FE Commissioner pushing for mega merger to secure Cornwall College’s future

The FE Commissioner is pushing for a mega merger in Cornwall to secure the future of Cornwall College, which is currently surviving on government bailouts.

FE Week exclusively revealed the existence of a mysterious and confidential review of further education in Cornwall back in November, after it was requested by Cornwall Council.

It put pressure on the region’s two colleges – Cornwall College and Truro and Penwith College – to work more closely together.

The review, published today, warned that “maintaining two separate colleges in Cornwall may not bring about the best learning opportunities for all of Cornwall’s learners”.

“There is growing agreement that moving towards one single entity for provision across Cornwall could be in the best interest of learners, businesses and the wider Cornwall community,” the report said.

Instead, the FE Commissioner has recommended that the two colleges actively participate in a strategic steering group to decide whether they should become a “single entity” no later than December 2020, or find a way to deliver a “financially viable” standalone Cornwall College.

Truro and Penwith College has just over 5,000 16-18-year-old learners, while Cornwall College – which has previously been warned over falling learner numbers – has closer to 3,500.

When FE Week first revealed the review, Truro and Penwith, which is rated grade one by Ofsted, expressed concern.

A spokesperson said “several” of the draft recommendations coming out of it “do not reflect the position of governors here”.

Today’s report revealed that Cornwall College’s £30 million application to the restructuring fund was rejected by the Department for Education in May 2018, as long-term financial modelling “still showed the college incurring operating deficits in future years”. 

The Cornwall College Group, rated ‘good’ by Ofsted, is undergoing the ‘fresh start’ approach, meaning it must significantly change its business or operating model. It announced the resignation of its principal Raoul Humphreys back in November.

Dr Elaine McMahon took over as interim principal and chief executive in November.

The group received £4.5 million emergency funding in 2016/17 and £3.5 million in 2017/18. An FE commissioner assessment summary of the group, published in July 2017, said the new leadership team were not responsible for the loss of financial control” experienced by the college under the previous principal Amarjit Basi, who resigned in July 2016 with a £200,000 payout.

Back in August 2017, the post-16 area review report covering Cornwall, Somerset, Devon and the Isle of Scilly was published without recommending any mergers.

However, it did recommend “collaboration” between Cornwall College and Truro and Penwith College, including establishing a joint project group to “facilitate closer collaboration” such as the delivery of higher education, apprenticeships and provision for students with high needs.

But the FE Commissioner’s report has found the two rivals failed to work together, and said that “little progress had been made and any work on this has now stalled”.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 273

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving.


Kelly Rinaldi

Assistant Principal, John Leggott College

Start date: March 2019

Previous job: Associate Assistant Principal, John Leggott College

Interesting fact: She once featured on Supermarket Sweep.


Claire Holmes

Deputy Principal, John Leggott College

Start date: March 2019

Previous job: Assistant Principal, John Leggott College

Interesting fact: She is a keen horse rider.


David Grant

Chief Executive, AAA Training Solutions

Start date: March 2019

Previous job: Chief Operating Officer, Haddon Training

Interesting fact: He initially trained as a chef and has had a cookery book published.


Palvinder Singh

Principal, City of Bristol College

Start date: June 2019

Previous job: Deputy Principal Finance, Planning and Business Development at Kidderminster College, NCG

Interesting fact: He enjoys walking meditations.

 

Why has England seemingly set out to destroy adult learning opportunities?

It’s good for democracy, health, productivity and civic engagement: lifelong learning in this country must be revitalised, says Alan Tuckett

There has been a plethora of new reports from international bodies extolling the value of lifelong learning. Building on the UN’s 2015 commitment to “promoting lifelong learning for all” and ensuring that “no one is left behind”, the World Economic Forum, the OECD and UNESCO all agree that we need lifelong learning if we are to respond effectively to the challenges posed by the fourth industrial revolution. Most recently, the International Labour Office’s Centenary Commission on the Future of Jobs had, as its first recommendation, a universal entitlement to lifelong learning.

The evidence of the value of lifelong learning is powerful for individuals, communities, firms and governments alike. The benefits to workers faced with increasingly unstable and short-term employment are clear. People with more skills, and willingness to learn, fare better at times of dislocation. For firms, too, there is a strong relationship between a culture of learning and innovation and improved productivity. And countries with high levels of participation in adult learning enjoy a wide range of benefits – with high levels of democratic engagement, improved mental and physical health, enhanced independence in old age, and greater respect for diversity all associated with adult learning.

The evidence of the value of lifelong learning is powerful

Why then, do we do so badly in Britain, and in England in particular? We are, alas, overwhelmingly obsessed with initial education – the clockwork model that starts with early years and ends with labour market entry – at the expense of learning through the life course. As a result, over the past 15 years we have lost two million places in publicly funded further education for adults. Over the past five years we have seen a 56% reduction in part-time (and overwhelmingly mature) students in English higher education. And alone in Europe (apart from Portugal) British employers spent less on training after the financial crash, while their neighbours spent more. If we had set out consciously to destroy adult learning opportunities we could not have done a better job.

We need to begin now to engage adults in learning in order to face the difficulties ahead: the replacement or transformation of job by robotics and AI; addressing climate change; and the challenges posed by our rapidly ageing society.

There is a clutch of domestic think tanks and policy commissions beginning to address these issues. The Liberal Democrats started last summer; the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee looked at funding post-school; the UPP Civic University Foundation has reported on the needs of part-time students, and this week the Labour Party has announced its own commission.

It is 100 years since the finest public report on adult education – the Ministry of Reconstruction’s 1919 Report – was published. Its argument for education for a liberal and enlightened democracy was powerfully made, and concluded that adult education, far from being a luxury, was a national necessity. It argued that learners and teachers, and not the state, should decide on curricula. It stated that however enlightened national or municipal planners might be, they could never meet the full range of aspirations and curiosities of the communities they serve, and that voluntary associations had a key role to play in identifying and responding to emergent needs.

Our Centenary Commission seeks to address the same issues but for changed times. It asks how best to recover a strategy to revitalise education (formal, non-formal and informal) for democracy, to contest accelerating inequality and to foster a culture where learners share in shaping what is to be learned (what was once called the negotiated curriculum); how best to engage people put off by school experience; what balance to strike between state, employer and individual funding; and what we can learn from the best of current practice.

If you would like to contribute to our work do, contact the joint secretaries, john.holford@nottingham.ac.uk or jonathan.michie@conted.ox.ac.uk

Apprenticeships should be high-quality vocational pipelines to prosperity

National Apprenticeship Week gives us an opportunity to consider where our system is going wrong and to devise an ambitious plan to combat in-work poverty, says Andy Norman

There remains fundamental confusion as to what apprenticeships are and who they should be for. Within the context of rising in-work poverty alongside persistent skills shortages, we must set an ambitious vision for apprenticeships to be central to our efforts to build a more inclusive economy.

According to the latest data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, there are now four million workers in the UK living in poverty, a rise of more than 500,000 over the past five years. Many rightly point to stagnating wages and the proliferation of low-skill jobs with little chance of pay progression as the driving force behind this trend. In this context, the growing public policy interest in “good work” is unsurprising. Yet while much of this debate has focussed on how we create good new jobs, policymakers would do well to prioritise filling the thousands of well-paying technical jobs up and down the country that businesses are already struggling to recruit for.

While low-paid work has boomed, so too have skills shortages. The percentage of vacancies that are difficult to fill due to a lack of skills has grown from 16 per cent in 2011 to 22 per cent in 2017. The figures are even starker for skilled trades roles, where employers struggled to fill 42 per cent of vacancies in 2017 due to skills shortages, up from 29 per cent in 2013. CPP analysis of online vacancy data and data from the 2017 Employer Skills Survey suggests that there were 230,000 skills shortage vacancies for skilled trades roles in the UK in 2017. These vacancies had a median advertised salary of £26,500, an uplift of £13,850 compared to a full-time living wage job.

Filling these skills shortages and boosting the nation’s pay requires building an effective technical education system, with high-quality apprenticeships as a central foundation. Yet while there are many examples of excellent practice, the co-existence of high levels of skills shortages alongside the growth of low-paid work suggests that achieving this goal remains some way off.

It is vital for the sector as a whole to take a step back

The recent report from the National Audit Office into value for money in the apprenticeships programme confirms that the system continues to face significant challenges. The report highlights problems of business apathy to the levy scheme, ongoing quality issues and the dual risk of falling participation and budget overspend. Yet perhaps more importantly, its findings also reflect an absence of any overriding vision or sense of purpose in apprenticeship policy. It confirms fears that some levy-paying firms are simply replacing existing training programs for already highly qualified staff with apprenticeships.

At the other end of the spectrum, apprenticeships remain susceptible to exploitation, with some employers offering low-level apprenticeships that appear indistinguishable from the low-skill work they should be moving people out of. Low progression rates out of level 2 apprenticeships compound this issue, with CPP analysis suggesting that 37,530 16- to 18-year-olds each year miss out on an earnings boost of £2,100 as a result.

Apprenticeship policy should not prioritise additional training for already highly skilled professionals, nor should it trap young people in damaging cycles of low-level training and low-paid work.

Apprenticeships should be high-quality vocational pipelines to prosperity, connecting young learners and those in low-paid work with the good jobs employers currently struggle to fill.

National Apprenticeship Week 2019 provided an important opportunity to celebrate the many examples of exceptional provision up and down the country. But it is also vital for the sector as a whole to take a step back, consider where our system is going wrong and develop an ambitious vision for the future based on driving inclusive growth. The alternative is to accept the status quo and allow the inexcusable coexistence of skills shortages and in-work poverty to endure.

Ofsted watch: Exemplary week for universities

Universities showed off their apprenticeship delivery skills this week, as one was rated ‘outstanding’ while another was judged to be ‘good’ by Ofsted.

It wasn’t so positive for independent providers however, as two were rated ‘requires improvement’ and another was judged to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in its early monitoring visit.

Teeside University was the HE provider to come out with a grade one in all areas, in its first ever inspection of its apprenticeship provision.

It trains nearly 200 level five apprentices and inspectors wrote approvingly of how senior leaders “very successfully” use apprenticeships to provide education for disadvantaged groups in the north east.

Tutors have “excellent” subject knowledge, work with employers to establish an apprentice’s starting point and use their professional experience so apprentices gain an “in-depth” understanding of their subjects.

All apprentices go on to a higher level at their employers, with more responsibility, after they finish their course, while a high proportion of use the academic credits that have been gained through their course to take higher-level qualifications.

Birmingham City University, which has 237 apprentices on mainly health education and life science standards, maintained its grade two in its latest Ofsted report.

Leaders, managers and governors have developed a strategic plan for apprentices, which contributes “effectively” towards meeting the skills gap in the health and social care sector in the West Midlands.

Leaders and managers also promote equality of opportunity and diversity, resulting in few differences in attainment between groups of apprentices.

Lecturers “skilfully” use their up-to-date nursing and clinical skills to relate theory to practice and their passion for the health sector to inspire apprentices.

Their performance was in contrast to the reports on several independent learning providers.

Catalyst Learning and Development Limited, which has 98 apprentices, scored ‘insufficient progress’ in three areas of its monitoring visit, as reported by FE Week on Wednesday.

New London Educational Trust, which has 70 apprentices, received a grade three in its first inspection.

Tutors were found to be not planning lessons to meet the needs of learners well enough, so the more able were being “insufficiently” challenged, while the less able were falling behind.

Phoenix Training Services (midlands) Limited also received a grade three from its first inspection.

Inspectors found its staff do not effectively use information about a learner’s starting point to plan learning, so learners do not develop the essential skills for their course as well as they could.

Exeter Royal Academy for Deaf Education, a specialist college, did worse – it dropped from a grade two to a grade three.

It was found that students do not develop English and mathematical skills in different settings well enough and teachers do not plan to include these skills in those different settings.

Harlow College received good news as it maintained its grade two from Ofsted.

The college, which has 5,900 learners in total, works with a wide range of organisations and employers to meet local and regional skills priorities; for example, at the Stansted Airport campus, which was covered in this week’s FE Week National Apprenticeship Week supplement.

“Governors and leaders have a clear vision and high ambitions for learners and apprentices,” Ofsted said.

“As a result, learners and apprentices make good progress and are successful in gaining employment within their chosen careers.”

In an Ofsted monitoring visit, Highbury College was found to have made reasonable progress in all four areas following a grade three report last year, which saw it drop two grades from ‘outstanding’.

Mentors are being allocated to learners who are at risk of not getting their qualifications because of poor attendance, but attendance at English and maths lessons is at about 12 per cent below that for vocational lessons.

University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust made ‘reasonable progress’ in all three areas of a monitoring visit.

Apprentices are reported to be ambitious, and have the confidence and knowledge they need to become useful members of ward staff.

North East Lincolnshire Council was told to continue implementing measures so it can carry on providing adult and community learning, following a grade four report in 2018.

Last year, inspectors found learners did not attend exams and this year, Ofsted reports learners’ attendance remains too low.

 

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade Progress
Harlow College 22/01/2019 06/03/2019 2 2  
Highbury College 31/01/2019 06/03/2019 M M RRRR

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade Progress
New London Educational Trust 26/01/2019 05/03/2019 3 N/A  
Phoenix Training Services (midlands) Limited 05/02/2019 06/03/2019 3 N/A  
Catalyst Learning and Development Limited 06/02/2019 06/03/2019 M M III

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade Progress
North East Lincolnshire Council 23/01/2019 04/03/2019 M M N/A

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade Progress
University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust 06/02/2019 06/03/2019 M M RRR

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Teeside University 26/01/2019 06/03/2019 1 N/A
Birmingham City University 05/02/2019 07/03/2019 2 2

 

Specialist colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Exeter Royal Academy for Deaf Education 15/01/2019 04/03/2019 3 2

Supported internships are a success story for young people with SEND

The radical change has moved from focussing on young people’s disabilities and problems to supporting them to live ordinary lives in their communities, says Linda Jordan

The National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTi) was delighted to be invited to join the roundtable discussion with the education select committee into the implementation of the reforms to the special education system introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014. The roundtable took place on January 29 and the discussions were reported in FE Week on the same day.

The NDTi has had a contract with the Department for Education since 2012 to support local areas with the implementation of the reforms through a programme called Preparing for Adulthood. We have a particular focus on the 14-25 age group and have worked extensively with the post-16 sector.

The roundtable discussions were mainly concerned with some of the challenges in implementing the new systems, which led the chair to describe the situation as a “tangled mess”.

It is true that there are challenges – there are bound to be. The 2014 reforms introduced a huge change programme involving multiple partners. The legislation required local authorities to publish their local offer “of all services available to support children who are disabled, or who have SEN, and their families”.

But we are also seeing success stories. The vision set out by the green paper Support and Aspiration, which preceded the Children and Families Act, was radical. It promoted a change from a system that focused on children and young people’s disabilities and problems to one that would support them to live ordinary lives in their communities – to do the things that other children do, to develop independence, have a voice, experience high-quality teaching and learning and to move into employment.

The strategies to achieve this are called Preparing for Adulthood pathways and have a prominent place in the 2015 SEND Code of Practice. Local services now have to support young people to plan for employment, independent living and good health, and to experience friendships and relationships, from year 9, when they turn 14.

There are bound to be challenges

One of the major successes of this programme over the past few years has been the development of supported internships.

Since September 2013 the post-16 offer has been constructed to deliver study programmes, which all young people over the age of 16 follow. For young people with an Education, Health and Care plan, a study programme can extend to age 25.

Study programmes have to include work experience, and supported internships are study programmes for those young people furthest away from the labour market. They take place on an employer’s premises, with tutoring and other support in situ, and are supported by a range of partnerships.

NDTi recently conducted a survey that revealed over 1,000 young people have completed a supported internship, with 50 per cent moving into paid employment straight away.

Some 83 per cent of the providers surveyed are offering supported internships, with this increasing year on year. There is an encouraging growth in the number of trained and qualified job coaches. Currently, there are approximately 700 young people doing a supported internship, with the majority supported by an FE college and the local authority.

The Manchester College was amongst the first in the country to introduce the supported internship model and it set the bar high from the outset. They have 51 interns this year, working with large and small employers. Their provision has grown rapidly and The Manchester College team support 88 per cent of the interns into paid employment each year.

Newham College has also significantly increased its supported internship offer and has 51 interns this year working with John Lewis, ASDA, Waitrose, Newham Council and the local hospital.

There is an expectation in the National Skills Strategy that over time, the majority of young people with Education, Health and Care plans will follow supported internships. This can only be a good thing. So let’s make sure to focus on what is working for young people with SEND, as well as highlighting what needs to be improved.

Major bank stands by college fighting for survival following second failed merger

A major high street bank will “remain supportive” of a cash-strapped college that owes it over £6 million, despite fears the college may collapse following the last-minute failure of a second merger attempt.

The future of City College Southampton, which is surviving on government bailouts, was thrown into doubt this week when Eastleigh College pulled out of its proposed merger after the Department for Education rejected its bid for funds from the Restructuring Facility. 

Its first attempt to join up with another provider – Southampton Solent University – fell through in 2017, following a recommendation from the Solent Area Review.

City College’s accounts for 2017/18 warned that if its second merger failed, it would “require a standalone application to be approved to ensure it is able to continue operations into 2019/20” and would have to “seek additional long-term funding from the ESFA in order to remain in existence in the long term”. 

The accounts also stated that the college has £6.1 million of bank loans outstanding with Santander on terms negotiated in 2009, which has 16 years remaining. 

The college’s “forecast” show that one of the loan covenants will be breached, requiring the entire loan to be repaid in a single year.

The accounts go on to say:  “Santander has verbally stated it will not take any action on the college as it continues to work towards a merger.”

At the time of going to press, Santander told FE Week it remains “supportive of the college” despite its second failed merger, and the bank will continue to “work closely with them, as they explore their options”. 

The reassurance follows fears the college could be the first provider to be placed into administration under the new insolvency regime, which came into effect on January 31 and which allows colleges to go bust for the first time.

The Department for Education has made clear that there will be no more long-term bailouts available to colleges following the introduction of the insolvency regime.

A  DfE spokesperson would not confirm if it was considering placing the college into administration, but said: “All bids for funding from the Restructuring Facility fund are assessed through a rigorous governance and approval criteria, including whether a college is financially sustainable in the long term.

“We are working with City College Southampton to ensure learners aren’t negatively affected.”

The college told FE Week it was not entering into administration, nor had it begun an Independent Business Review – the start of insolvency proceedings.

Sarah Stannard, principal of City College Southampton, said: “City College Southampton is reassured by the constructive conversations we are having with key stakeholders and their commitment to ensuring that there is robust further education provision in Southampton.”

Stannard was due to stand down following the college’s merger, which was meant to be finalised by March 31, and at which point Jan Edrich, principal of Eastleigh, would have headed up both colleges. 

City College Southampton has since confirmed Stannard will be staying put, while trying to reassure students, staff and parents that it is “business as usual”.

The college, which is rated “requires improvement” by Ofsted and has around 5,000 students, has seen its financial health deteriorate to “inadequate” in recent years.

Its accounts showed that it has agreed with Santander a £500,000 ongoing overdraft facility, “however, this is insufficient to cover the expected cashflow shortfall occurring during January, February and March 2019” and an application for an unknown amount of exceptional financial support from the DfE has been approved “enabling the college to continue in operation in the short term”.

The financial statement also shows that its cash deficit deepened from £257,000 to £585,000 in 2017/18, and its total comprehensive income was just £1.3 million.

The new college insolvency regime

The news of the failed merger with Eastleigh College, which has put City College Southampton in imminent danger of insolvency, came little over one month after the new insolvency regime was introduced, which set out that, for the first time, troubled colleges will be able to go bust.

The Department for Education has made clear in its new regime that colleges like Southampton, which has been surviving on government bailouts, will no longer be saved by long-term bailouts and will be placed into administration if they fail.

The insolvency regime, which came into effect on January 31, aims at making it clear how colleges will be managed if they become insolvent, at the same time as protecting existing learners.

Prior to a corporate insolvency, government may commission an Independent Business Review into the provider to assess the options available, since the Restructuring Facility funding is no longer to be available. Some lending banks already commission these as part of their normal course of business.

In the event that a college runs out of money, they must now give the DfE notice that they want to appoint an administrator. The DfE then has 14 days to decide if it wants to apply to court for an education administration order – for their own administrator. Then the administrator appointed by the court will be required to act to avoid or minimise disruption to the studies of the existing students.

Administrators would first seek to rescue the college as a going concern. If this fails, they would seek to transfer the business to another institution. In some cases, some or all students could be transferred to another provider, or the college may be kept going until existing students have completed their course. At the same time the education administrator would also balance the needs and rights of lenders and other creditors and realise assets for their benefit.

 

Alternative providers in Southampton

If City College Southampton does collapse, administrators could transfer its existing learners to other local providers. The college, which is located in the city centre, has four other sixth-form colleges within a three-mile radius: St Anne’s Catholic School & Sixth Form College, Bitterne Park Sixth Form, Itchen Sixth Form College and Richard Taunton Sixth Form College. Further away there is The Hamble Community Sports College and the Totton College.

St Anne’s Catholic School has an “outstanding” Ofsted rating and Bitterne has been ranked as “good” in its last inspection. Itchen and Richard Taunton both have a “requires improvement” rating.

Eastleigh College, a 20-minute car ride away from City College, could also be an alternative to learners. Located close to the city’s airport, the college was downgraded from “outstanding” to “good” by Ofsted earlier this year.

The NAO report failed to spot the most immediate apprenticeship problem

The National Audit Office findings into the apprenticeship reform repeated a number of well-reported issues and concerns, ranging from the fall in starts to an insufficient budget in the longer term. 

Surprisingly, they failed to say anything about the farce of small employers being turned away because: 1. Non-levy funding had already run out or 2. Non-levy funding remains unavailable.

1. Non-levy funding for small employers running out

FE week was first to report apprentices being turned away in early February and a few weeks later the ESFA said: “We can confirm that we are now in a position to fund overdelivery.”

Good news? Not so fast – they still said the “over-delivery is subject to affordability” and only applying until March 2019 – so nothing had actually changed.
They also ruled out funding any non-levy over-delivery after March, even for 16 to 18 year-olds.

And on Monday, at a celebratory National Apprenticeship Week event, a vice principal of a college told me they were already debating whether to stop working with small employers entirely.

2. Non-levy funding for small employers remains unavailable

On Wednesday the apprenticeships minister Anne Milton visited UEL to speak to apprentices. 

After the event I spoke to UEL and was told how they regularly turn eager small employers away because they were not awarded any non-levy funding.
Like so many universities and newer providers, they successfully applied for funds, but ended up being pushed below the ESFA minimum allocation threshold.
So instead of small employers, like nurseries, being subsidised to support young people onto level 2 and 3 apprentices the public funds are being blown on managers in big private and public organisations, including the ESFA.

The minister seems to understand how ridiculous this is, telling me: “what sticks in people’s throats is people on £100,000 year and the state subsidising their MBA”.

Exactly! Indefensible, yet it has been allowed with no limits and there is no sign of that changing anytime soon. 

Despite the NAO failing to identify the farce of small employers being turned away whilst blue-chips fill their boots with MBAs, I’m holding out hope the Public Accounts
Committee will still quiz the permanent secretary, Jonathan Slater, about it at their hearing on March 25. 

I would very much like to hear how Slater justifies locking 98 percent of employers, those classed as non-levy, out of the apprenticeship system.

Editor Asks: Anne Milton responds to the NAO apprenticeships report

Anne Milton initially seemed in good spirits when I began our interview at a coffee shop at the University for East London’s (UEL) Docklands campus.

It was the morning of the third day of National Apprenticeships Week and she’d just finished meeting apprentices at an informal breakfast. 

Despite the event not entirely going to plan (a falling roof tile that very narrowly missed the minister but left two apprentices grazed and in need of medical attention) Milton was unfazed and keen to talk to apprentices about their courses.

But it did not take me long to trigger a change in mood, pointing out that just a few hours earlier, the National Audit Office had published a report criticising the government on a range of issues relating to the apprenticeship reforms.

“It is always a shame when these reports come out because I think they have an important part to play in the development of government policy, but by their very nature they 
are looking back rather than forward,” Milton said.

“It doesn’t always, I think, give a very accurate picture of what we are going to be seeing in six months’ time.” 

Milton clearly thinks there will be significant improvements in the next six months, but what is the evidence for this?

Readers will recall that the minister predicted in February 2018 that apprenticeship starts would really take off by September, but the latest figures for December starts show they are slipping backwards, a full 8 per cent down on the previous year. 

And last October it was announced that demand from small employers would be stimulated by halving their co-investment fee halved from 10 to 5 per cent.

More than four months on, the fee reduction has not been implemented and Milton was unable to even say from when it would begin.

“I would love to make an announcement now. Sadly, with much of one’s life in government, one waits for Her Majesty’s Treasury to say when you can do these things. And so we are always to some extent in the Treasury’s
hands.”

And on the thorny issue of limits to non-levy funding (UEL successfully tendered for non-levy, but was not awarded any, and is having to turn local businesses away), the promised changes to get small employers on to the Apprenticeship System keeps being delayed.

“Like with the reduction in co-investment, I am frustrated that the machinery of government is slow and sluggish, always. So I am somebody who wants to do everything yesterday,

“I am a terribly impatient person, so I am as frustrated as everybody else, but we will make announcements when we can make announcements.”

Milton’s frustrations should not really come as a surprise, given in her first speech as skills minister, back in July 2017. She responded to a question about the fall in apprenticeship starts by saying: “I am somebody who has absolutely no patience at all. I want everything done yesterday, and I will only forgive not doing it yesterday if it’s in an attempt to get it right.”

One thing that clearly wasn’t done right was the Department for Education’s budgeting for apprenticeships.

My own published analysis, now confirmed by the NAO, had found the average cost of starts on standards was running at £9,000, which is double what the government had budgeted for.

“I haven’t seen how they got to the figures they thought it would be,” Milton said.

“But you always have to take a bit of a leap in the dark when the programme is being driven by employers.

“Added to which, if you are going to improve quality – quality and money don’t always go together – but it is likely it will cost you more. So whether the original forecasts took all that into account, I don’t know.”

This raised the obvious question of whether the budget needed to be doubled to afford £9,000 per apprentice, or whether the average could be brought down by, controversially, restricting employer choice.

I ask, should public money be spent on management MBA apprenticeships at a time when 16-to-19 and level two apprenticeships are in such decline? 

“I think you want money spent on both,” Milton said.

“We have seen today 16-year-olds doing level 3 engineering. I mean, brilliant. But you also need businesses to be more productive, so people are thinking about how they manage. What sticks in people’s throats is people on £100,000 a year and the state subsidising their MBA. 

“There is no easy answer. You put more money in the pot or you restrict what you are doing. Those are the choices.”

So it seems likely the Treasury will have to find a way to increase the size of the pot to get even close to the 3 million starts target and fund all the popular and expensive degree and management apprenticeships.

Even the NAO report points out that restricting employer choice in an employer-led system would not only be unpopular it “could damage confidence in the programme”.

Milton concluded by saying: “I always look for more money, I will always look at whether we are absolutely sure this is where public subsidy should go – looking at both
things, always.”