A review into the “uniquely narrow and short” technical courses in England has been called for ahead of the introduction of T-levels this September.

The Education Policy Institute think tank (EPI) made the recommendation in an international comparison of technical education funding systems, published today, which said this country’s 16 to 19 curriculum “remains an outlier for its narrow breadth, both for academic and technical pathways”.

This approach “may be depriving students of valuable skills”, it added.  

While welcoming T-levels’ increased teaching hours, the “substantial” 315-hour industry placement and how they “will bring England closer to technical provision in high performing countries”, the report also says the curriculum “looks narrower” than similar qualifications in other countries.

The new flagship courses will not address the differences in curricular breadth between England and countries like Norway and Germany beyond securing basic levels of literacy and numeracy, the report says.

As T-levels will last for half as long as technical qualifications in other countries, this “probably stands in the way” of broadening the curriculum.

EPI’s research was funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, which is working on preparations for T-levels and is co-running professional development for the qualifications with the Education and Training Foundation.

“The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, and do not reflect those of the foundation,” the report stresses.

The government, the report proposes, ought to commission an independent review to consider if the breadth of 16 to 19 courses is properly providing the basic and technical skills “young people need for the labour market and for progression to further study”.

If this means providers have to increase provision, the government “must” match this with appropriate funding rates. The report found funding support for students fell by 71 per cent in real terms between 2010/11 and 2018/19.

The joint general secretary of the National Education Union Kevin Courtney said the government “must learn from this challenging report” and 16 to 19 students need “sustainable funding” and “real support” for living, learning and travelling costs.

The Association of School and College Leaders’ post-16 and colleges’ specialist Kevin Gilmartin urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak to address the “desperate need” for additional government funding for the sector in the Budget on March 11.

The countries the EPI compared England against were found to offer a broader curriculum, for example technical students in Norway spend more of classroom time studying subjects like English, maths, PE, natural sciences, and social sciences than their vocational specialisation. Technical students in Austria take courses on entrepreneurship, digital skills, communication skills and, in many cases, up to three foreign languages.

In Germany’s dual-system, students attend a vocational school up to two days a week and apart from theoretical and practical knowledge for their apprenticeship, they also take general subjects like economics and social sciences.

Germany’s system was thrown into the spotlight after education secretary Gavin Williamson pledged the UK to overtaking Germany in technical education opportunities by 2029.

However, the report did note the breadth of curriculum in other countries varies dependent on factors like qualification level and whether it is a classroom-based programme or apprenticeship training.

David Robinson, report author and director of post-16 and skills at the EPI, said: “If it wishes to draw level with countries like Germany, the government must give further consideration to properly funding technical education, in order to sustain quality.

“We must also ask serious questions about the structure of our upper secondary programmes, which are uniquely narrow and short by international standards. The breadth of the curriculum and length of technical courses should be reviewed.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The secretary of state has been clear that boosting further education is at the heart of his vision for a world class education system.

“We are investing significantly to level up skills and opportunity across the country. In addition to our £3 billion National Skills fund, we have announced a £400m increase to 16 to 19 funding for 2020-2021, creating longer, higher-quality technical apprenticeships.

“Alongside this, our traineeship programme is a great way for young people to develop the skills and confidence they need to progress on to employment, or a high quality apprenticeship.”

The chief executive of the government’s apprenticeship quango has defended the decision to reject a business administration standard at level 2 – claiming it would “undermine” efforts to create a “well-regarded” programme.

Last week FE Week revealed how Jennifer Coupland had shattered hopes for the apprenticeship after she turned down a final plea from employers.

Addressing delegates on the second day of the sixth Annual Apprenticeship Conference this afternoon, the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education boss tackled criticism of the decision head on.

She made clear it was “nothing to do with being averse to level 2”, but simply that the proposal did not meet the required length or quality of an apprenticeship standard.

And when quizzed on why she would not entertain another proposal for the standard, Coupland said she wants to be “blunt” and not give the employers “false hope”.

Here’s what she said during her speech in full:

“I know that one of the big stories last week in the world of apprenticeships and in the conference room this morning was the institute’s decision not to endorse a level 2 business administration proposal.

“I want to talk briefly about why we made that decision. Firstly, take-up on the new level 3 business administration standard has more than doubled since it launched in 2017. That shows there is a great route into skilled employment in an administrative role via an apprenticeship and appetite from providers, apprentices and employers for that.

“And as Doug Richard said in the Richard Review, apprenticeships should not be the only skill show in town, there should be a place for other forms of vocational training and pre-employment provision, and great classroom-based technical routes too.

“We have an opportunity now to really build a high-quality, well-regarded apprenticeship programme and the more we stretch the definition of an apprenticeship the more we undermine attempts to finally achieve that.

“So when we do hand out the apprenticeship label it must be an indicator of a high-quality training programme. It must be for training for skilled occupations that require at least a year of sustained and substantial training to become competent in the role.

“The proposal for a level 2 business administration standard did not meet those tests and that is why we did not back it.

“To be really clear, this is nothing to do with being averse to level 2. There are plenty of level 2 qualifications that meet those tests. Since our establishment the institute has approved over 80 new standards at level 2 across a huge variety of fields.

“We have level 2 apprenticeships for plasterers, for scaffolders, for bricklayers, for sewing machinists, for beauticians, health care support workers, hospitality team members, hair professionals, culinary chefs, and even fish mongers, and that is just a few.

“More than half a million people across the country have now received much better skills training because of this new and more rigorous employer-led approach to setting standards for apprentices.

“To count as an apprenticeship an occupation must take at least a year to learn, there must be scope for a minimum 20 per cent off-the-job training. It is a high bar set by both us and employers themselves, and the reality is that sometimes proposals for new apprenticeships won’t reach it.”

The winners of the Annual Apprenticeship Awards 2020 have been crowned at a glittering ceremony in Birmingham tonight.

More than 500 sector leaders, staff and apprentices gathered to find out the results of the awards, which are run by FE Week and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

Forty-four organisations and individuals had been shortlisted in 22 categories after more than 350 entries were submitted by colleges, training providers and employers.

New apprenticeship and skills minister Gillian Keegan was in attendance to celebrate the winners.

Taking home the provider of the year award was Leeds College of Building.

Judges said it was “clear” from their application and evidence that they “were enthusiastically dedicated to helping apprentices achieve their full potential, and absolutely committed to steering the next generation of innovators”.

Employer of the year was awarded to Hays Travel, which took over Thomas Cook this year.

“Hays Travel is a true believer and champion of apprenticeships,” the judges said. “It was evident from their application that apprenticeships are embedded within their organisations culture and thus valued and supported by stakeholders.”

This year’s special recognition awards were handed to former skills minister Anne Milton, and her former opposite number Gordon Marsden.

And apprenticeships expert and veteran Beej Kaczmarczyk received the lifetime achievement award.

Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week’s publisher Lsect, said: “We were delighted to award Beej with the lifetime achievement award. Beej has given so much to education throughout his career.

“He is also one of the great characters of the FE sector, regularly putting the ‘fun’ into funding analysis and has a magic way of entertaining those who he supports and informs on sometimes the driest of subjects.

“As he nears his retirement, and the possibility of finally realising his aim of getting in more golf, it is perfect timing, and massively well-deserved.”

Mann added: “Tonight we also recognise the contribution made by two former MPs, Anne Milton and Gordon Marsden. As front bench MPs for government and opposition they made significant contributions to the apprenticeships sector in the UK and globally.

“Regardless of whether you agree with their political decisions and positions, it is undeniable that they placed enormous energy into improving the apprenticeship sector. They are both worthy recipients of this year’s awards.”

AELP chief executive Mark Dawe said: “We’ve had another fabulous evening celebrating all that is best about apprenticeships and the hard working people who offer bright futures to learners who embark on our flagship skills programme.

“Congratulations to a great set of winners and it’s really pleasing that Gillian Keegan has been here with us to hear about these wonderful success stories.”

Look out for more coverage in FE Week’s AAC supplement later this week.

Here are the 2020 award winners in full:

 

Route Apprenticeship Provider of the Year

 

Agriculture, Environmental & Animal Care

British Racing School

 

Business & Administration

Derby Business College Limited

 

Care Services

Lifetime Training

 

Catering & Hospitality Apprenticeship

Lifetime Training

 

Construction

Skills Group

 

Digital – Sponsored by BCS

Manchester Metropolitan University

 

Education & Childcare

Aspiration Training Ltd

 

Engineering & Manufacturing

Abingdon and Witney College

 

Hair & Beauty – Sponsored by VTCT

Truro and Penwith College

 

Health & Science

Performance Through People

 

Legal, Finance & Accounting

Paragon Skills

 

Sales, Marketing, Procurement

Remit Group

 

Transport & Logistics

Performance Through People

 

National Awards:

 

Promoting Apprenticeships campaign

Newcastle & Stafford Colleges Group

 

SEND Apprenticeship Champion Award – sponsored by CognAssist

Eastleigh College

 

Apprenticeship Diversity Award

WhiteHat

 

Outstanding contribution to the development of apprenticeships (employer)  Sponsored  by City & Guilds ILM

Little Inspirations Ltd

 

Outstanding contribution to the development of apprenticeships (individual) Sponsored  by City & Guilds ILM

Jane Hadfield, Health Education England

 

Outstanding contribution to the development of apprenticeships (provider) Sponsored  by City & Guilds ILM

South Devon College

 

Apprentice Employer of the Year

Hays Travel

 

Apprenticeship Provider of the year | sponsored by BKSB

Leeds College of Building

 

Special recognition award

Gordon Marsden

Anne Milton

 

Lifetime achievement award

Beej Kaczmarczyk

Ofsted will withhold publication of inspection reports until it has resolved complaints about them under a new redress system proposed by the inspectorate.

A consultation launched today proposes that formal complaints raised by providers within two working days of receiving their final report will effectively delay publication of the report until the complaint is dealt with.

Under the current system, providers have to submit formal complaints within 10 days of an issue of concern, but Ofsted does not normally withhold publication of reports while it considers complaints.

Today the watchdog admitted the current approach has led to it having to take action after it has published a report “when a complaint investigation highlights an error in the inspection process”.

“As a result, we are proposing to consider and respond to formal complaints from inspected providers before we publish their inspection report, if these complaints are submitted promptly,” the watchdog said in its consultation documents.

“So that the publication of a report is not overly delayed, if an inspected provider wants to raise a formal complaint, they will need to submit this within two working days of them being issued with their final report. If an inspected provider submits a formal complaint within this period, we will withhold publication of the inspection report until we have considered and responded to the complaint.”

However, complaints will not “normally” be considered outside of this deadline, because the submission will be deemed to be ‘out of time’, Ofsted said.

The consultation also proposes that providers will receive five working days to review their draft report and submit concerns about issues of “factual accuracy and the inspection process”. At the moment, they only receive one, but some other types of provider get longer.

The extended period “will allow all inspected providers the same opportunity to raise any issues of factual inaccuracy in their draft report, or to comment on any aspect of the inspection process”.

“We will consider all submitted comments before we issue the final inspection report to a provider.”

Ofsted also wants to introduce “greater consistency” in post-inspection arrangements.

A new timeline will mean that all providers “should expect to see their draft report within 18 working days of the end of their inspection”, and Ofsted will aim to issue all final reports to providers “within 30 working days of the end of the inspection”.

The current system of internal reviews, which are the last step for those not satisfied with the way their complaint has been handled, will be retained.

Apprenticeship funding should be targeted at skills which fit the UK’s industrial strategy to combat growing pressures on the levy budget.

That is according to the Independent Apprenticeship Policy Group (IAPG), which was chaired by former education select committee head Neil Carmichael and set up by education giant Pearson to create a long-term vision for apprenticeships.

The report, being launched this morning on the final day of FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference, states that whilst the apprenticeship budget now available through the levy provides a “significant boost” to employer investment in training, the “current budget available is not enough to support the demands being made on the system”.

It echoes concerns first raised by the Institute of Apprenticeships and Technical Education and then the National Audit Office that the apprenticeship budget is at risk of being overspent after the average cost of an apprenticeship hit double what the government first predicted.

The IAPG believes that decisions on apprenticeship spend should “remain employer-led”, but they should be “within a structure of incentives set by government, and agreed between government and employers”.

Prioritising sectors identified in the 2017 Industrial Strategy, which targeted investment at maths, digital and technical skills, “is important to avoid situations in which the courses being provided are adding little, if anything, to the skills base of the economy”.

Their call comes after Ofsted’s 2019 annual report criticised a high take-up of management and health courses in the system as a “mismatch” with the strategy, calling for this to be “urgently” addressed.

Careers education is another focus of the IAPG report, which calls for a review of the government’s careers strategy, the role of the Careers and Enterprise Company, as well as the Baker Clause.

The clause put into law that schools must invite providers in to tell pupils about technical qualifications and apprenticeships, and “a positive working relationship between apprenticeship providers and their local schools and colleges is a key element of growing the apprenticeship system,” the report says.

But evidence has shown the IAPG that where employers and providers “are keen to engage young people in apprenticeships, they often encounter barriers to achieving this”.

Lord Agnew wrote to headteachers earlier this month in his then-capacity as minister for the FE market to remind them of their legal duties under the clause. The education select committee has previously accused schools of “flouting” their obligations under the clause.

The committee’s chair Robert Halfon accused the Careers and Enterprise Company of being “ludicrously wasteful” with public money in January, after his committee pulled the company up on spending £200,000 on holding two conferences, instead of seeking private sponsorship.

The IAPG also states that “adequate” investment needs to be made available for small-to-medium enterprises, preferably through extra government funding, to ensure “we support the skills needs and help boost the productivity of non-levy paying employers”.

An AELP survey released in January found up to 40,000 SMEs were being turned away by training providers which are either close to having, or have, used up their levy allocation for training apprentices from non-levy payers.

At a debate in Parliament last week, AELP chief executive Mark Dawe said the non-levy system needed an extra £1.5 billion so SMEs could start investing in apprenticeships again.

On funding levels, the report also says funds to deliver individual apprenticeships “should not be set so low to reduce the quality of training or dissuade employers from recruiting apprentices”.

“Recent cuts to funding bands have particularly affected standards in sectors with acute labour shortages,” like social care.

“Uncertainty over funding” could “significantly” reduce the number of opportunities available to learners and has already, along with the aforementioned non-levy funding constraints, forced providers to reduce or cease activity”, according to the report.

Apprenticeship provider Professional Training Solutions told FE Week last May it would stop recruiting for the care sector after the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education decided not to increase the standards’ funding levels, which were leaving the provider running courses at a loss.

The IAPG recommends the funding bands and investment to support apprentices meet maths and English requirements, should be set at a “sustainable level”.

Ofsted’s chief inspector is “concerned” that the rise in higher level apprenticeships is “partly” to blame for the decline in starts for young people at the lower levels.

Addressing delegates at the Annual Apprenticeship Conference (AAC) this afternoon, Amanda Spielman said it was “worrying” that starts at level 2 in 2018/19 were 45 per cent down on 2016/17.

Meanwhile, higher level apprenticeships are “up – massively up – and they have doubled from 16/17 to 18/19, admittedly from a low base”.

She then stated: “We’re concerned that this many new apprenticeships at level 4 or higher is partly why those at level 2 and 3 aren’t coming through. It’s certainly the case that apprenticeship programmes now have an older demographic.

“It is important we increase the numbers of level 2 and 3, as well as increasing the number of young apprentices, as this helps with levelling the playing field.”

Her comments come a week after education secretary Gavin Williamson ordered a review of the level 7 MBA apprenticeship as he is “unconvinced” it provides value for money.

He said he would “rather see funding helping to kick-start careers or level up skills and opportunities”.

The Ofsted boss echoed Williamson sentiment this morning, saying “we need to level the playing field”.

“For some people, this ladder [of opportunity] is broken; in fact, some of the lower rungs are missing. For so many young people, this is their entry level into the workplace. Getting the basics right is vital. Going into some occupations at level 4 without a grounding in the basics can set some people up to fail.

“I’m concerned about level 2 apprenticeships more broadly.”

She noted how the higher-level apprenticeships are “overwhelmingly in the fields of business administration” and “we are concerned about the trend in big, levy-contributing organisations to offer apprenticeships to existing staff, many of whom will have worked there for a while”.

“This effectively turns apprenticeships into a staff development programme. They may well be mitigating skill gaps in management and team leadership, and this may be an initial response to spending the levy, but I would hope that this doesn’t become the norm. If the levy develops mainly to help those who are already in work, it doesn’t help those at the bottom of the ladder.”

Spielman also reiterated concerns first raised in Ofsted’s 2018 annual report, which warned the levy was being spent on apprenticeships it called “rebadged” graduate schemes.

“We know that relabelling existing programmes as apprenticeships to allow them to be paid for by the levy fund is a practice that is sucking money into one place at the expense of another,” she said today.

“We’ve seen very different funding allocations for different sectors. I am concerned that in some instances levy funding is not being used as the policy designers expected.”

The shadow skills minister, Emma Hardy, went even further in her speech at AAC this morning, calling for an end to full funding for adults enrolling on a degree apprenticeship.

Concerns over the rise of higher level apprenticeships at the expense of low level opportunities, such as for the level 2 in business administration, is set to be discussed further on day two AAC when Jennifer Coupland, the new chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, will deliver her first public address to the sector.

Degree apprenticeships should only be fully-funded for people aged under 25, those without a first degree and in sectors with skill shortages, Labour’s shadow minister for further education has said.

Emma Hardy, speaking on day one of FE Week’s sixth Annual Apprenticeships Conference, said she supports their expansion at higher education providers across the country, but a decline in opportunities for the “most disadvantaged” needs to be addressed.

“The government’s rushed implementation of the apprenticeship levy has resulted not in an increase in apprenticeship opportunities for the most disadvantaged, but quite the opposite,” she told delegates.

“I believe degree apprenticeships should continue to be fully funded from the levy for people 25 and under, occupations on the shortage occupation list, and adults who do not already have an equivalent qualification.”

Her proposal comes after warnings from the Institute of Apprenticeships and Technical Education and the National Audit Office that the apprenticeship budget is at risk of being overspent.

Hardy highlighted concerns, which have been raised by Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman among others, that companies have been rebadging existing training schemes as higher apprenticeships.

Hardy also brought up the latest report on the apprenticeship system by former Department for Education adviser Tom Richmond, where he said 23 higher education institutions have developed an apprenticeship which requires a PhD, or another level 8 qualification, to start.

Hardy said: “Surely this should not be considered an apprenticeship,” and in her opinion, “the government should end the 100 per cent use of the apprenticeship levy for courses equivalent to a Master’s degree.”

This comes after education secretary Gavin Williamson last week ordered a review of the level 7 senior leader MBA apprenticeship standard.

In his letter to Institute of Apprenticeships and Technical Education boss Jennifer Coupland, he wrote he was “unconvinced that having an apprenticeship standard that includes an MBA paid for by the levy is in the spirit of our reformed apprenticeships or provides value for money”.

Hardy has stressed though that this is not the fixed policy of the Labour party, as they are in the midst of a leadership election, but rather this is something for the next leader to consider.

A chair of a leading small business lobbying organisation has thrown cold water on hopes of a boost for non-levy apprenticeships in next month’s budget.

Anthony Impey, who chairs the the federation’s skills and apprenticeships national policy group, told a debate in Parliament on Tuesday that he did not think the government would pay a mooted £1.5 billion out of general taxation to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) run more apprenticeships.

Instead, he said, “everybody’s going to have to suffer some pain” and training providers and higher education institutions will have to take items out of their apprenticeships which “are not critical”.

The debate, held in the run-up to the budget on March 11 and featuring contributions from a number of FE professionals, was hosted by shadow further education minister Emma Hardy and run by FE Week and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP).

Hardy retorted to Impey that the UK could attract people from around the world with high skills and higher levels of productivity, but warned: “I think part of making that prosperous, optimistic vision for our country happen is by not saying we’re not going to get the money we want.”

The £1.5 billion sum was put forward  by AELP chief executive Mark Dawe, speaking at the event with Hardy and Impey.

He came to that number by adding the £760 million allocated to SME apprenticeships for 2019/20, to the £750 million Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education chief executive Jennifer Coupland said last month was needed to prop up small business apprenticeships.

Dawe explained the importance of non-levy apprenticeships as SMEs “contribute to productivity, they contribute to the local community. They provide those first steps in learning, and they support the disadvantaged.”

If the £1.5 billion was guaranteed as a minimum, SMEs could start investing in apprenticeships again, as he said: “[At the moment] they have no idea where there’s going to be money in the future – that’s another reason why people aren’t investing.

“That’s why we’ve got this event. That’s why we need to make a lot of noise before the budget. This is the one thing we think this government can do to actually start moving the apprenticeship agenda.”

Another possible means of putting extra money towards SME apprenticeships is lowering the payroll threshold at which employers pay the levy from £3 million to a sum like £1 million.

But analysis conducted by Public First for the AELP ahead of the event found a threshold of £1 million would only raise an extra £400 million, and awarding body AAT’s head of public affairs Phil Hall said at the debate that lowering the threshold would be to bring in small businesses, which are “having such a problem” paying the five per cent co-investment fee with government.

“In what world are they going to then pay the apprenticeship levy? It’s just insane,” Hall said.

This all comes after survey results published in January by the AELP found that providers could not meet demands by up to 40,000 small and medium employers to train apprentices because the amount of levy funding allocated to pay for apprentices at non-levy-paying businesses is insufficient to cope with demand.

We need the government to commit to a separate funding pot for SMEs

Hardy said SME apprenticeships, having originally been seen as “niche”, are “gaining so much airtime”.

“As a Labour MP, it will be of no surprise to any of you here that one of the things which concerns me the most is the impact we have had on the numbers of young apprentices and the impact it has had on apprentices from the lower level.”

Hardy said more funding is being spent on experienced, older apprentices, at the expense of younger ones trying to get their qualifications through SMEs.

She asked the attendees to “put a bit of pressure on the government. We need them to commit to a separate funding pot for SMEs.”

A representative from South Essex College said the question which needed to be asked was: “How can we afford not to invest in apprenticeships?”

She pointed to upcoming government infrastructure projects and said: “If we have SMEs which aren’t able to access skills for apprenticeships, those infrastructure projects are going to collapse. You only need to look at some of those projects which are running over because they cannot get the labour force.”

The government has attempted to help boost SME starts by allowing the employers onto the digital apprenticeship service from last month, initially capped at just three starts each, with the full roll-out now planned for November.

However, chief executive of provider JTL Jon Graham told the debate audience when they set up 50 starts on the digital apprenticeship service in January with multiple employers, that the ESFA said the same week the service was in fact “not ready”, so JTL had to cancel those starts.

Hardy closed the debate by repeating her call that “government needs a strong message from each of us – from all of the training providers, from all of the small businesses, and the universities, that education matters and you don’t get things on the cheap.”