Free recording: Latest FE policy response and requirements to Covid-19 outbreak

The sixth webcast in FE Week’s series – further education sector’s response and requirements to coronavirus pandemic – was broadcast yesterday.

This week, FE Week publisher Shane Mann was in conversation Christian Kaye, the senior regional business development manager at insurance firm Gallagher, who provided an overview of what organisations should consider in terms of risk assessments and insurances.

Dame Ruth Silver also spoke about FETL’s latest report – Voices of the shamed: The personal toll of shame and shaming in further education.

And to finish off the broadcast we had FE Week editor Nick Linford talk us through the latest guidance and requirements for the FE sector published last week, including the extension to the furlough scheme.

You can watch it back for free by clicking here.

Another webcast will take place next Monday at 14:00-15:30. Register here.

Why a ‘right to retrain’ is essential for an inclusive recovery

The outbreak of coronavirus will permanently change the shape of our economy. In adapting to this change, we must minimise the number of people locked out of the labour market by introducing a turbo-charged ‘right to retrain’. This should be locally led and focus on those most at risk of losing their jobs as a result of the current crisis, writes Andy Norman

It is difficult to overstate the scale of the economic change seen over the last three months. 8.4 million private sector workers are having their salaries paid by the government, whole industries have been mothballed, and the UK has seen its biggest monthly fall in GDP since comparable records began. Change on this scale inevitably means the shape of our economy will never be the same again, even if we do find a vaccine. The Job Retention Scheme (JRS) has so far limited the extent to which this has fed through into structural employment. But with the chancellor starting to wind down the JRS by introducing employer contributions from August, a comprehensive system of retraining is crucial if we are to limit unemployment and eventually thrive in our new economic landscape. 

The coronavirus isn’t the first cause of intense structural change in our economy

The crisis will have permanent impacts 

A range of economic studies have shown that even short, sharp shocks can permanently change people’s behaviour in meaningful ways. A study of London’s public transport data by economists at the University of Oxford found that as a result of a 48-hour tube strike, a significant proportion of people permanently changed their commuting behaviour. The theory behind this finding is that shocks shake us out of our habits and force us to reconsider the alternatives. 

It’s easy to imagine the ways in which the current lockdown could permanently change our behaviour. Will people go back to paying £3 for a coffee on the way to work every morning, having managed without during lockdown? Will companies continue to rent expensive office space in big cities after their workforce has adapted to home-working? 

Shocks can also speed up existing trends that had been happening more gradually. For example, a recent survey by EY found that nearly half of all business leaders are planning to accelerate plans to automate their operations in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak. Even absent these types of changes, the short term damage done by the current lockdown could well leave some sectors – such hospitality and aerospace – permanently smaller. At the end of May, Easy Jet announced it would be cutting staff numbers by 30 per cent. While some sectors may shrink, others will grow, including the information and communication sector as more of our society moves online.

Adapting to change

The key question then concerns not how we can return our economy to normal, but rather how we can adapt to the structural economic changes that are coming our way. The goal for policymakers must be to limit structural unemployment, a key mechanism through which short term economic shocks translate into permanent damage to livelihoods. The latest research here at the Centre for Progressive Policy shows the devastating scale of long run economic scarring that awaits if we fail to act. 

The government was right to introduce the JRS as soon as the scale of the crisis became clear in order to prevent an explosion in unemployment and economic hardship. However, the Chancellor has now begun the process of withdrawing the scheme by requiring firms to pay National Insurance and pension contributions from August. When this happens, the changes to our economy over the past few months will unfortunately mean some of the jobs covered by the scheme will no longer be viable. There’s a real risk of a spike in structural unemployment. 

To minimise unemployment and limit long term scarring, effective retraining of the workers most at risk will be vital. Unfortunately, we haven’t been very good at retraining in the past – partly because it’s hard to get right, but mostly because it has never been given the status and funding it deserves. However, in recent years some decent groundwork has been laid. The early stages of a National Retraining Scheme are now being rolled out in pilot areas, guided by a collation of government departments, businesses and unions. The government has also pledged to introduce a new National Skills Fund worth £600 million a year, as a first step towards a “Right to Retrain”.

A turbo-charged right to retrain

Now is the time to deliver a turbo-charged right to retrain in order to reduce potential long-term unemployment and support growth industries as we emerge from the crisis. This right to retrain should follow four high level principles:

  1. Be directed at those most at risk of structural unemployment. This means those who have already lost their jobs as a result of coronavirus, but also workers currently protected by the JRS.
  2. Support effective matching of old skills to new industries. For example, the Brookfield Institute in Canada has built a model that uses big data to link ‘origin jobs’ (those in decline) to ‘destination jobs’ (those experiencing growth) based on how closely the sets of required skills and knowledge match up. These types of models could be scaled up so that local leaders can use retraining to guide their economies from ‘origin sectors’ to ‘destination sectors’, smoothing the transition.
  3. Harness the power of local and national government to drive new demand for skilled labour. One possible source is our transition to a greener economy, with the National Grid estimating that the UK will need to fill 117,000 new green jobs by 2030 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Local areas should also look to capitalise on their existing economic assets as a source for new skilled jobs, adapting work done for their local industrial strategies.
  4. Focus on upskilling the workforce rather than simply moving people into poor quality jobs. It is becoming increasingly clear that the current outbreak is hitting low paying, insecure jobs the hardest, with high skill jobs proving to be the most resilient. According to recent research by McKinsey, half of all jobs currently at risk pay less than £10 per hour. And so, by upskilling people whose jobs have been wiped out during this crisis, we can increase resilience and move our economy onto a more inclusive footing. 

The coronavirus isn’t the first cause of intense structural change in our economy, and it won’t be the last. But let it be the catalyst for finally getting retraining right, helping us move towards a more sustainable and inclusive economy in the future. As the former Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel once said, ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste’.

What do we need to know? Apprenticeship quango surveys employers

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has launched an online survey to find out what impact coronavirus has had on recruitment and what more they can do to support employers.

Apprentice employers are being asked to forecast how their recruitment over the summer will compare to the same time last year and for “key messages” that should be “heard by the institute.”

The survey also asks when employers will “next have an apprenticeship start” and whether there is “anything preventing your organisation from starting apprentices”.

The research comes after skills minister Gillian Keegan said in April that her “biggest worry” during the Covid-19 pandemic is the “recruitment of new apprentices”.

She acknowledged that “potentially businesses and others are not going to have this top of mind right now” but was concerned about “how to keep the whole pipeline going with all this uncertainty”.

On Friday, the DfE published statistics that showed the immediate impact of Covid-19 on apprenticeship starts. From 23 March, when lockdown started, to the end of April, a total of 13,020 apprenticeship starts had been reported so far – half of the 26,330 reported for the same period at the same point last year.

The IfATE’s survey goes on to ask employers for the “key message you would like to be heard by the institute”. One message that is bound to be popular with some is a call for an extension to apprenticeship frameworks, after the Department for Education confimed last month that the 31 July 2020 cut-off date for starts is still going ahead despite sector-wide concern.

Robert Nitsch, the IfATE’s chief operating officer, said: “We are really keen to hear from you about anything further you think the Institute should know.

“We will also be running this survey again in future to make sure we are listening to your changing needs.”

The closing date for the survey is 15 June and can be found here.

DfE to tackle ‘fake news’ with its own rapid rebuttal unit

The Department for Education is setting up its own “rapid rebuttal unit” to tackle so-called “fake news” in the media.

It is said to be one of the first department-specific teams in government to challenge “misinformation at the source” and rebuff “misleading content” before reaching the mainstream.

Two DfE job adverts for media officers to work in the unit are currently live and state that this work is “more vital than ever” in making sure the public aren’t “deceived by so-called fake news”.

They add: “The department is one of the first in government to be looking to tackle misinformation at the source with a team that will aim to make sure misleading content running in the media or on social media is corrected in the shortest period possible time before it reaches the mainstream and misinforms the public.

“The department’s new rapid rebuttal unit aims to spot and counter misinformation on social media at its source, making sure it doesn’t make its way into mainstream media and mislead the public. This is one of the first teams of its type across government.”

A similar but government-wide “rapid response” unit was set up in the Cabinet Office in 2018 by former prime minister Theresa May to counter fake news, and then by minister Michael Gove in August 2019 which specifically targeted Brexit half-truths.

In March, the Cabinet Office announced this unit would now combat misinformation about Covid-19.

There do not appear to be any other similar teams across Whitehall, meaning the DfE’s could be the first department-specific rebuttal unit.

Fake news was a problem raised by former education secretary Damian Hinds just before he was sacked in July 2019. Speaking at a social media summit, he spoke about the specific problem of the “spread of misleading content on vaccinations” in schools but added this “issue goes much further than that, and without firm action it is set to get a lot worse”.

The concern has not been raised by Hinds’ successor Gavin Williamson since he came into post, but there have been recent cases of his department publicly rebutting stories published by the media.

On 18 April, a preview of the Sunday Times’ front page revealed reports that senior ministers had drawn up plans for schools to reopen as early as 11 May.

But the DfE tweeted that evening: “No decision has been made on a timetable for re-opening schools. Schools remain closed until further notice, except for children of critical workers and the most vulnerable children. Schools will only re-open when the scientific advice indicates it is the right time to do so.”

Just today the DfE has also published a blog entitled “addressing misleading claims about department guidance” following two stories in the media from Sunday.

It said that one, from the Independent, reported on claims made by National Education Union joint general secretary Mary Bousted who suggested the department’s guidance to schools on how to open to more pupils have been updated 41 times since it was posted on 12 May.

The DfE claimed this is “untrue” and the guidance in question has been updated “just once since it was published last month”.

Another article, published this time by The Mirror, reported that celebrity fitness expert Joe Wicks was due to lead a review of the PE curriculum, which the DfE said again is “not true”. 

The government’s existing anti-fake news units have however come in for criticism, with the Liberal Democrats’ former Brexit spokesperson, Tom Brake, describing them as “shameful spin machines” last year.

A DfE spokesperson said: “In line with wider work by the Government Communication Service, we want to identify and counter misinformation and disinformation online, whether it is shared inadvertently or maliciously.

“That’s why we’re looking for talented individuals to join our team, helping us dispel myths and explain education policies to the public using straightforward, easy-to-understand social media content, blogs, and more.”

 

AELP drops Covid-19 supplier relief legal challenge

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers has decided to not pursue legal action against the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s Covid-19 supplier relief scheme.

Lawyers have advised that the only challenge they could now take would be to seek a judicial review, which the board of the membership organisation believes would come “at a significant cost”.

A statement released today added that while a positive result from a judicial review would be to review the supplier relief process, there would still be “no guarantee of substantial support from the Department for Education for suppliers even after that” and this would also “take time, to a point where it might be too late for many AELP members”.

A legal letter was sent from law firm Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP on behalf of the AELP on 27 April after the ESFA excluded the majority of apprenticeship providers – those funded through the government’s digital system – from their supplier relief scheme.

It argued that the ESFA’s claim that apprenticeships funded through the digital system, mainly with levy-paying employers, are a contract with the employer and provider was “an abuse of power” and makes their supplier relief scheme “unlawful”.

The Government Legal Department (GLD) responded on 14 May and concluded that it is “not accepted that the relief scheme is unlawful on any of the grounds alleged by the AELP (or on any other grounds)”.

AELP said their lawyers have indicated that the GLD’s response does not make a case for defending the DfE’s position on the application of PPN 02/20, and that the AELP’s board feels “strongly” the letter is simply one of “rebuttal and it avoids addressing the key issues such as the legal agreement between the Education and Skills Funding Agency and a provider for levy-funded apprenticeships constituting a contract”.

The Labour Party’s shadow education team wrote to education secretary Gavin Williamson last week and accused the government of failing to make a “serious attempt” to answer AELP’s claim.

They also called for officials to abandon their “very flimsy case” for the majority of apprenticeships from the supplier relief scheme.

Click below to read the letters from the relevant parties in full

Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP challenge

Government Legal Department response

Labour letter to Gavin Williamson

Speed read: DfE publishes guidance for colleges on June 15 reopening plan

The Department for Education has published updated guidance for colleges and other FE providers about the return of more students next month.

It comes after the prime minister, Boris Johnson, confirmed the government was pushing ahead with plans to start to provide face-to-face support for year 12 and equivalent students from June 15.

The original wider reopening date for colleges was set at June 1 but Johnson announced a two-week delay to this last Sunday.

Here’s what we learned from today’s updated guidance.

 

  1. Only welcome back 25% of students at a time

To help reduce the coronavirus transmission risk, the guidance states the number of learners attending at any one time will be “limited to a quarter of those on the first year of a two-year 16 to 19 study programme”.

This is in “addition” to vulnerable young people and children of critical workers outside of this cohort who might already be in full-time attendance.

 

  1. Remote learning ‘should remain the predominant mode of learning’

The DfE said they recognise that for some programmes, remote education will be working “effectively with a high degree of learner engagement”.

Colleges and other providers will have “flexibility to decide the appropriate mix of online and face to face content for each programme, within the constraint of limiting those on site at any one time, reflecting what will maximise learner engagement as well as supporting more vulnerable learners, and enabling the provider as a whole to minimise transmission risk”.

They added that remote education “should remain the predominant mode of learning during this time”.

 

  1. FE providers have ‘flexibility’ over which learners can return

From the week commencing June 15, FE providers “should offer some face to face contact for 16 to 19 learners on the first year of a study programme” alongside the current provision offered to vulnerable learners (including those at high risk of becoming NEET) and the children of critical workers.

This will “primarily” impact colleges, but will also include a “small number of local authority providers, special post-16 institutions and independent training providers”.

While the DfE’s “overriding principle” is that the focus should be 16 to 19 year olds on the first year of a two-year programme, there is “flexibility” to bring back four other types of learners.

This includes classes where there are students aged over 19 on the same 16 to 19 vocational course, as well as 16 to 19 learners who were due to finish this academic year, but have not been able to because their assessments have been deferred.

Apprentices aged 16 to 19 can also be brought back for face-to-face contact.

The last group that can be brought back are learners who “may be on extended programmes, for example because they are studying part time, alongside caring responsibilities or had to retake exams or part of their programme”. If they are part way through a study programme, and have “key” exams and assessments next year, they “can be included”.

 

  1. Range of protective measures should be implemented but funded from own budgets

The DfE said they “will ask settings to implement a range of protective measures” including increased cleaning, reducing ‘pinch points’ (such as at the start and end of day), and utilising outdoor space.

Any additional costs arising from wider opening, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) must be funded “from existing college budgets”.

Ofsted watch: Nearly a clean sweep of positive results for FE providers throughout May

Almost nine in ten full Ofsted inspection reports for FE providers returned either ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ grades in May.

And all but one of the 13 monitoring reports published this month produced ‘reasonable’ or ‘significant’ progress ratings.

The education watchdog originally paused the publication of all further education and skills reports on the 20 March due to the ongoing pandemic.

They had planned to release them only when teaching returns to normal, but later decided to publish them sooner if requested by individual providers. The first of the pre-Covid reports were published on 5 May.

Since then, 17 full inspection reports have been released in which two ‘outstanding’ and 13 ‘good’ grades have been handed out. The remaining two were ‘requires improvement’ grades. In addition, nine short reports have been published where providers have retained a grade two.

Chichester College Group received grade ones across the board from inspectors who lauded leaders and managers for successfully developing a strong “collaborative culture between the campuses, particularly within teaching, training and learning”.

Similarly, Ron Dearing UTC was judged ‘outstanding’ in a report that did not include one line of criticism as it was dubbed a “guiding light in the education sector”.

Five FE providers were graded ‘good’ after previously receiving ‘requires improvement’, three of which were adult and community learning providers.

This also included Lancaster and Morecambe College after Ofsted found that leaders have “created a clear vision for the college” by “reshaping many elements of the curriculum offer”.

Essex-based independent learning provider Central Training Academy Limited also improved from a grade three to a two. It was praised for preparing learners for employment “very effectively,” and taking their existing skills and knowledge into account.

Prospects Training International Limited, which trades as Geason Training, received one of only two ‘requires improvement’ ratings this month in its first inspection.

The provider was previously found to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in two out of three themes in its early monitoring visit, which led to the government paused its ability to recruit learners. A grade three means this suspension can now be lifted.

While Prospect’s newly appointed leadership team recognised that the curriculum was “not fit for purpose” and has overhauled its content, the inspectorate said “there is still much to do to strengthen the provision further”.

UTC Swindon also received a grade three from Ofsted which reported that the quality of education is “not yet good enough”.

It found that outcomes at the end of sixth form have been low in recent years, with current pupils doing much better but “still not achieving as highly as they should”.

The most critical report to be published in May was for independent specialist college Fir Tree Fishery CIC. Inspectors found the new provider making ‘insufficient progress’ across the board in an early monitoring visit which has led to the government pausing the college’s ability to recruit learners.

The education watchdog claimed leaders and managers have “not developed a coherent, well-designed curriculum that meets the needs and interests of learners”.

In contrast, two independent learning providers, Fitch Learning Ltd and Itec Training Solutions Ltd, were found to be making ‘significant progress’ across the board after their early monitoring visits.

Lambeth College also received two ‘significant progress’ grades in a monitoring visit following a grade three report while Richard Taunton Sixth Form College was graded ‘reasonable progress’ in every assessed area in its own monitoring visit after a ‘requires improvement’ rating.

Ofsted, which has suspended all routine inspections until further notice, previously told FE Week it was sitting on 50 FE and skills reports that had been completed before the Covid-19 outbreak.

Thirty-nine of these, from inspections that took place prior to lockdown, have been published this month in total.

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Alchemist Consultants Limited 12/03/2020 26/05/2020 M N/A
Apprentice Team Ltd 13/03/2020 05/05/2020 2 M
Azesta Limited 06/03/2020 06/05/2020 2 M
Bridge Training Limited 26/02/2020 06/05/2020 2 2
Central Training Academy Limited 13/03/2020 12/05/2020 2 3
CSR Scientific Training Limited 28/02/2020 05/05/2020 2 M
Dick White Academy 12/03/2020 05/05/2020 M N/A
Fitch Learning Ltd 05/03/2020 06/05/2020 M N/A
GK Training Services Limited 27/02/2020 12/05/2020 2 2
Ioda Limited 12/03/2020 11/05/2020 M N/A
Itec Training Solutions Ltd 12/03/2020 20/05/2020 M N/A
Let Me Play Limited 12/03/2020 15/03/2020 2 M
London Vesta College Limited 28/02/2020 06/05/2020 2 2
Park Education & Training Limited 27/02/2020 21/05/2020 M N/A
Pier Technology Limited 12/03/2020 07/05/2020 M N/A
Prospects Training International Limited 13/03/2020 28/05/2020 3 N/A
TDR Training Limited 05/03/2020 27/05/2020 2 2
The National Logistics Academy Ltd 13/03/2020 12/05/2020 2 M

 

Sixth Form Colleges (inc 16-19 academies) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Richard Taunton Sixth Form College 27/02/2020 11/05/2020 M 3

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Central Bedfordshire Council 11/03/2020 11/05/2020 2 2
Swindon Borough Council 13/03/2020 26/05/2020 2 3
The Learning and Enterprise College Bexley 06/03/2020 18/05/2020 2 3
Training 2000 Limited 06/03/2020 13/05/2020 2 3
Tyne North Training Limited 11/03/2020 06/05/2020 2 2

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Leeds Arts University 27/02/2020 20/05/2020 2 2
University of Northampton 26/02/2020 05/05/2020 M N/A
University of Plymouth 05/03/2020 07/05/2020 M N/A
UTC Swindon 04/03/2020 12/05/2020 3 N/A
Mulberry UTC 11/03/2020 28/05/2020 2 N/A
Ron Dearing UTC 12/03/2020 21/05/2020 1 N/A

 

Specialist colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Catcote Futures 12/03/2020 28/05/2020 M N/A
Fir Tree Fishery CIC 26/02/2020 18/05/2020 M N/A
Linkage Community Trust 18/03/2020 06/05/2020 2 2
Hedleys College 03/03/2020 27/05/2020 2 2

 

General FE colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Chichester College Group 06/03/2020 12/05/2020 1 1
City College Plymouth 12/03/2020 12/05/2020 2 2
Lambeth College 12/03/2020 26/05/2020 M 3
Lancaster and Morecambe College 06/03/2020 14/05/2020 2 3
Southport College 14/02/2020 14/05/2020 2 M

Boris confirms college face-to-face plans can go ahead from 15 June

Boris Johnson has given colleges the green light to begin their wider reopening to students from 15 June after announcing the government’s “five tests” for easing lockdown were all being met.

The prime minister said today that the country can now make “limited and cautious” changes, including that primary schools can begin welcoming back pupils in reception, year 1 and year 6 from Monday.

He then added: “A fortnight later on 15 June secondary schools will start to provide some face-to-face contact time for students in years 10 and 12.”

The Department for Education later confirmed to FE Week that this includes first year college learners, who are equivalent to year 12s in schools, on all two-year vocational study programmes, GCSEs and A-levels, as well as apprentices.

Colleges had been preparing to begin their wider reopening from 1 June but Johnson announced a two-week delay to this last Sunday.

The DfE said at the time that a “more cautious approach is being taken for FE, as for secondary students relative to primary”, which “reflects that these groups are more likely to travel longer distances to college and to use public transport – and once in colleges they will mix more with other groups”.

Around a quarter of students eligible to start returning to college are allowed in “at any point”, the DfE added.

Today, 28 May, was the key date the government had set to decide whether or not to ease lockdown measures, including the wider reopening of schools and colleges, based on progress against their “five tests”.

The five tests, which Johnson said today are all being met, are:

  1.  Protect the NHS’s ability to cope. We must be confident that we are able to provide sufficient critical care and specialist treatment right across the UK
  2. See a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rates from COVID-19 so we are confident that we have moved beyond the peak
  3. Reliable data from SAGE showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board
  4. Be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE, are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand
  5. Be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelms the NHS

Monthly apprenticeships update: March starts fall 24% while April plummets by 72%

Apprenticeship starts for the month of March 2020 are down by a quarter while April plunged by 72 per cent on the previous year, new government data has revealed.

Monthly provisional figures for both of those months were published by the Department for Education this morning and show the huge impact that the Covid-19 pandemic is having on apprenticeship recruitment.

They show there were 19,600 starts in March 2020 compared to 25,600 in the same month in 2019.

The latest reported data for April 2020 shows just 7,000 starts compared to 24,800 in April 2019. However, it is important to note that last year’s figure was taken from a later data return than April 2020.

Opportunities for young people were hit the hardest last month as starts for under 19s plummeted by 87 per cent, and starts at level 2 dropped by 83 per cent.

The data for April chimes with the findings of an FE Week survey that was first to reveal the dramatic impact of the coronavirus crisis on apprentice starts.

The DfE states that it is key to note that in “normal circumstances” the first time a month is reported on it may “typically represent only two thirds of the starts providers go on to report later in the year”, so care should be taken with the data for April as “interpretation of the level and particularly comparisons with other periods risks being unrepresentative”.

Today’s data release also includes figures from 23 March, when lockdown started, to the end of April. Just 13,020 apprenticeship starts have been reported so far between those dates, around half of the 26,330 reported for the same period at this point last year.

The DfE said that Covid-19 has resulted in the closure of colleges and some employers are unable to start or continue apprenticeships as planned.

“Apprenticeship data for recent periods is always subject to a large degree of underreporting but, during the nationwide lockdown due to the pandemic, reporting will be further affected by collections remaining open on a voluntary basis to help reduce burden on the sector and employers,” they added.

Responding to the latest figures, Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Mark Dawe said: “After yesterday’s pre-pandemic figures showing an increase in the number of young people who are NEET, today’s data is extremely worrying for young people who were looking to start an apprenticeship or traineeship this year.

“The prime minister is absolutely right in saying that apprenticeships should play a ‘huge part in getting people back into the jobs market’ but the big problem is that Downing Street and the Department for Education are not singing from the same hymn-sheet.”

He added: “A large drop in apprenticeship opportunities for young people is already hitting a fragile infrastructure.

“The prime minister’s ambition for the importance of apprenticeships, which is shared by many commentators and the Labour Party, can only be realised if DfE ministers finally smell the coffee and become supporters of the sector through actions rather than words.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “While the impact of the coronavirus is still becoming clear, we are supporting employers, apprentices and training providers during this challenging time so people can continue to access high-quality apprenticeship opportunities.

“It is encouraging to see that even in these challenging circumstances, many employers still recognise the value apprenticeships can bring to their businesses.”

As reported by FE Week last month, the DfE is currently consulting on how to “repurpose” their monthly apprenticeship data releases in light of Covid-19.

The department said today that they “continue to seek your feedback on the type of breakdowns of most useduring this period, such as national apprenticeship starts by age, level and individual standard etc, so we can consider going forward and in light of data quality assessments”.