Now is FE’s chance to deliver higher technical education

The FE white paper gives colleges the chance to become high-level providers of technical education as in other countries, writes Ewart Keep

Last week’s long-awaited FE white paper sets the key strategic priority of higher-level technical skills and sub-degree provision.

This is an important focus. Research by Professor Paul Lewis at King’s College London shows that in some areas of high-tech manufacturing, shortfalls in technician training create a significant bottleneck in the ability of many companies to adopt new technologies and to innovate.

International comparisons also show that England has a higher level skills provision gap at sub-degree level than it should.

As the Augar review underlined, most other developed countries have a stream of what is termed “short-cycle” tertiary provision (ie shorter than a full bachelor’s-level degree). This is often delivered not in a university, but in a specialist institution.

We, by contrast, have spent the past 15 to 20 years trying to plug every skills gap above level 3 with university-delivered degrees.

But colleges are well placed to deliver growth in higher technical education. Now is their chance.

The white paper offers the sector opportunity to develop an agile, realistic and cost-effective approach.

In many instances this will mean that individual colleges will need to specialise their provision in subject areas where they have a comparative expertise.

The white paper offers the sector opportunity to develop an agile, realistic and cost-effective approach

They will need to cooperate with other colleges to deliver tailored skills plans that the government hopes will meet local skills needs.

It will also mean strengthening links between colleges and universities, so that progression through to degree-level and masters’ courses can be created.  

In Scotland, such “articulation” agreements between colleges and universities are common. In some instances, these links are becoming closer. For example in Aberdeen, NE College and the Robert Gordon University have created a cooperative arrangement with a common prospectus and seamless integration of provision across the two institutions.

Many of the skills that employers say they need are acquired through intermediate or higher technical qualifications – but not enough young people pursue this path.

This means that careers’ support and student finance will also be critical to the success of the white paper. It’s not just about building progression pathways for young people, but also about opportunities for adults to gain the skills they need to progress in work at any stage of their lives.

Colleges can only ensure people can get the skills they need if it is made easier for them to do so, with many existing barriers broken down – from lack of flexibility to lack of funding.

Meanwhile, the white paper’s focus on higher-level vocational skills also offers colleges a new starting point for expanded innovation support, particularly with smaller companies.

Colleges already work closely with employers, but there are measures in the paper that could allow them to play a bigger role.

The UK has a long tail of poorly performing businesses, many of them lacking the managerial skills and capacity to organise even basic activities.

In the medium term there is much that colleges can do to help. For instance, they can help to support local employer groupings to enhance workplace learning by providing training-the-trainer services.

They can also offer more flexible short courses in basic aspects of management such as finance, human resources, ICT, and so on.

With the right investment and oversight there will be fertile ground for colleges to develop and grow this collaborative offering – especially through the proposed “college business centres”.

By putting employers at the heart of the system, the government has recognised this pivotal business support role for colleges.

Meanwhile the independent commission on the College of the Future has made it clear that colleges must work together more.

We need an education and skills system that is truly joined up. I hope this white paper signals the start of moving in that direction.

Why was student wellbeing not in the white paper?

Student wellbeing is as important as financial management and the curriculum, says Nathalie Richards. She outlines seven support strategies

A key aim of last week’s FE white paper is to help every young person gain the skills they need for life-long employment.

But there is no mention of student wellbeing and no new plans to support students’ emotional development in the months and years ahead.

If there’s one thing we have learned from the experience of the pandemic, it’s that emotional wellbeing and resilience – often referred to as “soft” skills – are critical as young people make choices for their futures against the backdrop of the crisis.

Colleges have a key role in helping their students to develop the skills to cope with whatever life has in store, long after Covid-19.

Here are seven strategies for supporting the wellbeing of FE students:

  1. Push wellbeing up the agenda

Wellbeing has to become as essential as financial management, recruitment and curriculum planning – and must be prioritised from the top.

Launch an initiative to upskill tutors and staff so they can spot the signs that a student could be struggling emotionally and step in to help.

A tutor who can identify when a student is going through a difficult emotional period or is finding it hard to stay on track with their learning might prevent an issue from becoming a crisis.

  1. Walk the talk

Take steps to create a culture of open conversation across your college when it comes to emotional wellbeing and mental health – including staff.

If they are happy to, encourage staff to talk openly with young people about the challenges they have faced and how they have overcome them.

This can break the stigma of mental health issues, strengthen relationships between students and tutors and inspire learners to find new ways to tackle their difficulties.

  1. Reduce isolation

Live online sessions can be opened up early so young people have an opportunity to talk through issues they might be having learning from home.

Spending time with their peers, in person or online, can ease pressure and help students find effective strategies for juggling college and home life.

  1. Build students’ resilience

Young people need resilience to be able to tackle the difficulties life throws at them, so make time in the curriculum for it.

Whether you run an online workshop to promote mindfulness, launch an exercise group or promote the benefits of writing a journal, you’ll be helping young people to develop a valuable toolkit to manage the challenges they face, inside and outside their studies.

  1. Get clarity on wellbeing issues

Run a short survey each week or month to get a clear understanding of how students are feeling. Digital tools such as apps can help to make surveys easily manageable with fast results.

Run a short survey each week or month to get a clear understanding of how students are feeling

Knowing that issues such as anxiety and self-harm are on the rise in your college allows you to make informed decisions about what support to put in place and act quickly to get vulnerable students the help they need.

  1. Keep support services in the spotlight

Not every student will have read the relevant area of the website or induction pack that outlines the specialist services on offer to support their pastoral and academic progress.

Kick off a new campaign to raise awareness of this support on social media and other channels, and keep wellbeing at the forefront of students’ minds throughout the academic year.

  1. Reach out to parents

While some students can make great progress learning remotely, others can find the experience isolating and can quickly disengage.

Parents and carers can still be an important source of support, even as students mature. So, strengthen home-college links with regular contact by phone or video conferencing and set up an online group where parents can support each other, share learning resources and keep young people motivated.

 

It’s risky business to have an employer-dominated skills system

The Department for Education must put more faith in local leaders rather than employers if it wants the skills white paper to work, writes Andy Norman

Having just launched the long-awaited FE white paper, skills minister Gillian Keegan was asked to name its biggest reform.

Her answer – embedding employers at the heart of the system – was telling. The white paper is confirmation of what has long been clear, which is that the government is building an employer-led skills system.

Involving employers is sensible. Courses that do not cultivate relevant skills help neither learners nor businesses.

But an over-reliance on businesses will not build the system we need as we emerge from Covid-19 and look to level up the country. For that, we need empowered local leaders.

There is much to like in the skills policy agenda put forward by the white paper. Much of what the Centre for Progressive Policy has been calling for has been adopted by the government, including an extension in level 3 funding eligibility and a boost to online and blended learning.

And although there are things missing, the Lifetime Skills Guarantee is the kind of national level ambition the sector needs.

However, the white paper continues a worrying shift of power away from local leaders and towards employers. Instead of skills advisory panels led by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Mayoral Combined Authorities, we have Local Skills Improvement Plans, with only a passing promise to “consult” MCAs.

Having devolved the Adult Education Budget to MCAs in 2019, Whitehall is stepping back from any further devolution, preferring instead to empower employers.

For example, the Department for Education has set which level 3 courses will be eligible for funding nationally under the National Skills Fund, with courses chosen according to prevailing business demand.

Whitehall is stepping back from any further devolution, preferring instead to empower employers

With many parts of the country stuck in a low-skill, low-wage trap, businesses alone will not shift the dial.

We know that businesses tend to underinvest in training relative to the optimal level for society because the benefits that accrue to individual businesses are less than those that accrue to wider society.

There is evidence that this is a particular problem for UK businesses. According to the latest data, firms in the UK spend less than half as much on training as the average for countries in the EU-27. Danish firms, for example, outspend their UK equivalents by a ratio of five to one.

Depressingly, the Employer Skills Survey shows that, between 2015 and 2019, training expenditure by UK businesses fell by an average of £200 per employee.

Nor should we assume that the goals that society has for the skills system will match neatly the goals of individual businesses. Recent reforms that forced businesses to engage with the apprenticeship system saw rebadging of existing training and those from deprived communities being squeezed out of higher-level courses.

So, if we build a system that is driven by the skills needs of businesses, where should the strategic direction come from?

A different approach is needed, one which encourages business involvement in course design but where local leaders can align FE with wider strategic economic objectives.

In this approach, mapped out in a Centre for Progressive Policy report from December, skills are an integral part of devolving industrial policy to MCAs.

With further devolution unlikely, what can be done under the current proposals? Firstly, the DfE should allow for local flexibility in level 3 funding, taking into account input from MCAs and LEPs.

Secondly, the move towards outcomes-based funding should target good work. While the white paper is entitled “Skills for Jobs”, what local areas really need is “skills for good jobs”.

The skills system must now aim to break local areas out of their low-skill traps and move people into better jobs, boosting economic resilience in the process.

We finally have a government that recognises the importance of further education to economic prosperity. But, for the skills system to level up the country and help struggling communities, Whitehall cannot rely too heavily on businesses. Instead, it must have a little more faith in local leaders.

 

 

Flagship £50m skills bootcamps prioritise courses dominated by men

The government’s £50 million rollout of the skills bootcamps policy has come under fire for only funding sectors heavily dominated by men.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the extension of the bootcamp pilot as part of a “refreshed Industrial Strategy” at the launch of the Lifetime Skills Guarantee, last September.

Paid for from the new National Skills Fund, this month the DfE launched two tenders for level 3-plus “bootcamp” courses.

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

An FE Week investigation into the tenders found the DfE is seeking a very narrow range of digital, engineering and construction related courses mostly studied by men.

When asked whether an equalities impact assessment for the bootcamps policy had been undertaken, the DfE appeared to not know, saying they would “respond through the Freedom of Information Act process”.

The “digital skills bootcamps” tender, known as lot 1, is seeking bids for courses in IT subjects such as “Cloud Computing, Data Engineering and Software Development”.

Analysis by FE Week of FE enrolment data for last year found less than 20 percent of level 3 IT courses were studied by women. In the case of the Award in Cloud Services qualification, for example, just 42 (8 per cent) out of 507 enrolments were female.

The “technical and cross-digital skills bootcamps” tender, known as lot 2, is seeking bids for courses in subjects such as “electrotechnical, welding, engineering, construction and electronics”.

FE Week analysis found on one electrotechnical qualification last year women represented just 83 (1.6 percent) of 5,098 enrolments.

The DfE bootcamps “service requirement” tender document says there are “seven key performance indicators” in a spreadsheet which “potential suppliers must complete” and “which will apply to each lot and will be included in contract terms.”

The document then goes on to lists what appear to be 11 indicators, including: “Gender diversity must be encouraged, we will be aiming for a minimum of 50 per cent female learners.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges said: “FE Week analysis shows that it is very unlikely that the bootcamps will achieve participation of at least 50 per cent women.

“The sectors and skills chosen are clearly in high demand in the labour market and yet we know they are male dominated.

“We would encourage the DfE to recognise that and work with us in the sector to achieve greater equality of access and outcome on these bootcamps and in choosing future sectors and disciplines.”

He added: “It’s worrying that this flagship programme might not cater for the thousands of people losing their jobs in sectors like retail and hospitality because the distance to achieve in these disciplines might be far too big.”

Susan Pember, former director at the DfE and leader of a membership body for adult education providers added her concern, saying: “I would hope that any successful bidder will have to detail in their bid the proactive measures they are going to take to encourage more women on to these programmes.”

But FE Week found the DfE “tender response document” included no questions about how the applicant would attract more female learners to the courses they were hoping to run.

The 50 per cent female enrolment target now also appears to be watered down.

Following a question about how seriously the DfE was taking the 50 per cent target, they responded formally to all applicants on the tendering portal this week to say: “The policy aim is for 50/50 split, however we appreciate that will not always be possible. Suppliers will not be disadvantaged if they are unable to meet this target.”

When challenged on the male dominated sectors, a DfE spokesperson said: “We are seeing a demand for digital and technical skills bootcamps across many sectors and industries, including healthcare, where there are high numbers of females and we already have bootcamps that are targeted at women and BAME participants.”

FE Week is unaware of any government plans to fund bootcamps in the healthcare sector.

The DfE spokesperson continued: “We want everyone to benefit from this offer and share an ambition with employers to increase diversity. Our aim is for a 50/50 gender split and to encourage people from under-represented groups to take advantage of these fantastic opportunities.

“We expect this to be achievable by employers working with bootcamps providers to encourage a balanced take up. However, providers will not be disadvantaged if they are unable to meet this target, for example, where a bootcamp is aimed at a specific cohort where a 50/50 gender split would be unachievable.”

 

 

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 341

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving.

Louise Doswell, Principal, Preston’s College

Start date: June 2021

Previous job: Deputy chief executive and deputy principal, York College

Interesting fact: She enjoys walking, playing golf and gardening.

Jane Hickie, Chief executive, Association of Employment and Learning Providers

Start date: January 2021

Previous job: Managing director, Association of Employment and Learning Providers

Interesting fact: She studied for a short time at the British Academy of Interior Design and says her husband believes she cannot enter a house without wanting to redesign the whole place.

Stephen Pugh, Chair, Suffolk New College

Start date: January 2021

Previous job: Finance director, Adnams

Interesting fact: He sings in two choirs (when restrictions permit) and also likes writing limericks.

Influential MP calls for inquiry over fears £2bn Kickstart scheme has become ‘chancer’s charter’

The chair of an influential committee of MPs has called for an investigation into the government’s Kickstart scheme after FE Week revealed how firms based outside the UK or with no trading history were selected as “gateway” providers.

Meg Hillier (pictured), who heads the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, was “shocked” to hear how firms were set up overnight to benefit from the taxpayer-funded scheme. She is now referring the case to the National Audit Office to scrutinise the spending.

The Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch is concerned that the situation has “opened up another chancer’s charter”.

Hillier told FE Week: “This should be investigated. If the DWP is not already doing so, I would be shocked. I will also write to the department to find out what is going on here.”

Since the launch of the new £2 billion wage-subsidised employment programme in September, small employers have had to use “gateway” companies – which include colleges, chambers of commerce and hundreds of private companies – where they have fewer than 30 vacancies, according to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) policy.

Gateway providers “must” have “experience of managing partnership agreements with third parties” and “robust financial and governance processes to manage the application”, the policy adds.

The DWP has issued more than 600 approved firms a per-job placement fee of £300, plus up to £1,500 for every 16 to 24-year-old on Universal Credit who they put through the scheme if they continue to help with job support and training.

But the DWP is understood to be so concerned about the quality of gateway providers that it has now stopped taking applications and scrapped the requirement for small employers to use them from 3 February.

Examples of gateway firms found by FE Week include Kickstart Jobs Ltd which, according to Companies House, was incorporated just three months ago.

Another, KA001 Limited, lists a Gmail contact email address on the gov.uk Kickstart website. Its first set of accounts filed in November 2020 shows “total assets less liabilities” of £100.

FE Week also found the example of Casual Speakers Ltd, a DWP-authorised Kickstart gateway firm which Companies House lists as being based in Tel-Aviv, Israel, and therefore has not filed accounts in the UK.

After hearing of our findings, Hiller said there was “a real issue here”.

She added: “Over the whole of the Covid pandemic we have seen the government letting out contracts fast, but for this one they seem to have contracted to companies that only set up in order to get the money. If that is not a chancer’s charter, I’m not sure what is.”

To become a gateway provider, the DWP said firms first go through automated due diligence checks via a “Cabinet Office spotlight tool” which only takes “seconds” to complete. They can then also be subject to human checks.

FE Week also found many companies advertising themselves as being a Kickstart gateway with no history of job matching.

Firms advertising their Kickstart gateway services include Banana Scoops Ltd, an ice cream supplier to Ocado which claimed on Twitter to have 70 placements already approved with the DWP. Another encouraging applications from small employers is Rollerworld Ltd, a company with an ice rink in Essex.

Asked whether the DWP had launched its own investigation into the matter, a DWP spokesperson said: “Kickstart gateways have been subject to stringent checks to ensure we are careful with taxpayers’ money. All companies who applied to become a gateway were required to be registered with Companies House.”

Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary, Jonny Reynolds, said: “Billions of pounds of public money is being poured into Kickstart and we must ensure it is being spent well to create meaningful job opportunities for young people.

“Young people and businesses can’t afford any more incompetence from this government.”

 

Externally-set papers aren’t ‘exams by the back door’, says Ofqual chief

Proposals for externally-set papers to help inform teacher GCSE and A-level grades this year are not “exams by the back door”, Ofqual’s chief regulator has said after students flagged concerns.

Ofqual is proposing that papers, providing by exams boards, can help teachers award a grade to their pupils this year after exams were scrapped.

But the papers, dubbed “mini exams”, have clearly alarmed some students, who have flagged their concern in Ofqual’s consultation on the plans.

Ofqual chief Simon Lebus has published a blog today to “allay concerns that some students have expressed to us – that these are exams by the back door. They are not.

“But an externally-set task would help teachers by providing them with an external reference point, giving them greater confidence in the grade they were awarding.”

He added the papers would “support teachers to assess their students consistently”, and could be used as “just one source of evidence to determine a student’s grade. Other sources of evidence could include mock exam results, internal assessments or work already completed.”

“Having something set externally provides a useful reference point, and helps to support consistency between different students in a school or college, and between schools and colleges in different parts of the country,” Lebus added.

He said exam boards could also “sample teachers’ marking as part of the external quality assurance arrangements and look to see how the school or college is using different sources of evidence”. Ofqual has sought views on whether to make the paper compulsory.

Lebus said using questions similar in style and format to normal exam papers “isn’t because we’re trying to squeeze in an exam via a different route. It is because most students would be familiar with the sorts of questions used, as students typically use past papers to help them prepare for their exams. It just means there could be questions in a form that students are used to.”

Teachers could also have a choice of topics, so they can “take account of what has or hasn’t been fully taught due to the disruption. The exact approach would have to be tailored for each subject, with exam boards confirming the details.”

 

‘Clear there’s no straightforward options’

Ofqual confirmed today it has received over 90,000 responses to its consultation, which closes tonight. That equates to a response every 13 seconds since the consultation was launched at 3.30pm on Friday, January 15.

It’s also over seven times more than the 12,623 responses received from last year’s consultation on replacing exams.

Ofqual has drawn in “extra resource” to deal with the deluge, with a team reading “all the responses” as they are submitted.

Last night they said the “great majority” of over 86,000 responses had been read and are “confident” that they will be able to produce a “full report in good time to allow prompt decision making”.

However the regulator refused to provide details of how many people are working on it. Ofqual has committed to announcing its plans in the week of February 22.

Lebus said several themes are emerging, adding: “What is clear is that there are no straightforward options for how exams are to be replaced.”

 

EPI backs assessments for all, ASCL warns against mandatory papers

The Association of School and College Leaders has today backed using such papers, which they say should be done under “reasonably controlled conditions is possible”.

“However, they should not be treated as ‘mini-exams’… The use of these papers or questions should be encouraged, rather than mandated,” ASCL added.

Meanwhile the Education Policy Institute has said a “short, standardised assessment” should be taken by all students in May or June, in most subjects.

The think tank has also said school and college grades should be “anchored” to those issued in 2019 to avoid “excessive grade increases” and that students in alternative provision should be funded to stay at school or college “for one or two additional years”.

Registrations for DfE’s £1m ‘skills toolkit’ could be from all around the globe

Registrations for courses on the government’s “skills toolkit” that have been celebrated by ministers could be coming from anywhere in the world, the Department for Education has admitted.

More than £1 million of public money has been spent on developing and advertising the “platform”, which directs visitors to free online content provided by the likes of Amazon, the Open University, Microsoft and LinkedIn.

Ministers across government have hailed the success of the toolkit since it launched in April 2020. Education secretary Gavin Williamson declared that it had had a “transformational” impact on the digital and numeracy skills for England’s out-of-work people during the pandemic.

But little is known about who is accessing the content as most do not require registrations. And, as FE Week previously revealed, significant overcounting has already led to revised estimates of “course start” claims in official statistics which continue to include web hits.

FE Week has now discovered that the DfE is also unable to identify from which countries the registrations are coming. The department said the data is held and reported by the relevant providers who “do not provide country data, so DfE cannot confirm the country related to course registrations”.

A number of providers with courses on the skills toolkit have confirmed that they do not filter for registrations that are England-based only.

Toby Perkins, Labour’s shadow apprenticeships and lifelong learning minister, criticised the DfE for “failing to enact themselves the kind of data collection they would routinely insist on from other providers”.

He added: “The government is very happy to make statistically questionable claims about the skills toolkit, yet it’s clear that it has no idea who is accessing the website and to what extent those people are utilising it.

“No one wants to make this small and potentially valuable initiative unduly bureaucratic, but it is important that they are aware of who is using it, who it is reaching and failing to reach, and that information should be both collected and published.

“We all want to celebrate successful initiatives but, without this data, I don’t think it’s possible to be sure how successful the skills toolkit is in improving the skills and opportunities of British workers and learners.”

When asked if the DfE was concerned that it had no grasp on what countries course registrations were coming from, a spokesperson said: “We are committed to ensuring that the skills toolkit is accessible and of value to people across the country.”

They added that the department was “able to identify England-based website visits in line with GDPR” through the toolkit.

This latest revelation comes as FE Week continues to challenge the DfE to release the names of firms that were given almost £800,000 to develop the platform. The department has kept the names a secret so far, refusing a freedom of information request.

Through the same FOI request the DfE did release a breakdown of the 118,980 course registrations by each provider on the skills toolkit as of 1 November 2020, which has caused further concern at the official figures being reported.

A course provided by Corndel called “organisational financial management: an introduction”, for example, is reported as having had 8,090 starts. However, the provider says that it does not track the usage of the materials and no “registration” data has been provided to the DfE.

The DfE has also come under fire for claiming the courses on the skills toolkit are of “high quality”, considering they receive no quality assurance from the likes of Ofsted or Ofqual and many of the courses simply involve short video tutorials or PDF documents.

Sue Pember, a former director of FE funding in the DfE, previously said: “When the DfE puts out its own advertising for the toolkit, it always talks about good quality. But under whose judgment? It may be, but how do they know?”

She added that the DfE should be “cautious” as “website hits or even signatures on enrolment forms do not equate to learning taking place”.

Latest official data published by the DfE claims that, as of 27 December 2020, there have been an estimated 138,000 course registrations. The department does accept that these are “experimental statistics” and says it is working to collect “more robust estimates of registrations”.

Mayors want more courses included under lifetime skills guarantee

Regional mayors are preparing to plead for courses to be added to the government’s lifetime skills guarantee offer after ministers controversially excluded critical economic sectors from the list.

However, most remain tight-lipped about which industries they want to target.

Almost 400 level 3 qualifications covering sectors including engineering, construction, public services and IT will be fully funded for adults without a full qualification at level 3 – equivalent to two full A-levels – from April 2021 under the £95 million scheme.

But industries such as hospitality, tourism and the media have been left off the government list because they are deemed to be a low priority with low wages.

Mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) will be allocated a share of the funds to give to their area’s providers to deliver courses through their devolved adult education budgets.  However they have been told that they can only submit requests for additional courses if they are “economically relevant to the local economy”.

The Greater London Authority told FE Week that it was “looking at this issue in detail and expects to submit a request in due course”. The Liverpool City Region is engaging in “detailed discussions” with its colleges and providers to decide which additions to ask for.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority is “in the process of submitting a list of qualifications to the EFSA, which will focus on Local Industrial Strategy growth sectors”, and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority is “working proactively with colleges, providers and local businesses to identify any gaps in the course list, with a view to making a request to the DfE for additional courses if required”.

The only mayoral authority that has so far submitted a formal request is in the West Midlands. A spokesperson said that it had asked for “one specific rail engineering qualification to be added to the list to date, as rail is a growing employment sector for us”.

The Department for Education confirmed to FE Week that, if a course is added at the request of a mayoral authority, then it will be made available to everyone in the country through the offer.

Under the department’s rules, there is a “strict condition that funding is used for its intended purpose” by MCAs. Otherwise they face having to hand the funding back to central government.

Funding allocations for each combined authority have not yet been communicated to the relevant mayors despite the approach of the April 2021 start date.

The DfE unveiled the list of level 3 courses under the lifetime skills guarantee offer in December. At the time the department said it had chosen qualifications that were “valued by employers”.

But Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, hit out at this “top-down driven list cooked up in Whitehall”. He said it showed that the DfE had 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”.

The new offer builds on a policy in place since 2013. It 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 covers nearly 1,200 qualifications, almost four times as many as those made available under the lifetime skills guarantee.

The DfE has said that any qualifications included in this new level 3 adult offer which are not included in the existing entitlement will be made available for 19 to 23-year-old learners.