Revealed: The big winners of the controversial £310m European Social Fund tender

Serco has come out as the biggest winner of the government’s controversial European Social Fund tender, securing 17 contracts worth £60.5 million, FE Week analysis has shown.

They were followed by The Growth Company Limited, which claimed 8 contracts valued at £56.4 million even though it is essentially owned by the the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership.

Overall, 47 providers won 125 contracts with a total value of just under £310 million to deliver ESF from April 2019 to July 2021, according to figures released by the Education and Skills Funding Agency today.

The 5 biggest provider winners in the tender

 

The agency said the contracts were awarded through a “stringent procurement process, which adhered to EU rules of open, fair and competitive tendering, and was conducted in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations 2015”.

But the procurement wasn’t conducted out without controversy.

The agency delayed issuing contracts several times, after multiple providers claimed that the government broke tender rules, namely by excluding the “track record” section when marking bids, while the ESFA has admitted to “errors”, such as naming Serco Regional Services Limited as a winner instead of Serco Limited.

Serco Limited made losses of £29.5 million in 2017, according to its accounts, and is rated ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted – although this is just for its apprenticeships provision.

Providers were also aggrieved to find out that Learndirect’s new owner had secured contracts worth more than £20 million, in conjunction with his other company Dimensions Training Solutions.

Further questions were asked about the tender in March, after FE Week discovered an “unprecedented” amount of tie-breaks in the procurement.

One aggrieved provider even threatened legal action against the ESFA, but decided to drop this because of the likely cost and a fear of repercussions from the agency.

The European Social Fund is funding that the UK received, as a member state of the EU, to increase job opportunities and to help people to improve their skill levels, particularly those individuals who find it difficult to get work.

The 47 providers who have secured European Social Fund funding will help to deliver the training in 38 local enterprise partnership areas.

The biggest single contract won in this tender went to Serco, which was awarded £10 million for the “delivery of education and training that best supports the needs of local employers and employees” in the Black Country.

The Growth Company Limited won the second biggest contract, worth £9.9 million, to deliver equivalent training in Greater Manchester.

 

Serial entrepreneur’s new provider fails to impress Ofsted

A new provider run by a well-known entrepreneur has been criticised by Ofsted after inspectors found it making ‘insufficient progress’ in most areas of an early monitoring visit.

The Teaching and Learning Group, which has 24 apprentices, is owned by Angela Middleton, who is also a director of grade two provider MiddletonMurray Limited, and received an MBE from the Queen last year for services to apprenticeship training, youth employment and business.

A director of ten companies, Middleton boasts on her website of regularly consulting with businesses on the development of bespoke apprenticeship programmes.

Inspectors found a litany of issues at The Teaching and Learning Group, which started delivering non-levy funded apprenticeships in September 2018 in business administration, retail and digital marketing, accounting and finance, and leadership and management.

These include apprentices not receiving enough off-the-job training; managers not gathering information about apprentices’ attendance; and apprentices who have not submitted work in months being left off its managers’ risk register.

Recruitment consultant apprentices, who have been on the programme for five months, have had “no feedback and no work marked due to staff absences and changes to assessors,” the report reads.

Leaders do not use information about apprentices’ performance “well enough to understand the progress they make” and the data used by managers to identify apprentices at risk of failing are “not sharp enough to promote rapid intervention”.

Assessors at the independent provider have not visited a small minority of apprentices at their work within the least a year, and employers are “unfamiliar” with their apprentices’ training programme.

Tutors and assessors “do not provide apprentices with good enough support to develop their English and mathematics skills”.

Ultimately, “too many apprentices make slow progress”, Ofsted found, as “just over half of all apprentices are behind target for achievement”.

The tumult in apprenticeship provision was exacerbated by managers recently making “significant” changes to staffing.

Providers which are found to have made ‘insufficient progress’ in one or more areas of an early monitoring visit are suspended from recruiting apprentices under ESFA rules.

In response to Ofsted’s report, Middleton said the provider “has made substantial progress since the review”, and is “pleased” inspectors’ findings matched those in its’ self-assessment report and quality improvement plan.

This includes the findings that managers and leaders took remedial action after realising the standard of delivery and assessment on some programmes were stopping apprentices from making good progress; even though inspectors said the action had not yet enabled all apprentices to catch up on lost learning.

Leaders have taken “decisive action to address staff’s under-performance by providing additional training for assessors and restructuring the senior leadership team”, according to Ofsted, which added specialist managers and new assessors have a “sharper focus on their apprentices’ progress”.

Staff also recruit and match apprentices to employers and settings with integrity, and managers use an extensive contact network effectively to match employers to apprentices, which means all apprentices stay in learning.

PhD-level apprenticeships are a ‘perfect fit’ for today’s jobs market, says UVAC director

A university membership organisation has criticised those opposing PhDlevel apprenticeships, saying such resistance shows a “bewildering lack of understanding of higher education provision and contemporary skills programmes”.

Writing for FE Week, Mandy Crawford-Lee, director of policy and operations at the University Vocational Awards Council, argues that “the whole concept” of knowledge, skills and behaviours or professional values “fits perfectly” with level 8 occupations, such as surgeons or dentists.

She was hitting back at criticism from some in the FE sector, including the Institute of Apprenticeships, which last month said these proposed apprenticeships were not in the “spirit” of the programme.

“Let’s knock on the head the idea of the appropriateness of apprenticeships at this level and the notion that level 8 can’t be about skills; a failure to do so is a failure to recognise the diversity and complexity of employment today,” Crawford-Lee argues.

She said she suspected part of the problem was that “many people are wedded to the idea that apprenticeships must remain a social inclusion route simply for the young or the disadvantaged and associate skills training”, particularly for those at levels 2 and 3, and as something delivered exclusively by colleges and independent training providers.

Instead, she believes an “objective glance” at the skills needs of the UK economy would confirm the need for level 8 apprenticeships, and “any employer engaged in their development should be congratulated”.

Crawford-Lee added it was “disappointing” that the existence and use of professional doctorates doesn’t seem to be understood by some in the skills sector, “given that there is a substantial track record of developing occupational competence at level 8”.

FE Week revealed last month that plans for PhD-level apprenticeships had been thrown into doubt after the IfA’s approval funding committee deferred approving the first PhD-level apprenticeship.

This was “in order to seek further guidance from the board and the Department for Education on whether level 8 apprenticeships were compatible with the aims of the apprenticeship reform programme”.

The committee was concerned at “whether it [the level 8 clinical academic professional standard] could be approved under current rules and whether it was in the spirit of apprenticeship policy”.

Minutes from an IfA board meeting in January showed a discussion concluding with an action for “the DfE to explore PhD-level apprenticeships are a ‘perfect fit’ for today’s jobs market, says UVAC director the concept of level 8 apprenticeships further and agree a policy position”.

The DfE told FE Week last month that “discussions are ongoing regarding these new proposals” and “we are looking carefully at what the priorities of the programme should be from 2020 onwards”.

Asked if there was any update this week, the IfA said there was not.

In her opinion piece, CrawfordLee urges the DfE and IfA to “stick to the concept of apprenticeship as an employer-led and productivityfocused skills programme”, avoiding giving providers the idea that the importance and value of higher-level apprenticeships are “not adequately supported by government policy and messages”.

The debate around whether the public should fund PhD-level apprenticeships comes as many sector leaders, including the IfA, have warned of an imminent apprenticeship budget overspend.

The latest to add their voice to the concern is the Public Accounts Committee, which published a damning report into the progress of the apprenticeships programme this week.

Ofsted watch: Tough week with one employer provider crashing to a grade four

It has been a tough week for FE as one provider was hit with ‘inadequate’ and three others found making insufficient progress.

Securitas UK, a large employer provider in the security sector, was rated as ‘inadequate’ in its first full inspection after Ofsted found none of its apprentices achieved their qualification.

Ofsted’s report found that “poor leadership and management” of the apprenticeship provision has since led to a third of learners withdrawing from the programme since January, with the number of learners dropping from 668 to 270.

The ‘inadequate’ report means Securitas will be chucked off of the agency’s register of apprenticeship training providers, meaning it can no longer deliver the provision itself. The provider told FE Week it would challenge the report.

Meanwhile, E.Q.V. (UK) Limited was found to have made ‘insufficient progress’ across the board in its first monitoring visit from Ofsted.

Leaders at the Leicester-based provider do not ensure that the programmes meet the principles and requirements of apprenticeships, inspectors found.

The report said: “Leaders have been slow to check how well apprentices are progressing and have not taken decisive action where performance is weak.

“Consequently, too many apprentices do not make appropriate progress and do not complete their apprenticeship by the expected date.”

Ashley Community & Housing Limited was also slammed with two ‘insufficient progress’ provisions in its first-ever monitoring visit.

Ofsted found that “too many” apprentices are not making strong progress in their development of new work-related skills, knowledge and behaviours and are not prepared well enough in order to be successful at their final assessment due to leaders and managers’ failure to “adequately” monitor and review the quality of the programme.

They have also been “too slow” to implement identified improvements following the introduction of formal quality reviews last year.

Equally, Manatec Limited was slammed by Ofsted with two ‘insufficient progress’ outcomes after it found a “high proportion” of learners not knowing they are on an apprenticeship programme.

Inspectors found that leaders have “not ensured that the apprenticeships they offer meet the requirements of apprentices or of their employers”.

Ofsted’s report details how the majority of apprentices “have a poor learning experience, do not gain new knowledge, skills or behaviours” or are, most worryingly, “unaware that they are completing an apprenticeship programme”.

Elsewhere, a total of 9 independent learning providers and two employer providers received their first monitoring visits, being all rated with ‘reasonable progress’ in the education watchdog’s reports.

Also this week, South Wiltshire UTC received a special measures monitoring inspection report from Ofsted, the second one since the school became subject to special measures in February.

The UTC, currently rated as a grade 4 provider, was found to have made progress, with leaders and managers taking effective action towards the removal of special measures.

Inspectors said the school’s action plan was fit for purpose, but was told not to appoint newly qualified teachers before the next monitoring inspection.

On the bright side, Training 2000 Limited was found to have made ‘significant progress’ in one provision and ‘reasonable progress’ in the other two after being given a grade 3 rating last year.

Ofsted said senior leaders have taken “decisive and effective actions” which have resulted in “considerable improvements” in the quality of study programmes since the previous inspection.

The report said managers took the decision to discontinue study programmes in military preparation and programmes for adults, which led to a “much higher proportion” of learners staying on their course and achieving qualifications, including in English and mathematics, when compared with 2017/18.

Finally, William Morris Sixth Form maintained its grade 3 after inspector found leaders and governors’ actions “have not brought about rapid and sustained improvements to the quality of teaching, learning and assessment”.

Ofsted said there were “too many subjects” where the quality of leadership, teaching, learning and assessment was not of a high enough standard.

However, inspectors recognised that leaders are currently reviewing the curriculum offer and have since introduced some whole-school procedures to ensure greater consistency across departments and raise teacher expectations.

Sixth Form Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
William Morris Sixth Form 25/04/2019 20/05/2019 3 3

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Ashley Community & Housing Ltd 17/04/2019 21/05/2019 M n/a
Aim Skills Development Limited 17/04/2019 21/05/2019 M n/a
The Portland Training Company Limited 11/04/2019 23/05/2019 M n/a
Numidia Education And Training Limited 11/04/2019 22/05/2019 M n/a
Care First Training Limited 18/04/2019 23/05/2019 M n/a
E.Q.V. (UK) Limited 11/04/2019 20/05/2019 M n/a
Manatec Limited 29/03/2019 23/05/2019 M n/a
South West Skills Academy Limited 11/04/2019 23/05/2019 M n/a
Birmingham Ymca 26/04/2019 23/05/2019 M n/a
University Centre Quayside Limited 30/04/2019 24/05/2019 M n/a
Vocational Skills Solutions Limited 02/05/2019 24/05/2019 M n/a
East Birmingham Community Forum Ltd 02/05/2019 24/05/2019 M n/a

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Training 2000 Limited 10/04/2019 23/05/2019 M 3

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Securitas Security Services (Uk) Limited 11/04/2019 20/05/2019 4 n/a
Colas Rail Limited 01/05/2019 20/05/2019 M n/a
Western Power Distribution (South West) 02/05/2019 24/05/2019 M n/a

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
South Wiltshire UTC   24/05/2019 M 4

Statistics watchdog ‘content’ with DfE including unreliable data in achievement rate tables

The country’s national statistics regulator has given the DfE achievement rate data a clean bill of health but called for greater transparency.

FE Week reported last month the 2017/18 national achievement rate tables included a list of more than 30 apprenticeship providers with data the DfE had admitted was unreliable.

The DfE said at the time the unreliable data was included to “provide a complete view of performance” and acknowledged that by doing so this year’s rate is 1.5 per cent lower than it would be if it was excluded.

Despite including the provider data it they admitted “the data we hold does not allow us to calculate a reliable estimate and therefore provides an unfair measure of performance.”

After FE Week shared the finding with the UK Statistics Authority, which had previously pressured the DfE into changing the way it presents its achievement data for 2015/16, the authority said it would look at the matter further.

The regulator has now sent and published a letter to Neil McIvor, the DfE’s chief data officer and chief statistician, saying it was “content” with the publication of the tables and with “the approach taken to include all data in the aggregate, headline position, particularly given that excluding it risks over-estimating the national position”.

However, it also said “it would be helpful to give more prominence to this in the headline publication and explain the context around the reasons for incomplete individual learner records”.

“In particular, the fact that these provider outcomes can be very unpredictable from year to year could be emphasised as one of the key limitations of the data,” wrote Ed Humpherson, director general for regulation at the authority.

In the same letter, Humpherson said the regulator investigated the “most recent concerns raised by FE Week” and noted that the 34 providers redacted in the formal performance tables have been redacted due to” quality issues”, which are the result of operational, rather than statistical, issues.

“We are aware that you work with the providers on an individual basis to try to resolve these issues,” he said.

We reported at the time that the government’s achievement rate data must comply with the UK Statistic Authority’s “code of practice”, which says official statistics must ensure they are “worthy of trust”.

“The code ensures that the statistics published by government serve the public,” according to the authority’s website.

“When producers of official statistics comply with the code, it gives users of statistics and citizens confidence that published government statistics are of public value, are high quality and are produced by people and organisations that are worthy of trust.”

FE Week analysis of the national achievement rate tables for 2017/18 showed there were 23,940 apprenticeships across 34 providers that have unreliable data, including at two large high-profile colleges.

The total combined cohort for all providers in 2017/18 was 412,190, which means data for 5.8 per cent of the apprenticeships in that year cannot be trusted.

FE Week took a look back at the achievement rate data for 2016/17 and found that the DfE also included the unreliable data in the headline rate in that year. “If we had excluded them for apprenticeships, then the national rate would be 68.6 per cent, which would be 0.9 per cent higher than the published figure,” it said at the time.

In 2016/17 there were 10,610 apprenticeships across 21 providers that were redacted for having unreliable data, which was 2.5 per cent of the 409,020 total cohort.

The largest provider to be excluded for having unreliable data in 2017/18 was the troubled West Nottinghamshire College, which had an apprenticeship cohort of 4,900.

The college run into financial difficulties last year that has led to substantial government bailouts, a high number of job losses, and, ultimately, the resignation of its longstanding, high-profile principal, Dame Asha Khemka.

The other high-profile provider to be excluded from the DfE’s official achievement rate data for 2017/18 was grade one Dudley College.

Its chief executive Lowell Williams last week apologised after FE Week reported how an audit exposed dodgy data with regards to late withdrawals that resulted in more than £500,000 being paid back to the government.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We are pleased the UK Statistics Authority is satisfied with our reporting of the 2017/18 national achievement rate tables and recognise the Data Dissemination project we have undertaken to improve these statistics. We will consider the wider feedback in the letter.”

 

T-level students in rural areas still at disadvantage, despite DfE ‘tinkering’

The flexibilities added to the controversial industry placement in T-levels are “helpful” but they still leave rural counties at a “distinct disadvantage”, according to a principal involved in the pilots of the programme.

Last week the government launched a “package of support” to encourage more employers to offer the 315-hour minimum placements that students will need to complete in order to pass the new technical qualifications.

The biggest change was that placement opportunities can be offered with up to two employers, as opposed to one long one, as originally planned.

For students with special education needs and disabilities, they will be allowed to use on-site facilities, such as a college-run restaurant or hair salon, for a maximum of 105 hours of the placement, while students studying at young offender institutions can complete their full placements in these simulated environments.

Any student’s part-time working hours can also be counted towards the required hours of placement, as long as the job is “occupationally related to the students’ chosen specialism at level 3 and it takes place at an environment away from the provider setting and the student’s normal learning environment”.

A pilot using £7 million will also be run in 2019-20, ahead of the T-levels roll-out, to trial the offer of financial incentives to employers to see if it encourages more people to sign up.

The DfE also confirmed placements will be formally recorded in hours – a minimum of 315 – as opposed to 45 days. It said that this “better reflects how industry professionals in some industries work and allows for shorter working days where needed”.

There is no extra support for student transport, which leaders have called for.

Jo Maher, principal of Boston College, which is involved in the T-level pilots, said rural counties “remain at a distinct disadvantage due to no movement on the 315-hour minimum requirement and rural transport issues, which result in long travel-to-work patterns”.

“Rural deprivation levels mean that many learners are unable to access a car and are heavily reliant on sparse and lengthy bus routes,” she told FE Week.

“We have already had to purchase a minibus to address transport issues for our pilot, which is part of the capacitybuilding funding scheme, and that was for just 10 per cent of eligible learners.”

Maher said her college has more than 600 eligible T-level learners moving forward, but if the industry relevant to their T-level is in the nearest city, not town, this “impacts both their placement and ability to secure part-time work that meets the ‘relevance’ requirement of the new flexibilities”.

“Furthermore, there is lots of employer support in the changes but nothing for providers, who are already stretched working to support their existing learners,” she continued.

“There are subject specialisms, such as creative and design, that would be better served with a proportion of the hours conducted back at the provider, for example, working on industry-assigned live briefs or employer project requests, as many of these jobs are freelance or home-based in the industry.”

Ian Pryce, the principal of Bedford College, said the DfE deserves credit for trying to be flexible but “placement remains a problem”.

“Most of our students work part-time and earn good money. They view 315 hours of unpaid work as an unfair burden, not a selling point,” he told FE Week.

“Measuring hours is the wrong way to go, too, it has to be about quality of experience, not length. It feels like tinkering, rather than addressing the unattractiveness and insecurity of placements of this length.”

Other flexibilities announced by the DfE include “bespoke ‘how to’ guides, workshops and practical hands-on support for employers – designed alongside industry bodies to make it as easy as possible for them to offer placements”.

“This new package of support is designed to help ensure we can deliver high-quality placements for every T-level student from 2020,” said education secretary Damian Hinds.

The first three T-levels, to be taught from September 2020, will be in digital, education and construction.

Devolved budget could drag adult education out of the doldrums

The chance for local people to have more of a say in adult education looks like a non-starter, says Lawrence Barton

The planned devolution of the adult education budget (AEB) heralds a significant advancement of adult education services, but early signs of inertia and mismanagement before the August 1 handover date signals an early death for this key initiative.

Our adult education system is failing to meet the demands we place upon it. With or without Brexit, our globalised economy means the UK needs talented and highly skilled workers. Instead, we are languishing in the doldrums through a combination of factors: an over-reliance on public-sector employment; a nationwide skills shortage, falling participation rates in training and levels of literacy and numeracy that could be much improved.

The UK’s skills needs are like a patchwork quilt, with no two regions the same. Our existing funding system isn’t adequately addressing these varied requirements, which is where devolution can help. It is about giving local people a greater voice by narrowing the gap between decision-makers, training providers and employers.

By transferring power to the regions, responsibility for decision-making will be put in the hands of those best placed to address local needs. It creates a structure based around local planning, coordination and demand. At least that’s the theory.

The problem is that this devolution is being mismanaged and delayed. Initially intended for 2018, the 2017 snap general election delayed the necessary legislation, which postponed transition by a year.

Regional infighting has also hampered progress. Devolution to some areas of the country, including East Anglia, the northeast and Lincolnshire has been shelved while local issues are resolved. The Sheffield City Region deal, meanwhile, after initially being disrupted by legal action, has only just been resolved after being hampered by local disagreements.

We’re on course for more of the same

Rather than seizing devolution as an opportunity to tackle problems with the existing system, the devolution framework retains inherent flaws. A bias in favour of FE colleges over private training providers remains, despite evidence from the Skills Funding Agency’s own research that shows employers are more satisfied with private training providers.

Devolution will see responsibility for roughly £700 million – about half of the overall AEB – transferred to six combined authorities, which are made up of two or more local authorities, and the Greater London Authority. Due to a diktat by central government about £450 million of that pot is allocated to FE colleges, representing 8 per cent or so of their total income.

This effective ring-fencing of funding for FE colleges represents a missed opportunity to free up the education budget, foster competition and drive up standards for the betterment of learners, employers and the economy. It also undermines efforts to address the issues of financial mismanagement prevalent within the college sector.

The recent example of North Hertfordshire College, which recorded a £5 million deficit in 2017-18 and received a recent £2.5 million government bailout is just the latest example of what the National Audit Office described in 2015 as the “rapidly declining financial health” of the FE college sector. For devolution to be a success it needs to bring with it a meritocratic approach to funding, prioritising those with a proven track-record of delivery and learner outcomes.

Shifting responsibility away from central government to regional officials more in tune with local needs can only be a good thing, but for this initiative to be a success the transition must be carried out effectively and opportunities to tackle existing problems inherent with the current funding system addressed. As things stand, we’re on course for more of the same.

UCU elects general secretary

Jo Grady has been elected the new general secretary of the University and College Union, though on a turnout of only 20 per cent.

The employment relations lecturer at the University of Sheffield secured 64 per cent of the vote, almost double that of second-place Matt Waddup, UCU’s national head of policy and campaigns, who received 33 per cent of the vote.

The president of the University of Liverpool UCU branch Jo McNeil also ran, but was knocked out in the first round of voting.

Grady said the HE and FE sector faced “extraordinary challenges”, including from the “pressures of volatile funding regimes”.

The election was called after the previous general secretary, Sally Hunt, stepped down in February owing to health reasons, after 12 years at the helm.

Her successor has called the level of pay in FE an “urgent issue”, and called out the UCU for FE being the sector where “the union has made the least progress in protecting or improving our members’ wages” and for not spending more of its ‘fighting fund’ to support striking workers.

UCU branches at colleges across the country have opted for strike action this year, which has led to further talks with management and pay increases.

In 2017/18, the fund made payments of £1.13 million, but still had £1.4 million in its reserves by the end of the year.

Grady wants the union to encourage members to draw on the fund and promised to both ensure her salary does not increase any higher than the most recent national pay offer in Further Education, and donate a portion of her salary to the fighting fund, then publish the amount she has donated.

She noted that “expectations are high” after she won an “overwhelming” mandate, on what the UCU called a record turnout.

However, only one fifth of eligible members voted, which is equal to 23,638 votes and compares with 14.4 per cent in 2007 and 13.7 per cent in 2017.

Why apprenticeships are more than a path to social inclusion for the young

Skills and the apprenticeship system in England must encompass level 8, ditching the notion that apprenticeships are primarily about craft and technical level roles, says Mandy Crawford-Lee

The recent “wobble” by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) on whether to support the development of level 8 apprenticeships has been welcomed by some in the skills sector. We’ve heard the opinion, reported in the FE press, that PhD-level apprenticeships are purely academic programmes and not in the “spirit” of the policy on apprenticeships.

Such comments show a bewildering lack of understanding of higher education provision and contemporary skills programmes. Ask a member of the public if a surgeon or dentist – both level 8 occupations – need practical skills and the answer obviously would be yes. Indeed, the whole concept of knowledge, skills and behaviours or professional values fits perfectly with such occupations.

The existence of the professional doctorate used in a wide range of sectors also seems to be ignored in these debates. The UK Economic and Social Research Council expects individuals undertaking professional doctorates to “contribute to both theory and practice in their field and to develop professional practice…”

Indeed, professional doctorates could help turbo-boost the apprenticeship programme at this level across many sectors and occupations by bringing practice closer to learning. It is disappointing that the existence and use of professional doctorates doesn’t seem to be always understood, given that there is a substantial track record of developing occupational competence at level 8. It is therefore not surprising that employers are developing apprenticeship programmes at level 8 as they recognise their contribution to understanding and applying knowledge, as well as developing research-informed practice and lifelong learning skills, enhancing the route from degree apprenticeships to professional careers.

Let’s knock on the head the idea that level 8 can’t be about skills

Put simply, I suggest that knowledge, skills and behaviours are rather important in the nuclear industry, advanced clinical and nursing practice, in education, in training (extending the notion of “prac-academics”) and for research scientists and engineers where level 8 apprenticeships could be, and are being, developed. From a skills and productivity perspective, the occupations where level 8 standards are being developed and proposed tick all the boxes.

So let’s knock on the head the idea of the appropriateness of apprenticeships at this level and the notion that level 8 can’t be about skills; a failure to do so is a failure to recognise the diversity and complexity of employment today.

I suspect that part of the problem is that many people are wedded to two ideas. Firstly, that apprenticeships must remain a social inclusion route simply for the young or the disadvantaged; and secondly, that associate skills training, particularly at levels 2 and 3, are something to be delivered exclusively by colleges and independent training providers. While FE does play a key role in the delivery of skills programmes, so do higher education providers, employers and both professional and regulatory bodies.

Apprenticeships are now led by employers rather than further education, with economic productivity a key policy driver; an objective glance at the skills-needs of the UK economy would confirm the need for level 8 apprenticeships, and any employer engaged in their development should be congratulated. It’s high-time we drop the notion that apprenticeships are primarily about craft and technical level roles. If we don’t, we will totally undermine the ability of apprenticeship to tackle the UK’s No 1 economic challenge – the blight of low productivity.

It would be economic folly to ignore the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to become occupationally competent in key level 8 occupations. The Department for Education and IfATE, perhaps with help and encouragement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury respectively, need to stick to the concept of apprenticeship as an employer-led and productivity-focused skills programme. Not to do so provides an example of where the importance and value of degree apprenticeships are not adequately supported by government policy and messages.