hands are tied by the agency’s funding rules on eligible and ineligible costs.

“Both the institute and the ESFA need to work together to develop a solution; in AELP’s view, this means ESFA reviewing their funding rules on ineligible costs and the institute properly accounting for key mandated activity in the form of a general overhead input as part of their new funding band methodology model.”

Announcing the delay to its rate consultation last week, the IfATE said: “Many respondents noted that the model did not take account of those costs associated with the delivery of an apprenticeship which are not eligible for government funding.

“It is worth reiterating that eligible costs policy is outside the scope of this consultation, and there has been no change in this policy. Nevertheless, the ESFA have agreed in parallel to review current policy on eligible costs.”

The institute added that as the ESFA’s review of eligible costs may have an impact on the final funding model, “we need to ensure we understand these outcomes before we publish the full response to the consultation.

“We plan therefore to publish a full consultation response in parallel with the outputs from the testing work and the conclusion of ESFA’s review.”

Those organisations being invited to the ESFA’s review include provider representative bodies; apprenticeship trailblazer groups; employer providers; and the “top 30 main providers” funded by ESFA.

If an organisation does do not receive a direct invite they can contact their representative body or trailblazer contact and ask for their comments to be included in their response, the agency said.

No deadline for when the eligible costs review will conclude has been provided at this stage.

Almost 400 level 3 qualifications have been chosen for the prime minister’s lifetime skills guarantee – but major sectors including hospitality, tourism and media have been excluded as FE Week previously revealed.

The Department for Education has today published the list (click here) of qualifications that will be fully funded for adults without a full qualification at level 3 – equivalent to two full A-levels.

In total there are 379 qualifications on the list, although some (such as A levels in subjects such as physics) are the same qualification simply with a different awarding organisation and others that are not A levels, like the Advanced Certificate in Bookkeeping, are too small to be counted as a full level 3 qualification.

Backed with £95 million from the National Skills Fund and available from April 2021, the sectors involved include the likes of engineering, public services, construction and nursing.

However, as FE Week exclusively reported last month, key parts of the economy have been left out. Those excluded are deemed by the DfE to be a low priority with low wages, and include hospitality, media and arts, travel and tourism, sport and retail.

The government said the courses chosen for the offer are those that are “valued by employers”, with prime minister Boris Johnson adding that the lifetime skills guarantee will give “thousands of adults across the country the chance to do exactly that – as we build back better after the pandemic”. 

But Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, hit out at this “top-down driven list cooked up in Whitehall”, which shows the DfE has gone for a “convoluted way of trying to ration limited public funds from the get go, while dressing the whole policy up as being an absolute free learning entitlement like access to the NHS”.

“Indeed, this is increasingly looking like neither lifetime skills or a guarantee, with some of the qualifications listed, like A-level physics, looking more like the government’s ideological obsession with science subjects rather than a focus on what a post-Covid economy many need,” he added.

The DfE has said the list will be kept under review to “ensure that it continues to respond to changing labour market needs”, and there will be a “facility” for awarding organisations and mayoral combined authorities to suggest additions to the list.  

The lifetime skills guarantee builds on a policy that has been in place since 2013, which allows adults up to the age of 23 to be fully funded for their first full level 3 qualification from the adult education budget. Those aged 24 and over have since had to take out an advanced learner loan to pay for the course.

The current entitlement for those aged 23 and below spans nearly 1,200 qualifications, which is almost four times as many as those being made available under the lifetime skills guarantee.

The DfE said any qualifications included in this new level 3 adult offer, which are not included in the existing 19 to 23 statutory entitlement, will be made available for 19 to 23 learners. Any level 3 qualifications not currently included in this offer will continue to be eligible for advanced learner loans.

Funding for the new level 3 adult offer will be delivered through the Education and Skills Funding Agency in non-devolved areas, and delivered through Mayoral Combined Authorities and the Greater London Authority through a “separate grant”, on the “strict condition that funding is used for its intended purpose”.  

FE Week asked how the funding would be dished out to providers, presumed to be through the adult education budget, but the DfE declined to comment beyond saying further information about these arrangements “will be made in due course”.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers managing director Jane Hickie said today’s announcement is a “positive step” but while the inclusion of sectors such as adult care is welcomed, “we can’t fail to hide our disappointment that hospitality and retail have been left off when these sectors are being hit so hard by the effects of the pandemic”.

“Time is short for making the required funding available to providers and colleges but we hope that the ESFA and the MCAs take care to allocate it to providers with a good track-record of delivery,” she added.

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes said the “breadth of courses” included in the list is “vital in supporting rural and urban economies to build back better”.

“The qualifications will help people to get the skills they need in the labour market emerging from the pandemic so it is great to see that essential services like child and social care have been included alongside engineering, agriculture, construction and many others,” he added.

Sector subject areas included:

• Accounting and Finance
• Agriculture
• Building and construction
• Business management
• Child development and well-being
• Engineering
• Environmental conservation
• Health and social care
• Horticulture and forestry
• ICT for users
• ICT Practitioners
• Manufacturing technologies
• Mathematics and statistics
• Medicine and Dentistry
• Nursing and Subjects and Vocations Allied to Medicine
• Public services
• Science
• Teaching and Lecturing
• Transportation operations and maintenance
• Warehousing and distribution

Sector subject areas excluded

• Administration
• Animal care and veterinary science
• Anthropology
• Archaeology and archaeological sciences
• Architecture
• Crafts, creative arts and design
• Direct Learning Support
• Economics
• Geography
• History
• History, Philosophy and Theology
• Hospitality and catering
• Languages, literature and culture of the British Isles
• Law and Legal Services
• Marketing and Sales
• Media and communication
• Other languages, literature and culture
• Performing arts
• Philosophy
• Politics
• Publishing and Information Services
• Service enterprises
• Social Sciences
• Sociology and Social Policy
• Sport, leisure and recreation
•  
• Theology and religious studies
• Travel and Tourism
• Urban, Rural and Regional Planning

 

Further education providers are being asked to remain “on-call” up to the day before Christmas eve to assist with contact tracing, but will be able to decide when they can be contacted.

New guidance sent out to providers by the Department for Education today, seen by FE Week, says it has agreed with Public Health England a six-day window after the final day of teaching in which FE providers and schools will be asked to remain contactable.

This is in order to help with tracing people who have been in contact with positive Covid-19 cases, with the guidance reading: “This will allow enough time for positive coronavirus cases to be identified and confirmed by a test and for relevant contacts in the education setting to be traced.”

Although providers have flexibility to set their own term dates, the department has advised them to finish face-to-face teaching on 17 December, to give a cut-off date for the six day window of 23 December.

“This change does not diminish our view that colleges should continue to maximise access to face-to-face teaching, supplemented by some remote education,” the guidance continues, adding: “If the amount of face-to-face planned hours for students are reduced before the end of term, we expect that additional face to face planned hours will be provided before the end of the study programme.”

After those six days, further education providers will not be reached by NHS Test and Trace for contact tracing.

The guidance also says that during those six days, staff are not being asked to be on-call at all times, and may set a limited period in the day to receive notification of positive cases so they can advise contacts of that case to self-isolate.

The Association of Colleges has called for an end to competition in the FE market and for government to force collaboration between all providers which funding is conditional on.

The membership body has today published a report that claims competition has had a negative effect on choice, quality and the delivery of specialist courses and that “excessive” provision can “destabilise and fragment the post-16 education system at area level”.

Under a series of proposals put forward for greater coordination through a “place-based managed market”, the AoC calls for a “single post-16 commissioning and regulatory process” which applies to “all providers”, including school sixth-forms and independent training providers, to “promote efficiency, sufficiency, quality and equality and ends siloed regulation”.

The association also says a structure is needed which allows “strong, anchor institutions”, such as “successful colleges” to “lead provision and their area”.

There should be “clear conditions for funding, market entry and continued market presence based on strong local co-ordination”, it adds.

And under a new “rules-based framework”, the DfE should “require providers to engage with area coordination, with a duty to establish network strategies” and that there should be targets for “minimum and average class sizes for all providers”.

Ofsted should then inspect against this framework “to ensure that public resources are being deployed efficiently and responsibly”.

The report, titled ‘The impact of competition in post-16 education & training’, builds on the recommendations from the Independent Commission on the College of the Future report for England which last month called for new legislation to force all colleges to be part of “networks” where funding and accountability ultimately lies.

It comes ahead of the imminent FE white paper.

AoC chief executive David Hughes claimed that the recommendations put forward today would not mean a loss of autonomy for colleges, but that it should be colleges who lead on area co-ordination because they are “the major providers in an area and they can be given the responsibility to engage others, including employers, ITPs, schools, universities”.

Explaining the approach further to FE Week, Hughes said: “It is not going to be sitting around a table and deciding, for example, sixth form A delivers A-level maths, while sixth form B delivers BTECs in performing arts. That is not what we’re proposing, we are coming at it from the other end of saying what you want in an area is to look at what is needed broadly and to think about the curriculum offer spread and the levels to broadly meet the needs of the population and where there are gaps or problems you might do something.

“We’re not saying that somebody will be told they’re not allowed to deliver a qualification.”

Reacting to today’s AoC report, Association of Employment and Learning Providers managing director Jane Hickie said: “AELP is reluctant to comment again so soon after the commission’s report. But we honestly find the report’s references to it being about 16 to 19 provision and the references to markets confusing when forced collaboration between all types of providers across all post-16 provision appears to be the prescribed solution.  What is a ‘managed market’ really in this case other than an exercise in control by a lead college?  

“If the AoC is right to point the finger at the government for being at fault for being the market purchaser, then surely the answer is to make the individual learner the purchaser with the individual exercising choice via learning accounts over properly accredited courses supplied by government approved providers of whatever type. What is there to fear from individual choice?”     

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Our priority is making sure people across the country gain the skills we know employers value and that will help our economy recover as we build back better from coronavirus.

“Our ambitious FE White Paper will set out plans to build on and strengthen the excellent work that is already happening, so we can unlock even more potential and level up skills and opportunities across the county. More will be announced in due course.”

Here are the AoC’s policy recommendations in full:

Area co-ordination of provision to support sufficiency, efficiency, quality and equality:

• A single post-16 commissioning and regulatory process which applies to all providers and promotes efficiency, sufficiency, quality and equality and ends siloed regulation.
• Clear conditions for funding, market entry and continued market presence based on strong local co-ordination.
• A co-ordination process designed to protect successful specialist or ‘minority’ provision using a rules-based framework.
• Cohort growth seen as an opportunity to promote efficiency and sufficiency with a temporary moratorium on 16 to 19 market entry.
• Clear conditions for continued market presence based on the current size requirement for new sixth forms.
• Where more provision is needed, commissioners to be required to formally agree that any new provider should meet these conditions without destabilising or fragmenting existing local provision in a way which jeopardises efficiency, sufficiency, quality or equality and has appropriately qualified staff, equipment and resources to do so in a viable fashion at both course and cohort level.

 

Investing in anchor institutions as hubs for specialist or ‘minority’ provision

• Providers which have the track record and capacity to deliver specialist or ‘minority’ programmes successfully and efficiently to have ‘first call’ on investment.
• Successful colleges are anchor institutions in their local economies but require significant capital investment to remain so, starting with a £240m capital injection followed by recurrent, formula driven building and equipment budgets.
• A challenge fund to be put in place to support start-up costs for new areas that are highly specialised.

 

A rules-based framework

The Department for Education (DfE) should:

• develop a rules-based framework to include:

o target minimum and average class sizes for all providers.

o subject level viability models based on cohort size.

o ringfencing of 16-19 funding for 16-19 learners.

• require providers to engage with area coordination, with a duty to establish network strategies.
• use its powers to review and consolidate the most inefficient providers.
• undertake a back-to-basics review of the post-16 funding formula to determine if block, cohort or student funding drive the behaviours which optimise efficiency, quality and sufficiency.
• define sparsity as a new element in the post-16 funding formula for areas that are extremely rural.

Ofsted should:
• inspect against such a framework to ensure that public resources are being deployed efficiently and responsibly.

Ofsted has today published further details about how their phased return to normal inspection activity of FE providers will work from January.

As announced last week, graded full and short inspections will remain suspended until the summer.

But monitoring visits will return from the New Year and the watchdog will introduce ‘support and assurance’ visits to colleges and providers that educate 16 to 19-year-olds.

Ofsted’s ‘interim visits’, which have been taking place this autumn term and resulted in a published letter but no judgements, will conclude at the end of December.

Here is what FE providers need to know from today’s guidance…

1. One-day ‘support and assurance visits’ will not result in a published letter

From January 2021, Ofsted says it will carry out “regionally-based support and assurance visits” to those colleges and providers that offer education to 16 to 19 year olds and were judged to be ‘good’ for their overall effectiveness at their previous inspection.

Before the visits, inspectors may request copies of “relevant quality improvement and/or self-assessment documents used by the provider”, but they will not require new documents to be produced for their visit.

During visits, inspectors will “discuss with providers the progress they have made in dealing with weaknesses and/or next steps identified at their most recent inspection”.

They will also discuss with leaders the steps they have taken to “ensure that learners continue to receive a full curriculum”.

Each visit will normally last one working day but this “may vary according to circumstances and provider type. It may be necessary to carry out some meetings, discussions or aspects of the visits remotely”.

After the visits, inspectors will write to the provider’s principal or chief executive outlining their findings and set out the “next steps the provider needs to take to ensure continued improvements in provision”.

The letter will not be published but “may be shared with relevant funding bodies”.

2. The return of new provider monitoring visits

During the pause in routine inspections, Ofsted had also put a temporary stop to monitoring visits to new providers, including to those with funding to deliver apprenticeship.

Instead, it conducted monitoring visits to apprenticeship providers which had made ‘insufficient progress’ at their first visit.

New provider monitoring visits are set to return from January, and will be carried out the same way as before routine inspections were halted. For example, with judgements on individual themes based on three progress bars: insufficient, reasonable, significant.

The watchdog has reminded providers it does share its findings with regulators, such as the FE Commissioner, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, and combined authorities.

Last week, Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills Paul Joyce told FE Week new provider visits had been suspended for the autumn due to them having to “prioritise our resources” where it was “best suited,” meaning the interim visits Ofsted has undertaken this term.

However, he added, a “number of providers” had been allowed into the apprenticeship market, “so it therefore became very crowded with untried, untested providers”.

3. Monitoring visits to ‘inadequate’ and ‘requires improvement’ providers to also resume

Also, from January, inspectors will return to carrying out monitoring visits to providers found to ‘require improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ at a full inspection.

Progress judgements will be made on the main areas for improvement found at the last inspection.

Inspections for ‘inadequate’ providers will depend on whether they are still funded, and whether they still deliver training covered by the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

Following monitoring visits of grade three providers, they will receive another full inspection within 18 months of the visit’s report being published.

For monitoring visits to grade four providers, Ofsted will carry out another within six months, if the provider is still being funded.

Announcing its plans to resume inspection last week, Ofsted said it will continue to have the power to inspect an education provider if they have serious concerns about safeguarding.

In this latest guidance, it says if it has “significant” causes for concern, such as about safeguarding, inspectors will carry out a monitoring visit “at any reasonable time,” which will normally result in a progress judgement against each theme and a brief published report.

“Concerns arising from monitoring visits may lead to an early full inspection,” the guidance cautions.

4. Survey visits for thematic review of T Levels

Ofsted announced on Friday it would be carrying out survey visits to colleges and providers as part of a thematic survey of the first T Levels and the T Level transition programme, under orders from the Department for Education.

The survey will take place over two years – 2020/21 and 2021/22 – and the visits will “apply the education inspection framework methodology to assess educational effectiveness and the quality of education” for T Levels, Joyce said on Friday.

Ofsted has said an interim report of their findings will be published in September 2021, with a full report published in September 2022.

Ofsted published its annual report for 2019/20 last week, and while chief inspector Amanda Spielman chose not to use any of her speech to talk about the sector, deputy director for FE and skills Paul Joyce was on hand to catch us up on developments.

Here are four key points from FE Week’s interview with him…

1. No monitoring visits of new providers this autumn owing to resource issues

The education watchdog paused all routine inspection activity in March, and has only this week revealed it will resume monitoring visits to new providers come January, with full graded inspections to come in the summer.

Joyce said that in March, many providers were “not operating, so we could not go and see their provision to make the judgments”.

However, he said that in the autumn term, they had “prioritised our resources” where it was “best suited”, so made “interim visits” and second apprenticeship monitoring visits where the provider had received an ‘insufficient progress’ rating at their first visit – rather than carrying out first-time monitoring visits to new providers.

Apprenticeship provision was identified as the “weakest” area of FE and skills provision in Ofsted’s report for 2019/20 and Joyce admitted: “We remain concerned there are a number of new providers that have not yet had a visit. We will prioritise those providers, as soon as we’re able to do so.”

Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of providers that received new provider monitoring visits last year had at least one ‘insufficient progress’ judgment.

2. College mergers research on the cards after poor performance

One finding from the annual report was that of the 26 newly merged colleges Ofsted had inspected since 2015, one-third were graded as ‘requires improvement’.

This is a lower rating than the “original grade profile before the mergers” for the colleges involved, the report reads.

Joyce said that “unfortunately, because of the suspension of routine inspections” the watchdog hasn’t been to inspect a number of other merged colleges that had been scheduled a visit as enough time had now elapsed since their merger had taken place.

“We will return to those as soon as we’re able to return to full inspections, and once we’ve inspected more, we will be able to do some research and evaluation into the effectiveness of mergers – what worked well and hasn’t worked so well.”

He also promised Ofsted would return to look at the possibility of campus-level inspections for college groups, and will continue work with the Department for Education, Association of Colleges and other bodies “about what we can do to improve reporting and possibly grading of campuses”.

3. Ofsted can’t say if apprenticeship quality is better now than before the 2017 reforms

Ofsted’s annual report quite starkly highlights how ten per cent of apprenticeship grades at inspection were ‘inadequate’ – which the report says is “clearly too large a number”.

However, Joyce refused to be drawn on whether quality has improved or worsened on average since the widescale reforms to the apprenticeships programme in 2017.

“It’s too early for me to definitively say whether standards-based apprenticeships are a better product than legacy frameworks,” he told FE Week.

“There are still frameworks and standards being delivered in providers. So, until frameworks go completely and we’re looking at only standards, it’s really difficult to make that comparison.”

He did say it was “unfortunate many new apprenticeship providers had been allowed to enter the apprenticeship market without the necessary oversight.

“A lot of brand-new providers without any experience are coming into the market, and through our monitoring visits we have demonstrated the quality is poor.”

Pressed on whether his criticisms on oversight were directed at the Education and Skills Funding Agency, he said: “With hindsight, there were a number of providers let into the market, so it therefore became very crowded with untried, untested providers.”

4. Would not be drawn on achievement rate data decisions

Joyce refused repeated requests for his view on the decision by the DfE not to publish and share with Ofsted qualification achievement rate (QAR) data for providers in 2019/20.

“We will deal with whatever situation we have,” he said. “We will use whatever data is available to us from the DfE, and we will use whatever data is available to the provider.

“I won’t want to use any data the provider does not see themselves, because that’s not open and transparent.

“If we’ve got it, we’ve got it; if we haven’t, we haven’t,” he summarised.

Since the interview, the DfE has announced that, although qualification achievement rate data will not be published for 2020/21, it will be shared privately with Ofsted, as well as providers and the department.

QAR data is used to inform inspection judgments as well as being central to Ofsted’s published “risk assessment methodology” when deciding which colleges and training providers to visit.