The government has been urged to withdraw claims made in parliament about the take-up of the courses on its new ‘skills toolkit’ after FE Week started asking questions about the figures.

Significant over-counting has already led to revised estimates, and an investigation by this publication has found “course start” and “registration” claims in official statistics will continue to include web hits.

Despite this, education secretary Gavin Williamson described the free online courses as having a “transformational impact on so many people taking furlough” during a speech in October.

This raises major questions about the government’s ability to get a grip on the jobs crisis

The course content has not been developed by the government, but more than £1 million has been spent to develop and promote the skills toolkit “platform”, which consists of a web page on the National Careers Service with short course descriptions and links to the external websites.

The government says the educational content being promoted aims to help people who are out of work to boost their digital and numeracy skills during the pandemic.

However, little is known about who is accessing the content or whether they are completing the course, as almost half of the 79 available online courses require no registration.

Skills minister Gillian Keegan has publicly claimed these are “high-quality” courses but a former director of FE funding in the DfE, Susan Pember, questioned how this can be known in the absence of learner and completion data.

Many of the courses are simply short video tutorials or PDF documents that people can stop and start with no tuition and no external quality assurance from the likes of Ofqual and Ofsted.

Pember told FE Week she would advise ministers to be “cautious” as “website hits or even signatures on enrolment forms do not equate to learning taking place”.

The department has already had to row back on claims that 136,000 people started on the courses in the toolkit’s first month of operation but there are currently other incorrect records, including answers from Keegan to parliamentary questions (PQ) tabled by shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds.

On October 5 the minister told Dodds that as of September 30, there had been 97,615 “course starts” and 16,219 “completions”.

In a separate PQ two weeks later Keegan said that as of October 4 there had been 118,011 “course starts” and 19,564 “completions”.

When FE Week asked if it was true there had been almost 20,000 additional starts on courses on the toolkit in that four-day period, the DfE admitted they could not confirm.

A spokesperson said the information was the “best data available to us at the time of response” but it has since identified “issues” with a number of courses that it was “working to resolve”. They added that the DfE will “update the answers as appropriate, once the examination has completed”.

Dodds, the Labour MP for Oxford East, told FE Week it was “really troubling” that government appears to have no idea how many people have registered for the skills toolkit courses and that it is “incumbent on them” to correct the parliamentary record.

She said she was also “deeply concerned” that the DfE has spent over £1 million on the resource “without knowing how it’s performing”, which raises “major questions about the government’s ability to get a grip on the jobs crisis that’s engulfing Britain”.

Pember, who worked as a top government skills official from 2000 to 2013 and is now the policy director of adult education network HOLEX, said that in order to “protect the reputation of FE” the courses need to go through the “same rigorous process as everyone else”, which includes audit and regulatory oversight.

She explained that after the individual learning accounts debacle in the early 2000s, it was “understood that we needed really good-quality criteria for FE courses – that is when you get your standards written, Ofqual and Ofsted involved” to ensure “good experiences for learners” and “good value for public money”.

FE Week’s analysis of the courses on the skills toolkit, offered by 14 providers which are mostly commercial businesses, shows that their duration can range from 25 minutes to 70 hours.

Just two of the 79 involve guidance from a live tutor. Almost all of them, 69, can include certification but only if the person registers for the course. Registration is, however, not required to view and use the content for 39 of them.

Examples include “Become a Sales Representative” from LinkedIn – a series of 25 short videos from a sales expert that allows you to download a certificate of completion at the end, with no testing.

Another is “Make It Click”, provided by the Good Things Foundation, which is a web page that directs visitors to other web pages, such as “A Beginners’ Guide to Excel” on YouTube.

Three of the providers that do not require registrations told FE Week they use unique URL data to capture the numbers of participants and then relay that information to the DfE to measure “starts”.

After being presented with the FE Week’s findings, the DfE said it was “in the process of developing an assured standardised system for collating data from different course providers”.

When asked how they know the courses have had a “transformational impact” and are “high quality”, as claimed by ministers Williamson and Keegan respectively, a spokesperson added: “The skills toolkit is a successful platform, delivering good value for money, which has encouraged tens of thousands of people to undertake online learning in courses that are valued by employers.

“It plays an important role in packaging up courses that are both free, high quality, and which people can access from home at this difficult time. We are reliant on providers for estimates of registrations and we continue to work with providers on improving this process further.”

Pember urged DfE to get a grip on the data: “We collect registration or enrolment data because that is the beginning of a performance pathway that allows you to monitor retention, completion and then how many people achieve.

“Without registration data you can’t do any of the rest and you can’t monitor whether that particular pathway for doing a subject is as good or better than the ones the state is already funding.”

She said the next questions DfE should be asking are how many learners have completed and been offered qualifications at the end. “Why treat those people taking the courses differently to other funded courses?

“I’m sure every provider in the land would like to be monitored just on registration – it makes it so much easier for people. So it seems there is an element of unfairness around it.

“Other providers are wondering why there are now a set of very low benchmark rules for the stuff on the skills toolkit and a very high set of benchmarks for them.”

Having herself looked through the skills toolkit courses, Pember there is content that she “quite likes” but also found some worrying examples. “Take maths, for example – one of the courses says it is for level 1 learners, but the language around it is graduate level.

“Many people with level 1 maths also usually have level 1 English, so they’re not going to get past the first screen,” she said, adding that it could “demoralise” vulnerable people who in turn would be “lost to the system”.

In terms of costs for the skills toolkit, almost £800,000 has been given to a firm that the DfE refuses to name to carry out “user research and testing, IT security testing, content and user experience design, software development and performance testing”. Just over £325,000 has also been earmarked for advertising, such as paid-for social media on Twitter and Facebook.

Pember said the advertising “worries me”.

“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 told FE Week.

“You’ve got other outstanding providers out there but why is the state advertising a certain set of commercial products over and above another set of commercial products? It doesn’t even say there are others available.”

Aside from the PQs, the DfE is reporting the number of skills toolkit starts in their official apprenticeship data releases and labels them as “experimental”.

“These are experimental statistics and rely on website analytics from providers and the method of processing these is subject to change,” the department said.

The UK Statistics Authority said it welcomed the inclusion of these statistics to “support transparency and clarity” as long as the DfE acknowledges the data’s “limitations”.

College staff should receive a 1 per cent pay rise this year, the Association of Colleges has recommended in a move that has outraged trade unions.

In a statement published today, the membership body said it was “disappointing and regrettable that the sector is unable to afford a better offer at this time” but that the “pandemic has changed everything”.

Trade unions had called for a “significant” pay rise for college workers this year after the government injected an additional £400 million into colleges.

But the AoC said it could only recommend a pay rise of 1 per cent or £250, whichever is the greater, because of the unforeseen and “severe financial pressure” colleges are now facing that have “forced many into deficit”.

The association did say that it would “strongly advise that those colleges who can afford to award staff more should do so”, while “we must acknowledge that some colleges may be unable to meet this recommendation”.

But the University and College Union, UNISON, the National Education Union, Unite and GMB said in a joint response that after years of campaigning for more money for staff, now is “not the time for excuses on pay but instead an investment in staff so that further education can provide the skills for a post-Covid recovery”.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Yet again colleges have shown they cannot be trusted to spend public funds in the way they were intended. The joint campaigning was always on the understanding that staff pay would come first.

“UCU members will now find it hard to believe that AoC can be a trusted partner for joint campaigning.”

UNISON head of education Jon Richards added: “College leaders had made clear promises that staff would get a substantial pay rise this year. But they’ve simply ripped these up and raided the wage pot to foot the bill for the pandemic. Pay in the FE sector is simply too low and this offer yet again ignores the value of college staff.”

The unions have called on individual colleges to publicly commit to working towards closing the £7,000 pay gap between school and college teaching staff and introduce the foundation living wage.

The AoC cited Education and Skills Funding Agency officials at last week’s House of Commons Public Accounts Committee hearing saying 64 colleges are at risk of running out of cash.

And on top of extra costs associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, the association said colleges have “suffered a significant loss of revenue” due to a drop in commercial activity, fee income, and apprenticeships, which has only been “partially” offset by extra government funding.

The AoC also recommended a 1 per cent increase for 2019/20, but promised to accelerate a pay recommendation for the following academic year.

AoC chief executive David Hughes has today argued that every college leader wants staff paid “fairly and adequately” for the work they do, and are “committed” to campaigning for better college funding, which allow pay issues to be addressed.

But, he added, “a decade of neglect and funding cuts have devastated the financial health of the sector”.

While the AoC recommends a pay increase to its members, colleges are independent and make final decision on pay themselves. 

For a second year the critical qualification achievement rates (QAR) for providers will not be published, but unlike last year the data will be privately shared with Ofsted.

The inspectorate will again be able to use the QAR data in their inspection judgements as well as being central to their published ‘risk-assessment-methodology’ when deciding which colleges and training providers to visit.

Announcing the decision, the DfE said this morning: “QARs, usually published for certain post-16 providers, were suspended for 2019 to 2020 due to coronavirus.

“For 2020 to 2021, QARs will not be published but will be produced and shared securely with providers, Ofsted and DfE.”

QAR data, which is used to measure providers’ performance and hold them to account, was scrapped for the 2019/20 academic year following the Covid-19 outbreak. Providers were not able to receive the data themselves and it was not shared with the inspectorate.

When asked how the inspectorate plans to use this year’s QAR data, an Ofsted spokesperson said: “Decisions on the use of achievement rate data for 2020/21 will be made in due course.”

The decision has attracted split views from the sector.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers managing director Jane Hickie said that “on balance”, giving Ofsted access to QARs “doesn’t seem unreasonable, although the authorities should bear in mind that some perfectly good providers are struggling right now in terms of achievement rates because of the covid restrictions”.

“If you are in tier 3, for example, the challenge to deliver well is harder,” she added.

“At the same time, providers won’t want to sit back thinking that ungraded inspections mean that they can switch off.

“They believe that the approach which Ofsted has taken since March has been entirely sensible and are ready to work with the inspectorate to give an accurate picture to employers and learners of the quality of their provision.”

Tony Allen, an ex-deputy director of the government’s skills funding agency and now runs his own apprenticeship consultancy firm, said that he struggled to see, from a “transparency viewpoint”, why the data “is not going to be published for year two” of the pandemic.

“Covid has impacted but isn’t that the point…everyone knows that Covid has impacted,” he added.

“Why are we denying employers access to invaluable intelligence for a second year?”

QARs calculate what proportion of learning was successfully completed in each academic year by providers.

They are produced for apprenticeships, adult education and 16 to 18 programmes.

The latest achievement rates were published in March for the 2018/19 year and showed the overall national rate for apprenticeships dropped 2.2 per cent points to just 64.7 per cent.

The ESFA minimum standard threshold sits at an achievement rate of 62 per cent.

If more than 40 percent of a provider’s provision fails to meet the minimum standard then intervention can be as severe as contract termination, in line with the ESFA’s “oversight of independent training providers” operational guidance.

FE providers should attempt to deliver the same amount of teaching and work to self-isolating students that they would receive onsite, new government guidance has said.

The Department for Education has today outlined new guidelines on remote learning in further education during the coronavirus pandemic.

It states that for students who have been advised to self-isolate, but are “well enough to learn”, officials “expect FE providers to continue their education remotely as far as is reasonably possible”.

Students learning remotely “should benefit from the same amount of teaching and guided work that they would normally receive onsite”.

But there are exceptions to these rules, for instance, where a student is on a course which involves practical teaching and training, and requires specialist equipment and supervision.

The exception also applies to work experience and placements.

Providers should have systems in place to check at least weekly if a student is “persistently” missing lessons for their study programme, or if they are not engaging with remote education.

Students should be provided with clarity on arrangements for remote education, for example on timetabling, and on the expectations for them to participate in remote learning.

And it should be confirmed with them the different ways they will receive assessment and feedback while learning remotely, as well as how often that will be provided.

In comparison, primary schools have been told to deliver at least three hours of remote learning to self-isolating pupils, while secondary schools should deliver at least four.

The department said today FE providers must continue to deliver fully-planned hours for students, unless further restrictions come in force for their area, and should also put in place support for vulnerable and disadvantaged students which could include deciding whether they need support for remote delivery.

Providers will have to plan for managing safeguarding concerns as well, and must maintain regular communication with vulnerable young people to ensure that they are safe and are accessing remote provision.

The government has come under pressure to help providers with online learning, with the Association of Colleges reporting last month that as many as 100,000 students may be missing out on learning because they do not have a suitable device to learn on, or access to the internet from home.

The association’s chief executive David Hughes called for “immediate support for colleges to allow students to get the devices and access they need,” without which, he said: “We risk stunting the life chances of young people for years to come.”

Today’s guidance included how providers can use the 16-19 bursary fund to provide digital devices and connectivity support for students, based on individual circumstances.

There has also been a change to the adult education budget rules for 2020-21, the guidance reads, so providers can use learner support funds to buy IT devices for students aged 19 and over, and to help providers’ meet students’ connectivity costs.

GCSE and A-level students sitting exams next year will be given more generous grading, advance notice of some topics and “exam aids” owing to the disruption caused by Covid-19.

They will also be offered a “second chance” to sit papers if they miss any through illness or self-isolation and in “extreme cases” where a student has a “legitimate reason” to miss all their exams, a “teacher informed assessment” can be used as a last resort.

The package of measures has been announced by the Department for Education and Ofqual today in their efforts to “boost fairness” in recognition of the “unprecedented disruption” to students’ learning.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson (pictured) said he hopes these “exceptional steps” will give young people the “clarity and confidence they need to achieve every success”.

On top of the three-week delay to GCSE and A-level exams previously announced by government, more generous grading will be provided “in line with national outcomes from 2020, so students this year are not disadvantaged”.

Under this system, every subject will “receive the same level of generosity so that the approach doesn’t advantage some students over others depending on their subject choice”.

“Exam aids”, such as formula or vocabulary sheets, will also be provided for use in “some exams” – but it is not expected students will be allowed to bring passages of text into the exam.

It is not clear at this stage which aids will be permitted for each subject or what FE-based courses will be included.

Students will also be able to focus their revision with advance notice of certain topics which will be covered in GCSEs, AS and A-levels; and additional exam papers are being scheduled for if a student misses exams or assessments due to illness or the need to self-isolate.

If a student misses all their assessments in a subject, they will have the opportunity to sit a “contingency paper” held shortly after the main exams.

In the “extreme case” where a student has a “legitimate reason to miss all their papers”, then a “validated teacher informed assessment can be used, only once all chances to sit an exam have passed”.

Vocational and technical assessments will also be adapted, depending on the qualification. Ofqual had already announced in September that awarding bodies would be given the freedom to adapt their assessment arrangements to mitigate any impact of the pandemic.

The range of adaptations announced today will help make things fairer

The government has said it will set out the detail on this process, and on adaptations, in the new year.

Ofqual also said it is not planning to add a footnote of some sort to students’ certificates who achieve next year to say they benefitted from these exceptional measures.

While the government will still publish data from the 2021 tests, exams and assessments for schools and post-16 providers, they will not publish the normal ranked performance tables with school and college-level data, based on tests and exams

An expert advisory group will also be assembled to “monitor the variation in the impact of the pandemic on students across the country”.

Chief executive of the Association of Colleges, David Hughes, said there is “no simple solution which the government could implement to ensure that exams are fair for everyone in 2021, but the range of adaptations announced today will help make things fairer”.

He added that there is an “urgency on this” because over 50,000 students will sit BTEC and other technical exams in January and “all students want certainty about how assessments and grades will be carried out as soon as possible”.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the solutions put forward by the DfE are “not perfect” but “will make them as fair as they can be in the circumstances”.

“Nothing can be given the fact that learning has been so disrupted by coronavirus and that pupils have been affected to vastly different extents,” he added.

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, added that today’s plans introduce “some welcome flexibilities” but he remains “concerned about the differential impact that Covid has had on young people in different parts of the country”.

A “radical” shake-up of the “overly complicated” high needs FE system is required, following a quadrupling in the number of learners with special educational needs and disabilities, new research has found.

The Association of Colleges, specialist providers’ organisation Natspec, and the Local Government Association (LGA) have today released a joint report into the planning, commissioning, funding and support of provision for post-16 high needs learners.

It found a litany of problems with the system, including Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) which are “not sufficiently up to date”; statutory deadlines being missed; arrangements for transitioning learners from school to further education being delayed, and possibly not taking place at all.

High needs learners are jointly funded by the Education and Skills Funding Agency and local authorities. Under the current system, the ESFA pays £5,200 for every student, regardless of whether they are high needs. The agency then pays an additional £6,000 per place for each high needs student to their college or specialist provider, but claims this against the local authority’s budget. The local authority then pays any costs to the provider for delivering to a high needs student above an £11,200 threshold.

In the report, the £5,200 funding for every student is higher than the £4,188 base rate for 16 to 18-year-olds which the government introduced this academic year, because the authors say the former figure includes adjustments for student retention, programme cost weightings, and disadvantage funding.

Chair of the LGA’s children and young people board, Judith Blake, said an “overhaul and streamlining” was needed for processes to improve the system for local authorities and colleges.

She continued: “This has become more urgent due to the huge increase in size and complexity of the task faced by councils and providers in supporting young people with SEND, with funding not keeping up with the rising demand for support.”

The report’s authors say the number of 16 to 25-year-olds with an EHCP, or a SEND statement, has quadrupled between 2015 and 2020, from 25,548 to 108,308.

The rise has been caused by a number of factors, including the Children and Families Act 2014 extending EHCP eligibility up to 25 years of age, which brought more people into the system.

At the same time as this increase in demand, the AoC and Natspec say their members are facing financial pressures due to a “squeeze” on local authority budgets and real terms cuts to FE funding over the past ten years.

So a “more radical re-working of the whole system” of high needs post-16 system is required, as the report’s authors found demand for places is likely to be outstripping supply in many local authorities, and providers are having to invest in creating extra capacity without the promise of a return.

Although £700 million in high needs post-16 funding was announced for 2020-21 at the Spending Round in 2019, the report cites LGA research which found councils face a high-needs deficit of at least £889 million for that period, owing to the rising demand. 

The AoC’s SEND policy officer Liz Maudslay said that while they welcome the 2014 reforms, for them to be “effective, there is a need for significant changes to implementation processes”.

The report recommends greater planning of provision, after it had seen “little evidence that longer term planning of post-16 High Needs provision is currently taking place”.

Planning could be aided by having “block agreements”, where providers and local authorities agree funding for provision as a block rather than at an individual learner level.

This, the report reads, could “guarantee a fixed level of income in respect of a target number of 16+ young people with high needs, simplify the costing of provision, and thereby facilitate the planning process”.

Another theme of the report is greater collaboration: between providers, and between them and their local authorities.

Authorities should involve all post-16 providers in regular strategic planning discussions about provision for learners who are leaving school provision, the report argues.

Furthermore, post-16 providers should be given access to pre-16 learners earlier, as it would make it “more likely the young person’s post-16 needs and aspirations will be known in good time,” and planning their transition to the post-16 provider will be “more effective”. 

Natspec chief executive Clare Howard welcomed this recommendation in particular, as she says: “The detrimental effects of the system on all young people are amplified for the small number with the most complex needs, who require more specialist provision.” 

Another recommendation is for the “currency and content” of EHCPs needs to be improved to be fit for post-16 purposes, with the report saying plans are often not updated, “too many” reports display “little or no knowledge of the further education sector,” and providers feeling there is little point securing EHCPs as students could be with them for just two years, and additional SEND funding is “limited”.

Natspec, the AoC and the LGA commissioned acl consulting to carry out this research. The authors interviewed 25 local authority staff at 10 authorities, and 50 staff from 28 providers – 14 GFECs and 14 specialist post-16 institutions – as well as several stakeholders, representatives of the study sponsors, and other interested parties.

Full graded Ofsted inspections will not return until the summer term, the government has announced.

But monitoring visits, including to those with grade three and four ratings and new apprenticeship providers, will resume in January.

Ofsted said FE providers that do not receive a monitoring visit “may receive support and assurance visits”, which will result in a report but no grade, similar to the “interim visits” being run this autumn.

The watchdog will also continue to have the power to inspect an education provider if they have serious concerns about safeguarding.

Under a raft of measures announced today for holding exams in 2021, education secretary Gavin Williamson said that Ofsted’s full return has been pushed back again until the summer term. Full inspections have been paused since the outbreak of Covid-19 in March.

The inspectorate described the plans as a “phased return” to normal activity.

Chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, said: “The usual level of scrutiny within the education and care system has been absent since last March, so it’s important that it returns next year as we all hope for a greater level of normality.

“But we understand the pressure that everyone in education is working under and we want to return to our usual work in a measured, sensitive and practical way.”

She added: “Our role is to offer the greatest assurance we can to parents and the public about the quality of education and care arrangements for children and learners. These plans will help us support the providers who are facing the greatest challenges during these difficult times.

“They will ensure that inspection is fair, safe and valuable, while remaining true to our core purpose and principles.”
FE Week asked Ofsted if the return of monitoring visits will include a progress judgement, as they did pre-pandemic, but did not receive a response at the time of going to press.

During Tuesday’s launch of Ofsted’s annual report, the inspectorate said it was keen to restart monitoring visits of new providers in particular after finding big concerns with the quality of apprenticeship delivery last year.

Chief executive of the Association of Colleges, David Hughes, said he was “pleased to see the common sense decision that full Ofsted inspections will not commence until summer term” as they would be “impossible to carry out fairly and safely in these conditions”.

He added that he would urge the DfE “not to continue barring colleges with legacy ‘requires improvement’ grades from being able to deliver T Levels, Institutes of Technology and other programmes where they have good sustained progress on quality”.

Apprenticeships are the “weakest” area of provision in FE providers, with one in ten judged ‘inadequate’ last year, Ofsted has said.

In its annual stocktake of education, the inspectorate reported that of the 120 inspections to include an apprenticeships grade in 2019/20, 3 per cent achieved ‘outstanding’, 50 per cent were ‘good’, and 38 per cent were ‘requires improvement’.

A total of 10 per cent were ‘inadequate’, which the report says is “clearly too large a number”.

The figures come 18 months after Ofsted’s chief inspector Amanda Spielman told FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference that the quality of apprenticeships was “sticking” and urged the sector to “improve”.

Meanwhile, today’s report also warns of declining quality in independent learning providers with the proportion judged ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ falling for the fourth consecutive year – dropping from a high of 83 per cent in 2016 to 74 per cent in 2020.

However, it should be noted that Ofsted has included employer providers in with the data for private providers.

In 2019/20, the watchdog said it saw in some independent providers that governance was “not in place or was not sufficiently challenging in holding senior leaders to account to identify the aspects of the provision that needed to be improved”.

“We also saw leaders, managers and the governance function not moving swiftly enough to implement the recommendations made at a new provider monitoring visit,” the report added.

“Independent learning providers did not focus enough on working closely with employers to develop a meaningful and well-thought-out curriculum to meet the training requirements of apprentices and employers.”

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

Ofsted said that in “many cases”, this was down to “weak leadership and a lack of co-development of the curriculum with employers”.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers managing director Jane Hickie told FE Week that the pressures on private providers have been “enormous”.

“Even before the pandemic struck, the Commons education committee warned that good quality apprenticeships can’t be delivered on the cheap and while the [Ofsted] report doesn’t cover the first lockdown period when inspections stopped, the lack of provider relief for levy apprenticeships and the crash in starts have added to the scale of the challenges even though the minister and others have recognised what a fantastic job providers did in keeping so many programmes going remotely,” she said.

“We hope that the current review of funding rates by IfATE leads to a realistic outcome of recognising the costs involved in delivering a good apprenticeship programme.”

In comparison to private providers, community learning providers have seen the proportion judged ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ increase for the fourth year and sat at 92 per cent in 2020, while colleges have seen their proportion shift downwards from 78 per cent last year to 75 per cent.

During an Ofsted press conference on the annual report, Christopher Russell, acting national director for education, said that the inspectorate will be “focussing sharply” on apprenticeships quality over the coming months.

“We have some concern over quality in some cases. Of our new provider monitoring visits over the year, in a quarter we found progress to be insufficient and that does give us a worry.

“We will continue to look very closely within those visits and follow-up, what the quality is/ Quite often we are finding that the leadership isn’t sharp enough, that the curriculum isn’t well thought out enough.

“And when we return we are finding sometimes that the actions that we have pointed out that are needed haven’t been taken quickly enough. This is a weaker area, apprenticeships, and we will be focussing sharply therefore on that as we do our work over the coming months.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said:  “We are pleased the vast majority of apprenticeships providers have continued to deliver high quality training.  However, we recognise that there is more work to do to make sure that every apprentice can access the best possible training.

“We will continue to work with employers and training providers, and with the Institute and the Quality Alliance to help boost apprenticeship quality and make sure more people get the skills they need to get ahead.”

Click here to read FE Week’s speed read of Ofsted’s 2019/20 annual report.