Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

DfE orders independent investigation into ESFA over 3aaa contract management

An independent auditor has been called in to investigate the Education and Skills Funding Agency over their contract management of apprenticeships giant Aspire Achieve Advance (3aaa), FE Week can reveal.

Alyson Gerner is carrying out the independent investigation on behalf of the Department for Education.

She is finance director of DfE-owned LocatED, which is responsible for buying and developing sites for new free schools in England.

It comes after FE Week revealed that Ofsted’s latest inspection of 3aaa – which holds the largest ESFA apprenticeship allocation – had been declared “incomplete” following intervention from the agency.

Ms Gerner is described on the LocatED website as a public financial accountant and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply.

Most of her career is said to have been “in commercial roles in the public sector”.

She has served as director of NHS commercial development, head of procurement for the DfE, deputy director for risk analysis for the ESFA, and latterly director of financial accounting, operations and procurement for the Funding Agency Shared Services team, part of the ESFA.

The DfE would only say of her probe into the ESFA that it does “not comment on any investigations, ongoing or otherwise”.

3aaa has seen significant growth under the leadership of Peter Marples and Di McEvoy-Robinson, its chief executive and director respectively.

Its allocation for non-levy apprenticeships now stands at nearly £22 million, up from £5.5 million at the start of the academic year.

Direct ESFA funding to 3aaa increased from just £390,000 in 2012-13 to £3.6 million the following year. It rose again to £12.5 million in 2014-15 and to £21.7 million a year later.

Its apprenticeships include IT, software, digital marketing, accountancy, financial services, business administration, customer service and management.

The provider had been expecting a grade one outcome following Ofsted’s recent inspection, the same as its previous overall rating of “outstanding” in 2014.

This was put on ice owing to an investigation by the ESFA following claims made by a whistleblower.

It is understood that the investigation led by Ms Gerner, which we can now reveal is being carried out for the DfE into its own agency, is running separately to this.

Ofsted originally confirmed on June 20 that it had inspected 3aaa in May, and it indicated at the time it found nothing amiss.

“The report is currently going through our normal processes and will be published in due course,” a spokesperson said.

But there was a change of position shortly before the report was due to be published, and the inspectorate released a second statement to FE Week mentioning “new information”.

“Given new information that has come to light, we have decided to declare our inspection of Aspire Achieve Advance Limited incomplete,” a spokesperson said.

“In due course, pending further information from the EFSA, we will decide whether we need to return to the provider to gather further evidence.”

The IfA want a reputation for honesty. Well, here’s mine…

The Institute for Apprenticeships wants to develop “a reputation for providing honest, evidenced and high-quality leadership when developing opinion on apprenticeships and technical education”.

It also says it wants to use its “unique perspective to develop its authority and reputation as an expert and trusted source for information”, according to its five-year strategic plan published last week.

Talking with authority and honesty should be encouraged, but the lack of evidence for it so far is troubling.

The IfA has been quick to pat itself on the back for a “record breaking” June and hitting 300 standards approved for delivery, but falls silent when challenged over why it still hasn’t reviewed whether the standards developed over three years ago were ever fit for purpose.

The IfA has been quick to pat itself on the back for the rise in apprenticeship starts on standards, but neglects to mention that popular frameworks in sectors such as retail and hospitality were scrapped many months ago.

The IfA has been quick to pat itself on the back for end-point assessment organisation and external quality assurance coverage, but becomes passive-aggressive when asked whether coverage equates to capability.

The IfA has been quick to pat itself on the back for the increased proportions of apprentices starting on higher level apprenticeships, but never mind that an explosion in management apprenticeships accounts for half of them so far this academic year.

And alongside all the patting on the back, it was also shocking to hear the chief executive of the IfA, Sir Gerry Berragan, say in his speech to the annual AELP conference that once one issue is resolved, “people will have to find other reasons as to why they think the reforms aren’t working”.

This may well be a glimpse of what he’s really thinking, but it’s not the sort of thing a high-quality leader would say.

If it wants to become a trusted source of information, the IfA should discount standards where equivalent frameworks are no longer available the next time the minister claims the “number of people starting on new, higher-quality apprenticeships has increased by almost 1,000% this year.”

To develop a reputation as a source of expertise, the IfA should be publishing figures on changing markets, such as the explosion in higher level management apprentices,not leaving it to FE Week.

And high quality leadership in our sector is not combative. It requires a degree of self-awareness and reflection that people respect, even when they disagree with an opinion or decision.

If my perception of the IfA’s leadership is right, they will likely have dismissed this editorial before they even reach this sentence.

But quangos come and go. So if the IfA wants to see out its five-year plan, it will need to live up to being “professional”, the “P” in its four EPIC values.

Keep co-investment fee, but transfer non-levy cash to providers with demand, UVAC tells Milton

A membership body representing universities has written to the skills minister to say it would be a “massive mistake” to water down policy on employer fees for apprenticeships.

The University Vocational Awards Council issued the warning to Anne Milton this week.

The letter argued that the 10 per cent co-investment fee for non-levy payers is “not a barrier to employer engagement”.

It complained that some of its 78 university members who are engaged in apprenticeship and who were unsuccessful in gaining funding in last year’s non-levy tender are “turning employers away” and in desperate need of cash that is seemingly going unused.

Universities are turning away employers who would happily pay a 10 per cent co-investment

UVAC suggests transferring unused non-levy funding from providers who say the 10 per cent fee is a barrier, to those who have demand.

“Up and down the country UVAC has identified degree apprenticeship cold spots, resulting from the ESFA procurement, where as a result of regional scale-backs, there is no ESFA funding to provide degree apprenticeships to non-levy paying employers,” wrote Adrian Anderson (pictured), the council’s chief executive.

“Universities are turning away employers who would happily pay a 10 per cent co-investment.

“Could we suggest resource is transferred from providers who bid for funding who were well aware of the co-investment requirement and now claim employers will not pay the 10 per cent co-investment, to providers who did not secure non-levy funding from the ESFA and are turning employers away?”

The apprenticeship levy is paid by employers with an annual payroll of £3 million or more, who can then spend their contributions on apprenticeship training.

Smaller employers can also access the funds generated through the levy, although they must pay 10 per cent towards the cost of the training, through the co-investment model.

There have been a number of calls in the sector, led by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, to remove this requirement for non-levy payers if they are delivering level two and three apprenticeships to people under 25.

AELP claims the requirement was responsible for the sharp drop in apprenticeship seen since the introduction of the levy.

But at last month’s AELP conference, Ms Milton said she was unwilling to make any concessions. Although the issues have been “noted”, she said, there would be no rule change any time soon.

UVAC backs the minister’s stance.

“The 10 per cent co-investment requirement is an essential component in ensuring the quality of the apprenticeship programme at all levels,” its letter said.

“Put simply, if an employer isn’t prepared to invest just 10 per cent of the cost of the apprenticeship, the apprenticeship is not exactly valued by the employer.”

The co-investment requirement is an essential component in ensuring the quality of the apprenticeship programme

It adds that giving away “free” apprenticeship provision may increase starts, but would “totally undermine efforts to improve quality”, and that a relaxation of the co-investment rule would “encourage some training providers to offer low level and low-quality programmes”.

As part of a social mobility policy submission in September, the AELP said that to offset the costs of offering full funding for level two apprenticeships, the government should raise employer co-investment up to 50 per cent for higher levels via a sliding scale.

This would start “with 10 per cent at level three, 20 per cent at level four, 30 per cent at level five, 40 per cent at level six and 50 per cent at level seven apprenticeships for apprentices over the age of 19”.

Mr Anderson believes this suggestion is “entirely inappropriate”.

“I think that is totally wrong both from a productivity and a social mobility perspective,” he told FE Week.

“If we want to develop a high-skilled economy that competes in a post-Brexit world, we don’t want to focus on level two.”

He pointed out that research by the Sutton Trust found that a “large proportion of individuals who have undertaken level two apprenticeships tread water educationally – so the social mobility argument is at best questionable”.

“Why would we want to disincentive employers, particularly SMEs, from investing in the high-level skills their businesses need?” Mr Anderson added.

“Are we really saying we want encourage employers to invest in business administration and customer service to develop their business, rather than say digital, engineering or management skills?”

‘Ridiculous’: PAC chair slams Ofqual’s 4-week T-level consultation

The chair of an influential committee of MPs has hit out at the rushed pace of T-level implementation – after Ofqual gave the sector just four weeks to respond to its consultation.

Meg Hillier, head of the Public Accounts Committee, pronounced the timescale “ridiculous” when the exams regulator began asking for views on July 10 on how it should frame its rules when policing the new technical qualifications, with a deadline for submissions of August 6.

Four weeks is half the usual time period set aside for responding to an Ofqual consultation. The document isn’t light either, as it includes 71 pages with 52 questions.

“It is a very short timetable and at the wrong time of year for educational institutions, which are just about to break up for the summer,” Ms Hillier said.

“If you are going to introduce a new qualification, getting it right is really important. Rushing it through and risking getting it wrong could undermine it completely.”

There is a rush to deliver a government policy, regardless of whether it works, and that is not sensible

She added that Ofqual’s short-turnaround consultation proves there is a “rush to deliver a government policy, regardless of whether it works, and that is not sensible”.

Ofqual itself recognised this was a short deadline and is recommending respondents answer only particular areas, including setting and marking assessments, results and certification, and retakes.

It has offered just four weeks for responses because the Department for Education plans to launch an invitation to tender in September 2018 for awarding organisations wishing to bid to offer the first three T-levels, which will be introduced in 2020.

Ofqual will need to publish its assessment decisions by September in order for AOs to write their bids.

The regulator was unable to launch the consultation sooner because it needed to wait for the DfE to release its response to its Implementation of T-level Programmes consultation, published on May 27.

This set out the design parameters for the technical qualifications on which Ofqual needed to base its policy decisions.

“We have worked hard to develop our proposed approach to regulating these new qualifications since then,” said Phil Beach, Ofqual’s executive director for vocational and technical qualifications.

“It is important that as much detail as possible is confirmed in time for awarding organisations to respond to DfE’s invitation to tender (which we anticipate being published in September).”

A DfE spokesperson defended the four-week consultation deadline.

“As stated in the Ofqual document, the consultation is one part of the engagement process to help them form their approach to regulating the new, high quality T-levels,” she said.

She added that the regulator has undertaken pre-consultation activity during events held with awarding organisations. It is also holding three engagement events to support the consultation.

But delays to the AO tender process look likely.

The DfE’s market engagement events held last month left AOs fuming over the commercial terms to which they will have to agree, prompting the Federation of Awarding Bodies to gear up for possible legal action.

This unseemly rush could risk making it [the rollout of T-levels] go badly wrong

This isn’t the first piece of evidence that T-levels are being rushed through.

In May, the IfA initially gave the sector just five working days to respond to its consultation on the draft content for the first three T-levels – and it was during half term. Following outrage from FE leaders, it was forced to extend the feedback period twice.

This came just days after the education secretary Damian Hinds refused his own permanent secretary’s request to delay the initial rollout of T-levels until 2021 – revealed via a rare ministerial direction.

Jonathan Slater was quizzed by the PAC on this point last month, where he admitted to having concerns about the lack of “contingency” built into the T-levels timetable.

A few days later his boss insisted to the education select committee that the new qualifications were being introduced at a “good pace”.

Ms Hillier admitted she was “surprised” by Mr Hinds’ ministerial direction.

“Surely by now the DfE has learned lessons about what happens when you introduce change too quickly,” she said.

“This unseemly rush could risk making it [the rollout of T-levels] go badly wrong.”

After being shown Ms Hillier’s comments, a DfE spokesperson said: “Since we announced T-levels we have worked closely education providers, employers and other delivery partners at every stage to ensure we are creating qualifications that will give young people the skills they need to secure a great job and provide employers with the skilled workforce they need.”

Did failed Greater Manchester UTC get ‘free pass’ despite warnings?

The viability of the failed Greater Manchester university technical college was questioned by government officials even before it opened, but ministers still allowed the project to proceed, new documents have revealed.

Correspondence seen by our sister paper FE Week shows Department for Education bosses believed the state-of-the-art UTC, which cost £9 million to build, would only be viable if it recruited 173 pupils in its first year.

Yet records show it was allowed to open with fewer than 100, before it closed three years later.

Michael Dwan, a venture capitalist and founder of the controversial Bright Tribe academy chain, was granted permission to open the UTC in 2013 by education secretary Michael Gove. Documents show he was also handed a £300,000 grant to cover project development.

But the project was already unravelling by the following spring, months before the UTC opened on a purpose-built site in Oldham.

In a letter to Dwan dated May 8, 2014, an unnamed official from the Department for Education warned that only 65 pupils had been recruited to start that September, less than half of the “minimum viable number” of 173 agreed in the school’s funding agreement.

The official warned that with such few pupils, Dwan could not “deliver the full educational offer that I know you aspire to”.

Despite these warnings, the UTC opened as planned in September 2014. Its school census showed just 98 pupils on roll the following January. When the school closed in September last year, it still had fewer than the DfE-stipulated target of 173.

Lucy Powell, the MP for Manchester Central and a former shadow education secretary, accused the DfE of giving the school’s sponsors a “free pass”.

“It’s clear now that even before this school opened, its future was bleak,” she said. “Officials signed off plans for this school despite knowing that it was unsustainable from the outset, giving the sponsors a free pass even though they had fallen at the first hurdle.

“Unfortunately the DfE seems to time and again turn a blind eye when it comes to their ‘preferred partners’ or mates who run trusts.”

Ms Powell demanded “much more robust challenge and support” when new institutions are being considered.

Other documents obtained by FE Week show that further concerns were raised by officials in a 2015 report from DfE officials. Although the report itself has not been released, we did obtain Dwan’s response, outlining a series of changes made at the under-fire school, and criticising officials.

In a letter on Greater Manchester UTC-headed paper, Dwan said he was “disappointed with the tone” of the civil service report, and demanded more support.

“I expected a more supportive approach to the challenging circumstances we have inherited and a greater recognition of the actions we have already undertaken, independent of your visit. I also expected a greater acknowledgement and acceptance of the reality and the data shared with you.

A spokesperson for Dwan’s office said he had agreed to sponsor the UTC because it was “seen by stakeholders as a viable model for provision for Manchester”.

“In the first year of operation of a UTC, it is normal for losses to be made as student numbers rise to a level that can make a college viable and Mr Dwan personally contributed £500,000 to the operation of the UTC,” the spokesperson said.

“It is entirely appropriate that DfE officials query and challenge expectations around the student roll as they do with all new schools and colleges. Mr Dwan remains disappointed that the UTC failed in its objective.”

The UTCs’ model, of 14-to-19 institutions with a vocational focus, has faced substantial problems. Many have struggled financially after failing to attract the right number of pupils, and eight have closed so far.

The DfE did not respond to requests for comment on the Greater Manchester UTC case.

Huge concern over surge in higher level management apprenticeships

A surge in higher level management apprenticeship starts has raised grave concerns that employers are rebadging their training.

Gordon Marsden, the shadow skills minister, called on the government to “urgently look deeper” at what is behind the rapidly expanding overall numbers of apprenticeships at level four and above, after seeing FE Week analysis of the latest Department for Education data.

Of 35,620 apprenticeship starts thus far in 2017-18, 49.4 per cent (17,610) were on frameworks or standards with management in the title.

The rise of management apprenticeships has been closely followed by FE Week since we reported major sector worries about their “unstoppable” growth in 2016. The issue has become even more pressing since the apprenticeship levy for large employers launched last April.

Mr Marsden is now calling on the government to examine whether employers opting to upskill existing staff – rather than train new people – was an unwanted “market consequence” of forcing them to pay the charge.

Yet Anne Milton insisted that “high quality” management apprenticeships were creating “the leaders our businesses need to grow”, when questioned by FE Week.

The skills minister was also asked by Newcastle MP Catherine McKinnell what estimate had been “made of the number of apprenticeship levy-paying employers in England that have used that funding to pay for master of business administration courses”.

An MBA is a graduate-level management degree that covers a wide range of business fields, such as marketing, accounting and management.

Ms Milton’s answer was anything but convincing.

“Apprenticeship funding can only be used to pay for apprenticeships and not courses, such as an MBA,” she said.

“While apprenticeships may replicate some training delivered by traditional courses, an apprenticeship has to meet certain requirements to make sure it combines on and off-the-job training and delivers occupational competence.”

Yet a quick Google search provided numerous examples of apprenticeship MBAs being advertised by universities.

Ms Milton added: “The department holds the overall number of starts on each apprenticeship standard, but does not currently have published data on the number of senior leader starts.”

Data isn’t held on which apprenticeship standards “levy-paying employers spend their apprenticeship funding on”.

Mr Marsden said the “government should urgently look deeper into these statistics and reflect on whether they are a market consequence of failings in the way they have sold the levy”.

There should “clearly should be urgent concern among ministers and officials” about the high proportion of management apprenticeships.

“The key issue with apprenticeships is progression,” he added. “Anything that smacks of rebadging, or simply validating normal training or professional development, is not going to get us the step change in numbers and quality that we desperately need.”

Tom Richmond, a senior adviser to two skills ministers who is now a senior research fellow at the Reform think tank, said he was extremely worried by FE Week’s findings.

Employers rebadging their management training courses as ‘apprenticeships’ in order to access the funds generated by the levy is very concerning

“Employers rebadging their management training courses as ‘apprenticeships’ in order to access the funds generated by the levy is very concerning,” he said.

By allowing employers to re-label management courses as apprenticeships, he said, “precious funding” is being diverted away from helping young people get started in their career.

“It is bitterly disappointing to see MBA programmes for senior executives being prioritised over training up a new generation of skilled workers across different industry sectors,” he added.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers boss Mark Dawe recognised the “importance of management training, in particular in helping to drive up productivity”.

“Nevertheless AELP has consistently warned that the reforms need to ensure a balance across all levels,” he added.

Ms Milton told FE Week: “Our reforms to the apprenticeship system are about increasing the number of quality apprenticeships in this country and creating long-term investment in skills training.

“There are now high-quality management apprenticeships available in lots of different sectors, creating the leaders our businesses need to grow.”

A DfE spokesperson insisted that employers cannot simply convert their own training schemes into apprenticeships.

To be eligible for funding, training “must meet the rigours of an approved English apprenticeship – including 20 per cent off the job training and an End Point Assessment to test occupational competency”.

NHS apprenticeship starts in the north west fell by nearly half last year, new figures reveal

The north west was the region where NHS apprenticeships saw their biggest fall last year, as they dramatically dropped by nearly half, new figures have revealed.

As previously reported by FE Week, the health service had a total of 19,820 apprenticeship starts in the 2015/16 academic year, but this fell by 22 per cent to 15,532 in 2016/17.

Health minister Stephen Barclay has now divulged the regional figures in an answer to a parliamentary question tabled by shadow skills minister Angela Rayner.

Numbers for the north west show apprenticeship starts fell by 49 per cent between the two years, from 3,451 to 1,747.

The second largest drop was in neighbouring region the north east, which went from 1,239 to 750 (a 39 per cent fall), followed closely by the east midlands, which saw its apprenticeship figures decrease by 38 per cent, from 1,890 to 1,167.

Going in the other direction however was north, central and east London which increased its starts by a whopping 34 per cent, from 814 in 2015/16 to 1,087 in 2016/17.

The only other region to go up was Yorkshire and Humber, which rose 9 per cent, from 1,421 to 1,545 starts.

The release comes ahead of the next oral evidence session on nursing apprenticeships, being held by the education select committee on July 17.

Witnesses will include skills minister Anne Milton, as well as Mr Barclay – whose new boss is former skills minister Matt Hancock, who took over from Jeremy Hunt as health secretary following a recent government mini-reshuffle.

Also set to appear is Jane Belfour, deputy director for routes into apprenticeships and work at the Department for Education, and professor Ian Cumming, chief executive of the Department of Health and Social Care.

Increasing the amount of NHS apprentices has been an important government goal since 2016, when Mr Hunt pledged to create a further 100,000 starts in the sector by 2020.

The government hopes that degree apprenticeships will help solve nursing shortages across the country. It is hoped that more trainees will be encouraged into nursing, as they receive wages while they train rather than having to pay towards the traditional degree route.

But NHS leaders have warned that its starts target will be missed without urgent reform the apprenticeship levy.

As revealed by FE Week last month, the number of people starting an apprenticeship with the NHS has fallen by more than third over the last two financial years.

The health service is subject to a public-sector target, and needs to ensure at least 2.3 per cent of its workforce starts an apprenticeship every year.

It had to achieve 27,500 starts in 2017-18 alone to meet this.

But things have not gone to plan, with just 12,611 apprenticeship starts last year.

Let FE colleges deliver nursing apprenticeships!

FE has vast expertise in delivering healthcare apprenticeships, but those trying to solve the nursing shortage fail to see the larger role it could play, says Laira Pearson

Apprentice numbers in the NHS are falling and the number of nurse vacancies are increasing. The obvious question is: Why aren’t NHS employers using their large apprentice levy pots to fund nurse apprenticeships?

To those of us in further education, the solution looks simple: let FE providers get involved. The sad reality is that this option is largely being ignored. Undergraduate nurse programmes are currently being delivered only by universities in their capacity as Approved Education Institutions (AEIs) designated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. This approach worked well enough until the bursary for the undergraduate degrees was removed and the nursing degree apprenticeship standard was published; HEIs have been trying to get up to speed with apprenticeships ever since.

Given how much of a priority it is for the NHS to ensure there is a continuous supply of qualified nurses entering the system, why hasn’t the NMC turned to FE to leverage their vast expertise in apprenticeships and appetite for pace? Surely it’s a match made in heaven.

The NMC says it is considering awarding AEI status to FE colleges with degree-awarding powers – but there are so few FE colleges in this position that it feels somewhat tokenistic.

FE colleges such as Bridgwater & Taunton College are already successfully delivering degree-level apprenticeships in high-risk sectors such as engineering via sub-contract or franchise arrangements with HEIs. So why not nursing?

With the introduction of the level five nursing associate apprenticeship, the question has been pushed even further up the agenda by FE colleges and the Association of Colleges. Of the 35 pilot sites in England, only three FE colleges are involved: Bridgwater & Taunton College, Petroc and South Devon College.

This is bigger than individual institutions: this is about a sustainable NHS workforce

When the pilot programme was launched as a foundation degree in January 2017, the Devon programme was developed and delivered by Petroc and South Devon College in partnership with the University of Plymouth. In Somerset, the University of the West of England (UWE) worked with us at Bridgwater & Taunton College to develop and deliver their nursing associate programme.

Fast forward to the publication of the nursing associate apprenticeship standard less than a year later, however, and all changed for our FE colleagues in Devon. Despite FE being the experts in apprenticeships, the NMC stated that AEIs needed to be the lead provider, and the University of Plymouth quickly withdrew from its FE partners to deliver the apprenticeship direct.

Thankfully, appeals from employers in Somerset resulted in UWE committing to maintain delivery of the programme locally via Bridgwater & Taunton College. We have an impressive track record when it comes to healthcare apprenticeships. Our employer partnerships are strong, and this year alone 52 of our higher apprentices in health will graduate… did I mention we are good at this?

With no university in the county, Somerset is particularly vulnerable when it comes to nursing resource. Individuals looking to pursue a career in nursing are required to leave the area to undertake their nursing degree; employers must then invest massively in recruitment campaigns to attract them to return as qualified nurses. A ridiculous set of circumstances, and one that the apprenticeship levy was intended to solve.

What we know is that nursing resource is in crisis and the apprenticeship levy is meant to help deliver the right skills in the right place at the right time. Failing to recognise FE as leaders in apprenticeship development and employer engagement poses a risk to apprenticeships in the health sector ever working at all.

I’m sure we all agree that this is bigger than individual colleges and universities: this is about the sustainability of the NHS workforce. The sooner the NMC invites FE into the discussion to get some pace behind nursing apprenticeships, the better.

Public sector apprenticeships on the rise, new figures suggest

New figures published today suggest that public sector apprenticeships are on the rise, after the government introduced a recruitment target of 2.3 per cent.

According to the latest provisional monthly Education and Skills Funding Agency apprenticeship statistics, 43,400 out of a total of 338,400 starts between May 2017 and April 2018 – or 13 per cent – were in the public sector.

This is the first time a breakdown of public sector vs private sector has been included in the monthly figures.

A previous estimate of 12 per cent, or 28,000 out of 242,200 starts from May 2017 until January, was based on analysis of figures provided to the Education Select Committee.

All public bodies with 250 or more employees have a target of at least 2.3 per cent apprenticeship starts relative to its overall workforce numbers.

The target came into force in April last year, and the first annual reports are due in September.

Today’s figures don’t show how well – or not – public sector bodies are progressing towards their apprenticeship target.

As previously reported by FE Week, some public bodies are making slow progress.

Just 12,611 people started an apprenticeship in the NHS in 2017-18, which equated to one per cent of the health service’s 1,205,814 workforce.

The figure represented a 36 per cent drop from the 19,820 NHS starts in 2015-16.

And an education select committee hearing in June heard that urgent reform to the levy was needed if Public Health England’s aim to get 2,400 people enrolled on a nursing apprenticeship was to be met.

There had been just 30 starts on the programme up to the end of January this year.

However, the situation may be set to improve: under the auspices of Health Education England, 62 NHS trusts have now joined the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

The 62 trusts currently employ between 50 and 350 apprentices, and these numbers will grow, a spokesperson said.

“There is no doubt that AELP’s voice is strengthened when we are discussing the reforms with the government to have public and private sector employers united with providers on the big issues,” said boss Mark Dawe.

Today’s data, included in the monthly statistics for the first time, “does not allow us to officially monitor progress towards the public sector apprenticeship target”, but is “indicative of the expected number of starts based on an internal mapping of public bodies”.

The figures are based on an internal mapping of public sector bodies, such as NHS Trusts, local authorities and police forces, but don’t include the civil service as these figures are not yet available.

FE Week reported in June that the Department for Education had exceeded the target in 2017-18, with 178 apprenticeship starts out of a total workforce of 6,068 staff.