Why good governance is crucial for ITPs

The AELP’s new code of governance is a chance for training providers big and small to think about how they comply with best practice, observes Nichola Hay

Governance is a hot topic right now. Only a week after I spoke on the subject at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ national conference, Ofsted’s chief inspector dedicated a whole speech to its application in multi-academy trusts. Obviously Amanda Spielman hadn’t been taking her lead from the conference, but it has been rewarding to be part of an important initiative as AELP drives forward best practice in our part of the sector.

With support from the Further Education Trust for Leadership and the expert advice of sector luminaries Sue Pember and Karen Adriaanse, the AELP initiative takes the form of a new code of good governance for independent training providers (ITPs), which include limited companies, charities and not-for-profit organisations of all sizes. AELP has strongly recommended that the code be adopted by all its ITP members.

An ITP’s board should publish an annual account of its engagement with the main communities that it serves

Good governance is not new to ITPs. My organisation is part of the Seetec Group and our governance approach follows the principles of the Corporate Governance Code. As a public service provider responsible for public funds, we are also guided by the Nolan standards in public life, and many other AELP members do the same. But the new code developed by AELP is a major step forward because it helps to formalise governance within the sector, and provides a clear framework for AELP members to map their governance against.

The code can be applied to organisations of all sizes, and ideally all ITPs should review their governance structure, document what it looks like and how it complies with the best practice. However, it is expected there will be differences in the way organisations implement the code, given their structures and sizes.

Larger ITPs will simply need to review their current structure and map over to the code, bridging whatever gaps they identify.

Small and medium-sized organisations will need to think about what governance means to them, and consider how the senior management team will be challenged and questioned on decision-making. Their governance structure will need to be formalised.

My recommendation would be that if you are a small provider and feel that an aspect of the governance code doesn’t apply, then you should be transparent about the reasons for not adopting it, and what you have in its place to ensure the principles are being followed.

Ofsted’s scrutiny of the governance of all types of providers should be a reason in itself for adopting the code. But as a director, I am challenged and questioned daily on decisions made by stakeholders, including our employer clients. Following the code will bring additional comfort and security for me as well as being of benefit to stakeholders. I would recommend that those providers who have a board and haven’t got a non-executive director should consider appointing at least one to offer external insight and hold the management team to account.

Other aspects I believe will be of particular value are the code’s recommendations on transparency and openness. At least once a year, an ITP’s board should publish on the organisation’s website an account of its engagement with the main communities that it serves, the progress made towards meeting their needs for education and training, and how it aims to meet future needs. Again, the focus on how we deliver social value is vital when we are reporting on the use of public money, and this is why we should also encourage employers to put governance structures in place in respect of their levy funds. Via its annual report or self-assessment report, the ITP should also communicate that it has adopted the code and demonstrate how it complies with the principles.

The AELP code was published at the AELP conference as a “final draft” for consultation and it will be finalised shortly. By embracing it, a provider is sending out a signal in a very competitive marketplace that it has good values and ethics. 

Ofsted watch: Best and worst of FE on show

An independent specialist college showed the best of FE this week as it maintained its ‘outstanding’ rating, but the worst of the sector was also displayed when a private provider was branded ‘inadequate’.

Foxes Academy, based in Somerset, was given a grade one across the board for the third time since 2007, in a report published on July 19.

It is a residential college and training hotel for young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities – taking learners from across the country whose disabilities include hearing impairments, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorder.

“Learners epitomise the values of staying safe and healthy, enjoying and achieving their qualifications, becoming independent and contributing positively to society,” Ofsted said.

“Learners make exceptional progress in developing their confidence, communication and interpersonal skills, enabling them to make their views known effectively and contribute to improving the college.

“The vast majority of learners gain long-term employment or are successful in moving into independent living accommodation.”

Inspectors found that the curriculum and range of support, such as speech and language therapy, are “very well designed and delivered”. They raise learners’ “aspirations and enable them to develop their independence and work skills very well”.

Partnerships with employers are also “excellent and productive, assisting learners to enjoy highly effective work experience or work placements”.

“The real working environment of the Foxes Hotel enhances the experiences of learners very successfully,” inspectors added.

On the other end of the spectrum, a provider which trains hundreds of glass industry apprentices was given Ofsted’s lowest possible grade, in a damaging report which led to the Education and Skills Funding Agency withdrawing its funding.

The Vocational College Limited, based in Liverpool, has now ceased trading.

“Too many” apprentices were said to be making slow or very slow progress,” inspectors said.

“They are unable to complete the apprenticeship by the planned end date due to weak management of the programme and poor teaching, learning and assessment.”

It was better news for BCTG Limited, a private provider based in Oldbury, which improved from ‘requires improvement’ to ‘good’.

Leaders provide “clear strategic leadership and are ambitious” for their 3,279 learners.

“Managers work effectively with local and regional partnerships to identify and provide education and training that meet the needs of employers, learners and apprentices,” inspectors said.

“Most learners and apprentices achieve their qualifications by the planned end date.”

The majority also progress towards employment or gain promotions in their jobs, Ofsted’s team added.

Also going from a grade three to a two was Waverley Training Services, an adult and community learning provider which trains around 950 learners on study programmes and apprenticeships in Surrey.

“Since the previous inspection, leaders and managers have made changes that have improved the standards of teaching and learning so that a much higher proportion is good,” inspectors said.

“Staff at Waverley Training Services support employability learners well to remain on their courses and overcome problems that have prevented them from achieving in the past.”

Going in the opposite direction was Strathmore College.

This independent specialist college, based in Stoke-on-Trent, went from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’ because governors and senior leaders pay “insufficient attention to improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment”.

It trains learners who have mild to severe learning disabilities, and emotional, social and behavioural difficulties.

“Staff training in the ‘Prevent’ duty has not yet led to learners having a secure understanding of the risks of radicalisation and extremism,” Ofsted said.

“Leaders and managers have not made sufficient arrangements for learners to receive impartial careers education, advice and guidance to enable them to make informed choices.”

Meanwhile, there were two monitoring visit reports of “new” apprenticeship providers published this week.

Bauer Radio Limited, based in Edinburgh, and Sccu Ltd in Coventry, were both deemed to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in all fields judged.

Lastly, three short inspections were released in which all providers maintained their ‘good’ grades.

These were for Prevista Ltd, a private provider in London, The Northumberland Council, and the Heart of Birmingham Vocational College, another independent specialist college.

 

Independent Specialist College Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Foxes Academy  13/06/2018 19/07/2018 1 1
Strathmore College 05/06/2018 18/07/2018 3 2

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
BCTG Limited 12/06/2018 20/07/2018 2 3
Sccu Ltd 06/06/2018 19/07/2018 M M
Bauer Radio Limited 25/06/2018 18/07/2018 M M
The Vocational College Limited 05/06/2018 16/07/2018 4 2

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Waverley Training Services 12/06/2018 20/07/2018 2 3

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
The Northumberland Council 20/06/2018 19/07/2018
Prevista Ltd 12/06/2018 16/07/2018
Heart of Birmingham Vocational College 27/06/2018 20/07/2018

DfE spent £93m on doomed UTCs and studio schools

The Department for Education spent more than £90 million on university technical college and studio school projects that went on to fail, new data shows.

The government updated its register of capital spending on free schools, which includes the acquisition and construction costs for the 14 to 19 technical institutions.

Analysis of the data shows that, since 2010, £63,983,295 has been spent on eight UTCs that went on to close or announce closure.

A further £28,926,340 has been shelled out for 17 studio school projects that didn’t work out.

The actual spend is likely to be higher, as some of the doomed schools have not yet been included in the government’s data.

In total, 26 studio schools and nine UTCs have either closed or announced plans to shut.

The government has also admitted today that it handed a UTC site worth £10.3 million to a university after the college closed down.

Annual accounts of the Education and Skills Funding Agency reveal that the site previously occupied by UTC Lancashire until it closed in 2017 was handed over to the University of Central Lancashire.

This resulted in a “gift” of £10.3 million from the ESFA to the university being listed in the accounts after the site was given up.

Overall, the government has spent more than £407 million on UTCs and studio schools since 2010.

DfE waters down T-level licensing rules but unlikely to appease exam bodies legal challenge

The government has watered down a number of rules in its procurement process for T-levels following outcry from the sector – but it’s unlikely to appease the Federation of Awarding Bodies’ legal action.

The draft invitation to tender for awarding organisations was published by the Department for Education today. It follows two market engagement events last month left AOs fuming over the terms they would have to agree.

Original rules led to the FAB threatening the department with a judicial review as they felt their ownership of the T-level content they will have developed would be limited.

Launching the draft invitation today, the DfE said it had “listened to feedback from AOs” and made a number of changes in response.

This is what the DfE originally said before agreeing to allow AO branding in T-levels

These include allowing awarding organisations to co-brand student and employer facing materials, something the department said was impossible at the market engagement events.

“Suppliers may use their own branding on materials used in connection with the TQ, including student or employer facing materials (e.g. exam papers) required for the T-level,” the department said in the draft document.

This is “subject to meeting the specified rules on joint branding aimed at ensuring that the T-level brand remains a distinct brand, and that a T-level is clearly seen to be part of a T-level programme run by the authority, and to be the same T Level when offered by a future supplier”.

Similarly, intellectual property that goes into the technical qualification element will be allowed to be used abroad separate from the T-level programme.

Tom Bewick, chief executive of the FAB, said this addresses “some of the concerns we raised about the damage that could be caused to the export potential of awarding body expertise post-Brexit”.

He added: “We note the inclusion of consortia arrangements being made more explicit in the ITT and that government will allow them to deliver T-Levels, provided they are licensed as a single entity. We in fact put this idea to government.

“The main problem however with making such a proposal work in practice is that the government’s unrealistic procurement timescales will make it nigh impossible to put appropriate consortia arrangements together in time for wave one.”

Other changes include allowing development fees be paid in installments rather than one lump sum, as well as indexation of fees being permitted.

The deadline to provide feedback to the draft invitation to tender is August 13. The final tender will then be published on September 3 and the submission deadline is October 30, 2018 – a timetable of just over 8 weeks.

The FAB’s legal challenge is based on more than just the procurement. It believes timescales for implementation are unrealistic and there will be a disproportionate impact on the awarding sector.

FE Week understands the watering down of the procurement rules will not deter FAB and they await the DfE’s response to their judicial review letter, which has a deadline of July 31. The federation will then consult members about issuing a claim.

“What we need from ministers is acknowledgement of the need for a more proactive approach on consortia models, working closely with the industry, to encourage the sector to come forward with real workable arrangements,” Mr Bewick said today.

“FAB will not be making any further comments on our pre-action legal challenge at this time.”

We have always taken a collaborative approach to developing T-levels and have been in regular contact with the sector about this procurement

Education secretary Damian Hinds didn’t hold back in his reaction to the threat of a judicial review last week, labelling it as “deeply disappointing” before telling awarding organisations to “focus their energies” instead on making T-levels a success.

Offering her reaction today, skills minister Anne Milton said: “We have always taken a collaborative approach to developing T-levels and have been in regular contact with the sector about this procurement.

“We held two engagement events in June about the competition and provided advice on preparing high-quality bids. Today we are also sharing the draft procurement documents to give awarding organisations a genuine opportunity to influence how the procurement works.  

”We will continue to work in an open, transparent and constructive way so we can introduce the first three T-levels from September 2020.”

The legal battle started in a whirlwind week, after Ms Milton made the national papers by admitting that as a parent she would tell her children to “leave it a year” before studying a brand new qualification like T-levels.

It all followed a rare ministerial direction from the education secretary in May, when Damian Hinds refused his own permanent secretary’s request to delay the initial rollout of T-levels until 2021.

11 things we learned from the ESFA’s first annual report and accounts

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has this afternoon published its annual report for 2017-18, revealing huge bailouts, questionable bonuses and resource issues.

This is the first set of accounts for the agency, which formed last April, bringing together the Education Funding Agency and the Skills Funding Agency.

FE Week has the main findings:

 

  1. The agency reported a loss of £67 million, mainly because of college Exceptional Financial Support loans

The college with the biggest amount waived was Hull, where the ESFA abandoned £21,267,000. The second was Central Sussex College with £12,098,000, followed by Bournville College, which had £10.5 million waived.

Three failed University Technical Colleges – Daventry, Greater Manchester, and Lancashire – had a combined total of £3,137,000 written off as a result of closure.

 

  1. The ESFA gave away failed UTC and studio school sites worth almost £15.5 million as ‘gifts’

When UTC Lancashire closed at the end of 2016/17, the site reverted back to the ESFA which identified the University of Central Lancashire as “the most suitable occupier”. The transfer of the site to the university “resulted in a gift of £10.3 million being recognised”.

Future Tech Studio School closed in August 2017, and the ESFA took over the lease of the site – valued at £3.2 million – from the academy trust which had operated the school. As it does not intend to occupy the site, it has been leased to the Warrington Vale Royal College and recognised as a gift.

Finally, the Devon Studio School closed at the end of 2016/17. The ESFA did not own the site, but the total capital refurbishment and equipment costs paid for the studio school were £3.6 million. The report said the ESFA has made a “clawback agreement” with the academy trust, which is valued as a gift of £2.1 million.

 

  1. The agency underspent by £314 million – largely because of FE

Its budget was £60.7 billion but the actual outturn was £0.3 billion below this.

A total of £159 million of the underspend came from “Revenue Departmental Expenditure Limits”, which included £99 million from the further education Restructuring Facility, “due to inherent uncertainties on the timing and amount of the grants”, and £67 million across apprenticeships, adult education and early years budgets.

The remaining underspend, totalling £155 million, came from its “Capital Departmental Expenditure Limits”. This included £29 million from Restructuring Facility capital grants, and £127 million schools capital.

 

  1. Less than half of the £300 million restructuring facility was used

During 2017-18, the ESFA introduced an end-to-end payment and repayment process to manage the release of a new funding line to colleges – the Restructuring Facility.

As of the end of March just £140 million was paid to support their internal restructuring to achieve greater financial sustainability.

The Association of Colleges previously blamed the slow take-up on “a lack of transparency”.

 

  1. Peter Lauener received the biggest bonus, despite multiple procurement fiascos

The former chief executive was handed a bonus of between £20-25,000 when he left last November – £20,000 higher than any other staff member, even though he didn’t work the full year.

It also came despite debacles with the adult education budget and non-levy procurement processes, which left training providers fuming. The ESFA even had to spend an extra £16 million to fix the AEB tender after it changed rules at the eleventh hour. The agency surprisingly said in today’s accounts that both tenders ran “successfully”.

Lauener’s total pay package was between £120-125,000 this year.

The most highly paid directors at the agency were people responsible for FE.

Matthew Atkinson, director of the Transactions Unit and Kirsty Evans, associate director of adult education, received remuneration packages worth up to £170,000 – largely because of huge pension contributions of £47,000 and £61,000 respectively.

 

  1. £56.6 million allocated to providers to build capacity T-levels work placements

The cash was spread out between 415 training providers who “submitted successful implementation plans, to build capacity for places and to start the deployment of industrial placements”.

 

  1. 110 colleges were in early intervention at some point during the year

Of these: four moved to formal intervention; 27 were no longer in early intervention at the end of the financial year; and nine colleges merged or became an academy.

As at April 2018, three out of 63 sixth-form colleges and 39 out of 167 further education colleges were in formal intervention.

 

  1. 31 more college mergers were completed

During 2017-18, 31 college mergers were implemented, taking the total number of mergers completed since the start of the area review programme to 41.

This is more than two-thirds of the mergers agreed through area reviews and is the “most concentrated period of structural change since the establishment of the further education sector in 1993”.

In addition to the mergers that have been completed, 18 sixth-form colleges have converted to academy status during the year, resulting in the FE sector now standing at 204 colleges and 64 sixth-form colleges.

 

  1. Enquiries to the ESFA have surged because of T-levels, apprenticeship reforms, and the Grenfell Tower fire

The agency handled 5,951 enquiries from, or related to, FE providers throughout the year. This is a 27 per cent increase from 2016-17 (4,687 enquiries). The increase is “largely attributable to recent announcements about T-levels, and work to report cladding on publicly-funded education buildings following the Grenfell Tower fire”.

The ESFA saw an increase in programme queries related to funding, data and systems for training and skills provision, handling 38,233 enquiries in 2017/18 (compared to 33,625 in 2016/17).

The increase has been put down to the growing Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers, along with the impact of a “more complex funding landscape” during the implementation of apprenticeship reform.

 

  1. Speaking of RoATP…

As of 31 March 2018, there was a total of 2,588 organisations on the apprenticeship register, with 998 providers being added in 2017-18, and 92 removed.

 

  1. But all of the added work is giving the ESFA a resource issue

“As the agency’s remit expands further in 2018-19 and beyond, there is a risk that the agency will not have the people resources it needs to be able to effectively deliver all of its priorities and remit,” it said.

Discussions are however taking place with the Department for Education to “review future year resource requirements and to seek agreement to fund sufficient skills and capabilities that are needed”.

Hinds hits back at awarding organisations’ ‘deeply disappointing’ T-levels legal challenge

The education secretary has hit back at the Federation of Awarding Bodies “deeply disappointing” threat of a judicial review of T-levels, warning that it could “disrupt” their rollout.

Damian Hinds vowed to press ahead with the new technical qualifications as planned, and said the proposed legal action was “unnecessary”.

He told awarding organisations to “focus their energies” instead on making them a success.

It comes after the FAB wrote to the Department for Education and Institute for Apprenticeships on Wednesday, outlining the grounds upon which it intends to launch a judicial review.

I am deeply disappointed that this organisation is taking this action

These include: irrational (timescales), unreasonable (lack of proper engagement on the single-provider model) and unfair (has a disproportionate impact on the awarding sector).

The T-levels timetable of a 2020 rollout is already seen as extremely tight, and any legal action is bound to cause a delay.

Hitting back at the threat of a judicial review, Mr Hinds said: “With a rapidly changing world and a big productivity challenge, we have a pressing need to raise our game on technical education.

“This needs to be a shared endeavour across the world of education, government and business. I am deeply disappointed that this organisation is taking this action, which could ultimately disrupt this vital work.

“The trade body involved does not like the idea of a single awarding body in each subject. But this arrangement was central to the Sainsbury plan that is the blueprint for our technical and vocational reforms, and is key to upholding quality.

“We have been clear since 2016 that this would be the model and it is the right thing to do.”

He added that the DfE is “pressing on” with T-levels, because “we owe it to young people in England to give them a technical education to rival that in Germany or Holland or Switzerland”.

“I urge the Federation of Awarding Bodies to pull back from this unnecessary action and instead focus their energies on making technical education better for the sake of the next generation,” he concluded.

I urge the Federation of Awarding Bodies to pull back from this unnecessary action

The IfA, which will ultimately become responsible for T-levels next year, said it is giving FAB’s letter “full consideration and will respond in due course”.

“We encourage FAB, and other interested parties, to engage with the market testing of the draft invitation to tender which will be available week commencing 23 July 2018,” a spokesperson added.

The proposed legal action comes after FAB chief executive Tom Bewick first revealed to FE Week that the organisation was considering a challenge following market engagement events with the DfE last month, which left awarding organisations fuming over the commercial terms to which they will have to agree.

“It is highly regrettable that we feel the need to take these steps,” said Paul Eeles, the chair of the FAB board, in his letter to government. “It seems the government is simply not willing to listen to a chorus of concerns about its T-level implementation plans.

“We can’t afford a rushed process that could result in a whole generation of people being let down in the same way that those who took 14-19 diplomas were prior to 2010.”

The legal battle has been launched in a whirlwind week for T-levels, after skills minister Anne Milton made the national papers by admitting that as a parent she would tell her children to “leave it a year” before studying a brand new qualification like T-levels.

It all follows a rare ministerial direction from the education secretary in May, when Damian Hinds refused his own permanent secretary’s request to delay the initial rollout of T-levels until 2021.

Student satisfaction still highest with private providers – but colleges slightly close the gap

Colleges have slightly narrowed the gap with private training providers by 2.5 percentage points when it comes to learner satisfaction, according to new government figures.

The Department for Education released the results of its 2017/18 student survey this morning, which showed overall satisfaction with all FE providers fell by nearly 2 per cent compared to last year, from 88 per cent to 86.2.

Private training providers scored 88.5 out of 100 for their overall satisfaction rating, compared with 81 for general FE colleges – a minor closing of the near 10-point lead they enjoyed in 2016/17.

This was mainly caused by a fall of 1.5 per cent for independent providers, while colleges rose 0.1 per cent.

An impressive total of 29 providers received a perfect score of 100, up from just three last year. Twenty-six of these were private providers, while the other three were publicly funded institutions, such as local authorities.

The survey had 341,627 respondents, representing 19 per cent of all learners, from across 923 colleges and other training providers. It took place between October 2017 and May 2018.

Only providers with sufficient numbers of responses were included in the results.

Results revealed that learners attending general FE colleges are less likely to recommend their learning provider (77.6 per cent) than those attending private providers (85.7 per cent) and students at other public-funded FE institutions (93.4 per cent).

Classroom-based learners aged 19 or above were the most positive about their learning provider, with 93 per cent saying they would be “likely” or “very likely” to recommend them to friends and family.

Adult apprentices were the second most positive, with 86 per cent saying they would be “likely” or “very likely” to recommend their provider.

Classroom-based learners aged 16 to 18 were the least likely to put forward their learning provide,r with a 75 per cent recommendation score.

Female learners were much more likely to recommend their provider than their male peers – 85.7 per cent compared to 77.7 per cent.

There were “marked differences” in the levels of satisfaction with providers when analysed by the learner’s main subject area.

Those taking languages, literature and culture were the most likely to recommend their provider, with 95 per cent of respondents saying they were “likely” or “very likely” to do so. The recommendation rate also exceeded 90 per cent in three other subject areas: education and training, preparation for life and work, and history, philosophy and theology.

The learners that were least likely to recommend their learning provider were those studying science and maths, with fewer than three out of four indicating that is was “likely” or “very likely”.

“We want to improve the quality of education for everyone and I’m thrilled that today’s student satisfaction figures give the FE sector the recognition it deserves,” said apprenticeships and skills minister Anne Milton,

“Further education can bring amazing opportunities for learners. I’ve been fortunate to see first-hand how colleges and training providers across the country are changing the lives of people of all ages and from so many different backgrounds.

“The passion and commitment of teachers and the life changing experiences of young people shine through.”

PM praises rise in apprenticeship quality despite Ofsted’s warning of a decline

The prime minister has claimed that apprenticeships quality has risen since the introduction of the levy, despite Ofsted finding the reverse.

Theresa May (pictured) was quizzed on the “disastrous” government policy by Alan Whitehead, the MP for Southampton Test, during prime minister’s questions today.

Mr Whitehead said that the largest apprenticeship provider in his constituency has “suffered a 70 per cent drop in apprenticeships on his books” since the introduction of the levy.

“What is the prime minister doing to get this disastrous levy-based apprenticeship rollout back on the road?” he asked.

What is the prime minister doing to get this disastrous levy-based apprenticeship rollout back on the road?

Ms May gave an eyebrow-raising response.

“What we have seen since the apprenticeship levy was introduced is actually a change in the numbers of people doing apprenticeships but also an increase in the quality of the apprenticeships that are being undertaken,” she claimed.

“The government is now looking at how that levy is operating to ensure that we can do what I want to do, which is ensure that every young person has the opportunity of pursuing the course, be it of education or training, that is right for them and that is going to give them the best start in their life.”

Her comments come despite Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills revealing in May that apprenticeship quality is in decline.

Paul Joyce went as far as to say the programmes are starting to resemble the doomed Train to Gain initiative from the mid 2000s.

In May, the education watchdog found that around half of inspections carried out so far this year have resulted in “requires improvement” or “inadequate” ratings for apprenticeships.

“We are concerned and want to avoid a Train to Gain-type programme being badged as an apprenticeship,” Mr Joyce told delegates at the Skills and Education Group’s conference.

“We are finding that providers are struggling with the implementation of some of these reformed programmes. There are examples where off-the-job training is still not demanding enough.”

Ofsted is “particularly concerned” that it is starting to find “some issues where very little off-the-job training is taking place”, particularly with apprentices who are enrolled on programmes for the “older age demographic”.

Just this week, a training provider in Liverpool that was training hundreds of glass industry apprentices folded after the inspectorate gave it a damning “inadequate” rating.

What we have seen since the apprenticeship levy was introduced is actually an increase in quality

Ofsted found that Vocational College Limited had a “significant number” of learners being subjected to lengthy enforced breaks from learning. The damaging report forced the Department for Education to cancel its funding.

Train to Gain was launched in 2006 to encourage employers to deliver vocational training to adult workers.

However, the business minister at the time, John Hayes, said the flagship training service was a “deadweight cost” that had no future because it gave money to highly profitable employers to train their staff when they were already willing to pick up the bill.

It was scrapped in 2010.

Large employers have been forced to pay the apprenticeship levy since it was launched last year.

The money goes into a pot, and they have two years to claim it back to spend on apprenticeship training.

The government had hoped that the levy would force more employers to invest in training, and help it hit its manifesto target of three million apprenticeship starts by 2020.

But starts have instead fallen since its launch. They were down 39 per cent in April, compared with the same period in 2016, as revealed by latest provisional government statistics.

Ofsted has been approached for comment on Ms May’s quality claims.

DfE announces first regional ‘skills deal’

The West Midlands has become the first combined authority to strike a “skills deal” with the Department for Education, with £69 million available to be unlocked for training.

Up to £49 million will come via government investment, while the extra £20 million is being pumped into the region by the authority itself.

The funding, to be spent on increasing apprenticeships and revamping colleges, is separate from the £100 million that the West Midlands expects to receive annually from the adult education budget when devolution kicks in from next year.

It is said to be the first skills deal of its kind, and the door is open for other combined authorities in the country to enter negotiations with the DfE to strike similar arrangements.

However, the DfE admitted that not all of the government funding is new, nor could it say how the £49 million figure was arrived at.

The West Midlands was chosen as the first combined authority for the skills deal because it is the region with the most acute skills challenge, the DfE said.

It has the largest proportion of the working-age population without qualifications (16 per cent) in England.

The £69 million will be used to create “hundreds of new apprenticeships at small and medium sized businesses in priority areas, including in construction, automotive and digital sectors”, according to the DfE.

It will also fund a “multi-million investment in local colleges – ensuring they have access to the latest equipment and facilities to teach the skills the region and the country need”.

Up to £5 million of the funding will be used to work with employers to develop a National Retraining Scheme pilot, while £1 million is intended to “boost Edtech”, and another £1 million will “improve careers advice for young people, including a new careers hub”.

The funding will also be used to pilot an online portal for businesses to share work experience opportunities with schools in the region.

“The West Midlands is the engine of our thriving economy, but we want to make sure even more local people have the skills they need to get on in life, while also boosting the region’s productivity and technical expertise,” said education secretary Damian Hinds.

“This new skills deal will provide the right investment so that both young people and adults have the chance to learn, upskill, retrain and take advantage of the range of exciting jobs in areas such as construction, cyber security and digital technology.”

Andy Street, the mayor of the West Midlands, said: “This deal means more apprenticeships and more money for adult education, career advice and technical education, which is brilliant news for both businesses and young people.

“But perhaps more importantly, this new way of working with government means we have new powers and resource to help deliver the right outcomes for the West Midlands and for government.”

There are seven combined authorities in England with elected mayors: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, Sheffield City Region, Tees Valley, West Midlands, and the West of England.

Two other combined authories, the North East and West Yorkshire, do not have mayors.