We’re back in the black after £5m overclaim, says WCG

Warwickshire College Group claims to have “restored financial stability” after a “difficult” couple of years that involved repaying more than £5 million in overclaimed funding.

The group almost entered insolvency last year amid a cashflow crisis but was saved by a last-minute government bailout. It has been subject to FE Commissioner intervention since 2024.

Financial troubles escalated when a Department for Education audit initially identified clawbacks of around £1.4 million across 16-to-19 provision and apprenticeships funding streams for the 2022-23 academic year.

But when investigators looked back to 2019 they unearthed a significantly larger number of funding overclaims.

WCG’s newly published 2024-25 accounts reveal the total clawback hit £5.4 million.

The group said the overspend concerned “historic funding claims” caused by “legacy control weaknesses” across “multiple funding streams”. This included the “retention of ineligible funding” related to apprenticeships.

A formal investigation report outcome is expected to be published by the DfE, which typically details what specific funding breaches were found.

A WCG spokesperson said the group “would not want to pre-empt their [DfE] conclusions by commenting further on detailed audit findings beyond what is already in the published accounts”.

The spokesperson added that signed accounts “bring to an end all historic funding assurance work relating to delivery between 2019 and 2023” and confirmed that the clawback had been repaid in full.

To remain afloat, WCG received two emergency loans from the DfE totalling £3.9 million, which were secured against the college’s Trident campus in Warwick, and Evesham campus which is now up for sale.

The group’s financial statements show a markedly improved position. Total income increased from £49.8 million in 2023-24 to £60.2 million for 2024-25, while education-specific EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) improved from a £270,000 loss to a £4 million profit over the same period.

Cash days in hand strengthened from eight in July 2024 to 35 days 12 months later.

WCG said its financial health score would be classed as ‘good’ under the FE Commissioner’s methodology, but this is prior to the “potential” automatic downward adjustment applied as a consequence of receiving emergency funding.

CEO Sara-Jane Watkins, who was appointed to the role in May 2024, said: “These accounts close a difficult but necessary period of work to resolve historic funding issues and restore financial stability.

“Over the past year we have taken decisive action to stabilise the organisation, rebalance our cost base and improve cash resilience.

“With all historic audits closed and no outstanding funding issues, the focus is now on maintaining financial health and delivering high-quality education and skills provision for learners and employers across the region.”

Improvement work

Help brought in to improve the college’s financial controls included “expert consultants” and a new specialist apprenticeship compliance manager, the accounts show.

They also reveal that the funding audit experience led management to “fundamentally develop and enhance” the college’s internal reporting processes and take a “sophisticated approach” to data governance.

Gill Clipson, chair of WCG since 2022, said: “The board has worked closely with the DfE and the FE Commissioner throughout this period. Financial oversight, governance and assurance have been significantly strengthened.

“While the issues addressed relate to historic activity, the actions taken over the past year have placed the group on a far more resilient and sustainable footing.”

The college group is responsible for around 13,000 students, including more than 2,000 apprentices, and has 1,300 staff across six colleges in Warwickshire and Worcestershire.

It’s made up of Evesham New College, Warwick Trident College, Rugby College, Royal Leamington Spa College, Moreton Morrell College and Pershore College.

The group sold several sites in controversial circumstances to repay its commercial debts, which peaked at about £23 million in 2014.

They include its Malvern Hills campus, its old Rugby College site for £7.6 million, its Henley-in-Arden site to Wasps Rugby for £6.5 million, and the sale and leaseback of accommodation blocks in Leamington for £5.2 million.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 521

Bill Jones

Group CEO, Luminate Education Group

Start date: January 2026

Previous Job: Deputy CEO, Luminate Education Group

Interesting fact: Although no athlete, Bill enjoys running and a couple of years ago ran at least 5km a day consecutively, with no break, for more than 500 days

Ed Rose

Executive Director for Business Development, Apprenticeships and Adults, City College Norwich

Start date: January 2026

Previous Job: Assistant Principal – Stakeholder Engagement and Lifelong Learning, City College Norwich

Interesting fact: When Ed was leading his ITP he approached City College Norwich to become a subcontractor and was turned down. If you can’t beat them…

AI Skills Hub risks ‘copy and paste of past failure’

Ministers have been urged not to repeat past mistakes with the government’s rollout of free AI training that aims to reach 10 million workers by 2030.

The government this week unveiled plans to make “free AI training available to everybody”, expanding its AI Skills Boost programme through an online AI Skills Hub that directs users to beginner and advanced courses developed by technology firms.

But experts have warned the initiative risks repeating the failures of the ‘skills toolkits’ platform rolled out during the pandemic, which closed after two years marred by unreliable course completion data that misled Parliament about its success.

Technology secretary Liz Kendall said the new AI hub would help deliver the government’s ambition to upskill millions of adults, with free introductory courses.

It directs visitors to enrol on free beginner courses such as Amazon’s Introduction to Generative AI, Gemini for Google Workspace, and Mathematics of Machine Learning by the Alan Turing Institute.

The hub is an expansion of the AI Skills Boost programme launched by prime minister Sir Keir Starmer in June as part of a drive to improve UK work-readiness and boost productivity.

Tech firm Multiverse is the only apprenticeship provider involved in the programme.

AI skills hub homepage

Lessons learned?

A notice published by the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) this week claimed more than one million AI training courses delivered by 11 industry partners had been completed since Starmer’s announcement.

The figure covers all courses taken by external learners and employees from partners including Amazon, BT, Google, Microsoft and Salesforce.

DSIT said, however, it could not share partner or course-level breakdowns of completion data due to “commercial sensitivity”.

Experts said that while support for AI upskilling was “welcome”, the announcement felt “familiar”.

The Department for Education spent more than £1 million on the original skills toolkit platform in 2020, which signposted users to free digital and numeracy courses.

The platform later came under fire after FE Week revealed that published take-up figures included web hits as “registrations”, and counted some course “completions” when users spent just three minutes viewing a resource.

The controversy prompted concerns from the Office for Statistics Regulation and led to the Department for Education pausing publication of the data.

Sue Pember, policy lead at adult education network HOLEX, said: “While the ambition is positive, the lesson from the skills toolkit should be that take-up and outcomes matter more than headline registration numbers.”

Paid courses

Visitors to the AI Skills Hub are required to create an account before accessing a catalogue of more than 590 courses.

Officials said the hub offered learning ranging from 20-minute modules to full university master’s programmes.

FE Week analysis of the course list found many offerings were simply being marketed through the hub and redirected users to providers’ own platforms.

Most courses from the main host organisations – Microsoft, Google and Amazon – are free, with just four of their 137 courses requiring payment.

But many others incur a fee, with around 60 per cent of all listed courses requiring users to pay.

Selection of AI skills hub courses available

“Although the announcement says the training is free, within a few clicks users are asked to pay for some modules, which risks excluding those who most need support,” Pember said.

“Without clearer standards alignment, better design and targeted support, this risks being more of a rebrand than a step change. Or even worse, a marketing tool for selling high-cost courses.”

Pember also questioned whether the hub would support learners with low skills or limited digital confidence.

“The platform is hard to navigate and doesn’t clearly link to digital standards,” she said.

The government said a selection of industry-developed AI courses had been assessed against Skills England’s AI foundation skills for work benchmark, with learners receiving a virtual AI foundations badge upon completion.

But Pember pointed out it was “unclear how they align to national digital skills standards, which raises questions about their consistency, progression and value”.

Skills England chair Phil Smith said the agency had worked “rapidly” with technology firms to ensure courses selected for the AI Skills Boost programme provide the “quality and capability” employers need.

He added: “It’s also a huge step forward that everyone who completes these short courses will get digital badges that properly recognise what they’ve learned. It’s a simple idea that will make a huge difference.”

Smith also co-chairs the Digital Skills Council, an external advisory body to DSIT that includes representatives from industry, academia and the public sector. 

Council members include senior figures from Lloyds Banking Group, Multiverse and techUK.

Prison education time slashed by one quarter, MoJ admits

The volume of core education delivered in prisons across England will reduce by up to 25 per cent, ministers have admitted.

Regulators and MPs have sounded the alarm over reported cuts to prison education budgets since new Prison Education Service (PES) contracts came out last October.

The Ministry of Justice consistently maintained there was no cut to the total budget in cash terms, but acknowledged it had not kept up with “significant” rises to the cost of delivering education in prisons.

In a response to a justice select committee report, prisons minister Lord Timpson today admitted “some” prisons faced a reduction in education delivery hours due to “difficult” decisions made to maximise value for money.

Nationally, the government expects a reduction of between 20 to 25 per cent to the volume of core education, which offers prisoners literacy and numeracy courses up to level 2, as well as ICT and English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) courses.

MPs said the cuts to prison education delivery hours risked jeopardising prison rehabilitation, and called the ministerial response to their concerns “both weak and disappointing”.

Jon Collins, chief executive of Prisoners’ Education Trust, said the cuts were now “beginning to bite”.

“We are seeing courses axed, staff made redundant, and support for people with additional needs put at risk,” he said.

Paul Bridge, head of further education at University and College Union, this month estimated around 300 teaching staff had been made redundant and warned more would follow.

‘Revised’ funding formula to be rolled out

Prisons were informed of their budgets under the new PES for October 2025 to March 2027 last April. Nearly £148 million was earmarked for core prison education across 94 jails.

Provision is delivered by three procured providers: Milton Keynes College, PeoplePlus, and Novus, part of Manchester-based LTE group.

Earlier this month, arms-length body the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) accused the Prison Service of downplaying cuts after finding evidence through a survey of prisons of “seismic” reductions to core education and “dramatic” cuts to Dynamic Purchasing System budgets.

Timpson was urged to explain the IMB’s findings of budget cuts that extended “far beyond” inflation which “appears to contradict” statements given by the Prison Service.

Today’s response by the government rejected the accusations of large budget reductions.

“The national prison education budget has not been cut. However, the cost of delivering high-quality education has increased significantly in recent years,” said a government spokesperson.

“Although the budget has slightly increased in cash terms, it has not kept pace with these rising costs. This has meant some prisons are facing a reduction in education delivery hours.”

The government confirmed it had calculated a “revised” funding formula to ensure “fair” allocation to prisons based on population numbers and regional cost differences.

It said this means some prisons will see bigger reductions and some could receive an increase.

The government stressed that the changes only apply to core education contracts and do not affect libraries, careers advice or vocational training.

The justice select committee’s inquiry into reoffending and rehabilitation demanded that the government set out plans to ensure “all prisons retain the funding necessary to deliver core education provision”.

The government’s response was that future funding “is depending on cross-government spending decisions”.

Justice committee chair Andy Slaughter said: “It’s deeply concerning to hear core education provision is being reduced despite the government’s own recognition of the positive impact that education has on reducing reoffending and the committee’s recommendation to improve both participation and quality in prison education.

“Access to learning is crucial and any reduction risks jeopardising rehabilitation efforts.”

Marples handed bill for DfE’s legal costs

Ex-apprenticeships boss Peter Marples has been ordered to stump up most – but not all – of the Department for Education’s legal bill following the collapse of his £37 million High Court claim.

A sealed court order shows the High Court ruled Marples and his family of co-claimants must pay £1.05 million “on account of the defendant’s costs”, after the DfE achieved a “complete victory” by successfully defending the case in full.

FE Week understands that the claimants’ own legal costs topped £1 million.

The payment to the DfE does not cover the department’s total legal bill. The judge, Mr Justice Rajah, made clear the sum represented around 60 per cent of the department’s anticipated costs at an earlier stage of proceedings.

The DfE had argued its overall legal costs were significantly higher, with written submissions stating they hit “approximately £2.8 million”. But the judge declined to order a higher payment, noting there was “no costs schedule or evidence of that figure” and “no explanation as to why it is so greatly in excess of the costs anticipated”.

The combined costs highlight how legal action against the DfE is effectively out of reach for most training providers, given the financial risks involved.

‘A complete victory’

The ruling follows last year’s High Court judgment dismissing Marples’ claim in its entirety.

He had claimed negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging the DfE’s then Skills Funding Agency acted with malice when refusing to sign off on a change of control that scuppered a planned sale of apprenticeship giant 3aaa to Trilantic Capital Partners in 2016.

As previously reported by FE Week, the court rejected allegations that the DfE had acted unlawfully or with bias, with the judge concluding there was “no grudge” against Marples and that the department had achieved a “complete victory”.

Judge finds no grudge as DfE defeats Marples’ £37m 3aaa claim

The trial took place over multiple weeks in June and July, with judgment handed down in October.

Marples had the option of applying for permission to appeal the decision but this was not taken up.

In the recent costs order, Mr Justice Rajah said the claim had failed on all substantive grounds and this justified applying the general rule that the losing party should pay the successful party’s costs.

He added that a “fundamental failure” of Marples’ legal team was their “failure to recognise that the defendant had a good defence to this claim”.

Marples and the DfE declined to comment.

‘Regular accounting’ plan settles college year-end row

A “compromise approach” to a dispute about forcing colleges to move the start of their financial year from August to April has been announced.

Rather than submitting accounts halfway through their academic year, colleges will instead be asked to provide spending data throughout the year to the Department for Education’s group accounts.

In an update on Thursday, DfE officials said the approach would avoid the “undue burden” of making colleges align their financial year, which runs from August to July, with the government’s financial year which runs from April to March.

The move, which has been welcomed by the Association of Colleges, follows disagreements between the Treasury and DfE over “unaligned financial year-ends” following the reclassification of colleges as public sector bodies in 2022.

A “dry run” is now planned for 2026-27 that will require finance teams to submit “more granular actual spend information” throughout the year ahead of “effective implementation” in 2027-28.

It follows a pilot of the approach carried out with 14 FE colleges this year that has now been “endorsed by Parliament”.

Although “work is underway” to decide exactly how the financial information will be collected next year, officials said colleges would need to submit “taut and realistic” spending plans at the start of the government financial year.

They will then be asked to present actual spend during the year that will help create a “consolidated sector position” for the Office for National Statistics and the DfE’s group accounts for the year to March 31, which are subject to audit by the National Audit Office.

The update said the approach was an attempt to develop a “simple and efficient” way to ensure reporting obligations can be met “without introducing undue burden”.

The 2026-27 academic year will now be a “sector-wide test” of the compromise approach, that aims to reduce the risk that FE colleges spend “significantly more or less” than the DfE’s spending plans agreed by Parliament at the start of the year, which could have a “consequential impact” on available funding for the education sector, the update added.

Incorporating college finances into the DfE’s group accounts is seen as a necessary measure for Treasury officials who compile the ‘whole of government accounts’ report each year. The report combines the assets and liabilities of more than 10,000 public sector organisations across the UK.

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes welcomed the announcement as a “pragmatic approach” after 18 months of “hard work” between college finance directors and officials.

He said: “The original plan to change the sector’s financial year end would have taken up enormous resource in every college, so this use of adapted but existing data returns will greatly smooth the process.

“There is still extra work from college finance teams at a time when they are already fully stretched, but we welcome the fact that a co-creation and piloting approach was used to test a solution and the results were evaluated in a way that changed some of the decisions.”

The AoC boss previously branded government proposals to force colleges to adopt the public sector financial year as “a disastrous move” that would take them out of line with the academic year cycle.

Sixth Form Colleges Association deputy chief executive James Kewin also previously called the idea “an exercise in futility” that would place an unnecessary burden on colleges.

Apprenticeships are heading for a cliff edge, and ministers should know where it leads

The apprenticeship system is entering one of the most pressured periods in its history.  The rapid growth of the programme means that demand from employers is now butting up against the arbitrary budget that the Treasury has given the Department for Education and now the Department for Work and Pensions. To tackle rising NEET (not in employment, education or training) levels, government plans to ‘streamline’ how employers use levy funds for apprenticeships and ‘tilt’ apprenticeship spend towards younger apprentices. We understand this desire – but how government makes the change is critical.

Done badly this is a disaster waiting to happen. Employers, young people and the provider base (the engine without which skills development doesn’t happen) will be violently ejected from the boat and into the treacherous waters of an economy that is retreating from skills, not embracing them. 

Done well, and ministers could be taking the plaudits for navigating the rapids successfully, through to calmer waters where the right longer term investment decisions can be made.

The government knows that rapid defunding does not work: the cliff edge defunding of level 7 for learners over the age of 21 has had exactly the opposite financial impact of that intended. The rush to get in before the defunding deadline has tied up apprenticeship funding, not released it – exactly as we said would happen.

Sudden lurches derail planning and investment, trigger unpredictable survival behaviour, and erode employer confidence and buy-in, which relies on stability and time to adjust.

There is also a flawed assumption at the heart of the debate: that cutting adult apprenticeships will automatically create more opportunities for young people. That is not how labour markets work.

Apprenticeships – as with the wider labour market – function as a whole ecosystem. When existing staff upskill and move into higher-level roles, entry-level vacancies open up – the most precious component in the NEET reduction machine. A successful entry level opportunity for a NEET needs a good line manager and we know we don’t have enough of them.

This progression, combined with good line managers, creates the capillary effect (hat tip to Rob Nitsch at the Federation of Awarding Bodies for the metaphor) allowing the same job role, over time, to support multiple young people into gainful employment. Choking off progression and good line management chokes off opportunity for the very people you want to help.

This is why AELP is supporting the Chartered Management Institute (CMI)’s campaign to protect management apprenticeship options. We are firm advocates for other standards that could be in the firing line. For many independent training providers, these types of programmes are core to their offer. They underpin business models, cross-subsidise other provision and support investment in staff, quality and innovation. Pull funding too rapidly and providers will not be able to “pivot” and may exit. Capacity will be lost permanently.

We are hearing from members that some major employers, long-time champions of apprenticeships, are questioning whether to walk away from the system altogether and treat the levy as just another tax. If it becomes acceptable for leading brands to disengage, others will follow, then SMEs (small and medium sized businesses). Starts will fall. The reputational damage among young people will be severe and once employer confidence drains away, past experience is that rebuilding it is painfully slow.

Ending the Treasury top-slice (which AELP estimates at anywhere between £500 million and £800 million) means these are tough choices that shouldn’t need to be made. But even if funding constraints mean prioritisation is unavoidable, there are safer ways to do it.

First, be transparent. Set out the budget position and the scale of savings sought. Providers and employers can plan for tough realities if they understand them.

Second, use co-funding and tapering, not cliff edges. Step-down models over a couple of years can release funding while keeping employers engaged and giving providers time to adjust.

Third, prioritise more intelligently. Age-based incentives within standards, for example a stronger focus on under-30s, are far less destabilising than removing standards entirely. And any major shift must be sequenced with credible alternatives, such as apprenticeship units, being ready at scale. And use existing mechanisms to bend these programmes towards the NEET problem: insist on a focus on how to manage young people.

Reform carried out with the sector can strengthen apprenticeships. Reform imposed on the sector risks turning a budget squeeze into a system failure. That would be a catastrophe for providers, employers and, most of all, the young people this reform is meant to help.

City & Guilds CEO pay passed £525k before £166m sale, accounts show

City & Guilds CEO Kirstie Donnelly’s pay surged past the half-million-pound mark before the charity sold its awarding and training business, accounts reveal.

The charity’s latest filings also suggest it banked £166 million from the sale to Greek-owned certification giant PeopleCert last year. This is the first time an actual sale price has been reported.

In the 12 months to August 31, 2025, Donnelly was paid a £335,000 salary, £64,195 in benefits and a £126,321 bonus – almost twice the size of the bonus she received the year before.

The £525,516 total pay packet in 2024-25 was 17 per cent higher than the previous year’s package of £448,174, which comprised a salary of £324,960, benefits of £56,214 and bonus of £67,000. Remuneration for executives was decided by the charity’s remuneration and nominations committee, made up of six trustees.

The pay disclosure comes after the Charity Commission opened a formal statutory inquiry into the sale of City & Guilds’ commercial arm, following reports that buyer PeopleCert handed Donnelly (pictured) an additional £1.7 million bonus shortly after the deal closed on October 31, 2025, plus a pay rise of around £100,000 that pushed her salary to £430,000.

Donnelly and finance director Amid Ismail have since been placed on leave, with PeopleCert launching its own internal probe into “events before and after the sale” and the “individual conduct of executives”.

Ismail is reported to have received a £1.2 million bonus, along with a 30 per cent salary increase to £430,000.

Trustees of the charity have repeatedly insisted they were “not involved” in any discussions about bonus payments before or after the sale.

However, earlier this month, City & Guilds Foundation admitted there were “discussions” among trustees last May about the “possibility” of an “incentive payment” to executives to “help secure the greatest residual value to the charity for its future use”.

The board claimed to have “subsequently decided not to establish such an incentive” and claimed to record this decision in its October board meeting minutes.

Kirstie Donnelly

Sale price revealed?

The accounts – for City & Guilds Foundation, the charity that continues to exist after the sale of its awarding operation – also appear to confirm for the first time how much money the organisation made from the deal.

They state: “The divestment of the group’s commercial activities will have material impacts on the group’s and institute’s future activities and its financial statements in the next financial year as its income and expenditure related to commercial activities will cease from November 1, 2025 and assets and liabilities related to those activities will be disposed.

“Estimated net proceeds for the disposals, after selling costs, was £166 million.”

The foundation confirmed to FE Week the £166 million figure “refers to the net cash proceeds received directly from the sale transaction itself”.

The foundation previously said that financial terms of the transaction were “commercially confidential”, but added the charity would receive a “very significant financial benefit” which includes “gross assets of approximately £180 to 200 million being available to the charity, including the proceeds of sale and the provision of office space for a period of five years”.

Trustees are understood to have believed the historic operating model was becoming increasingly unsustainable and therefore feel that they acted decisively and responsibly to protect the charity’s long‑term mission.

A foundation source said: “This was unequivocally the right strategic decision. Retaining the commercial businesses would have required major ongoing investment and carried growing financial risk.

“The sale removes that burden, places CGLI on a very strong financial footing, and allows the charity to focus fully on delivering social impact at scale.”

The City & Guilds transaction generated further controversy after it was discovered the new owners planned to reduce staff headcount at the awarding body, including moving some jobs to its home country of Greece where labour costs are lower.

New chair wanted

City & Guilds Foundation is now searching for a new chair following the departure of Dame Ann Limb, who is stepping down to take a seat in the House of Lords. The FE sector grandee suffered her own controversy recently when she admitted to falsely claiming she held a PhD.

In a recruitment advert published this week, the charity described the moment as an “incredibly exciting time” and said it was looking for a new chair to help deliver “the greatest societal impact and long-term systems change”.

More digging of foundation apprenticeships needed after just 36 starts

Employers and training providers have been urged “not to step back” from foundation apprenticeships after rollout figures revealed the flagship policy suffered a “sluggish” start.

Just 36 young people began one of the government’s new foundation apprenticeships in the first three months after their launch last summer.

The figures, published today and covering August to October, sparked concern about employer awareness. It is also feared the initial set of seven foundation apprenticeships are too focused on industrial strategy sectors rather than labour market need.

Leaders of training providers involved in the early delivery of the programme insist the figures should be a reason for the foundation apprenticeship offer to be “strengthened”.

Foundation apprenticeships are level 2 programmes for people aged 16 to 21, or up to 24 if the person has an education, health and care plan, is a care leaver or has been in prison. The programmes are paid jobs lasting eight months and are designed to be a stepping stone to a full apprenticeships and work in industry.

The seven foundation apprenticeships launched in August included three for the construction sector, two for digital, one for engineering and manufacturing and one for health and social care.

Incentive payments of up to £2,000 per foundation apprentice are on offer to employers, in addition to the existing £1,000 payment businesses receive for 16 to 18-year-old apprentices.

The most popular was the onsite trades foundation apprenticeship with 17 starts, FE Week analysis of the data found.

Next was building services engineering with eight recruits, followed by engineering and manufacturing with five, health and social care with four, and then hardware, network and infrastructure with two.

Two foundation apprenticeships – in software and data and finishing trades – are yet to get off the ground as nobody started on them in the period.

The government’s dataset described foundation apprenticeships as a “new programme which will be building over time”.

Exeter College was the biggest provider, having recorded 16 starts on the onsite trades programme during the first quarter of 2025-26.

Mike Blakeley, Exeter College’s group executive director of partnerships and apprenticeships, said foundation apprenticeships had “opened up a valuable new route into industry” and were “positively received by both employers and learners”.

He told FE Week his college is “sharing our experience of foundation apprenticeships with other colleges and key employers, and we expect momentum to continue to build over time”.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Ben Rowland warned in November that the initial delivery of foundation apprenticeships had been “a damp squib” because the government “began by taking them to industrial strategy sectors who didn’t ask for them, need them or want them”.

The government has announced plans to introduce foundation apprenticeships in hospitality and retail, but officials are yet to publicly commit to a timeline for their rollout.

FE Week understands the government hopes to have them up and running by April.

Simon Ashworth, AELP’s deputy CEO and director of policy, said: “There is an underlying danger that an over-fixation with industrial strategy sectors becomes a distraction. This shows why a broader, more inclusive approach should be taken to help create jobs, address skills gaps and tackle the NEET crisis.”

He told FE Week that if the government is serious about foundation apprenticeships helping tackle NEET numbers, it should “speed up development in sectors like retail and hospitality” as these areas have “strong entry-level opportunities and employer demand”.

“That would give the programme the boost it needs after a sluggish start,” Ashworth added, and urged ministers to announce next steps for more foundation apprenticeships during next month’s National Apprenticeship Week.

Apprenticeship giant Lifetime Training started four foundation apprentices on the health and social care programme between August and October and has since enrolled more.

They are all employed by Manchester-based social enterprise PossAbilities.

Lifetime Training CEO Charlotte Bosworth said this week’s starts figures “are not a reason to step back from foundation apprenticeships; they are a reason for government to strengthen them”.

She called for officials to give the courses “greater clarity of purpose” because employers lack a “concrete understanding of how foundation apprenticeships differ from level 2, what they are designed to achieve, and how progression works”.

“Without a clear and consistent message, the model will continue to struggle to gain traction,” Bosworth warned.

She told FE Week that tighter alignment to real labour market need was also “vital”, with clearer frameworks to prevent foundation apprenticeships becoming “simply a level 2 substitute”.

“The first 36 starters show the model is still bedding in, but with clearer policy, employer-led design and better communication across the system, foundation apprenticeships can become a powerful tool for widening opportunity and tackling skills shortages,” Bosworth said.

A government spokesperson said: “We’re investing £1.5 billion to get hundreds of thousands of young people earning or learning – including through an expansion of apprenticeships and training.

“As part of our plans, £725 million is going towards reforming the apprenticeship system, helping 50,000 more young people into work and driving economic growth.

“It’s fantastic to see the first cohort of learners successfully entering employment in critical sectors. We’re determined to go further to support young people to succeed.”