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

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

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

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

I am deeply disappointed that this organisation is taking this action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms May gave an eyebrow-raising response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was scrapped in 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A training provider in Somerset that found itself at the sharp end of the adult education budget debacle has unsurprisingly won a special procurement worth £2.6 million to deliver “community learning services”.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency launched a tender specifically for the area in May following a campaign by Somerset Skills and Learning, which rallied local MPs for more funding after it faced losing 97 per cent of its AEB.

A government update published today said the winning organisation of the procurement has now been confirmed, and SS&L told FE Week it was the provider to come out on top.

However, the ESFA has since revealed that SS&L was the only bidder in the tender, despite it being a “transparent and fair process”.

The past year has been extremely traumatic, with the loss of over 150 valued staff members, but we kept our resolve

“We are absolutely delighted to have been successful in the recent tender for community learning provision in Somerset,” said chief executive Susie Simon-Norris.

“This funding was cut completely in August 2017 and we have worked tirelessly to get this money back to Somerset where it belongs, and back to SS&L. 

“We are very proud of the work that we do with a range of partners in Somerset, supporting those most in need, and we are now looking forward to working with these partners in 2018-19.   

“The past year has been extremely traumatic, with the loss of over 150 valued staff members, but we kept our resolve and were determined not to give up.”

But today’s news won’t sit well with everyone in the sector.

Demands for fairness and reform to the procurement process were made in May, prompted by the apparent special treatment for Somerset.

Robert Halfon, chair of the influential education select committee, said: “This does open a potential Pandora’s box in procurement, in that there are other procurement injustices in other parts of the country.”

Mark Dawe, boss of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, added that “whatever has been done for Somerset should be available to all AEB providers”.

“We need to see fairness and transparency,” he demanded.

Community learning consists of courses that are typically “unaccredited and can be undertaken for their own sake or as a step towards other learning/training”, usually funded through the AEB.

It’s believed to be the first time that the ESFA has run a procurement process specifically for this type of provision.

It was on offer only to a provider with a turnover of at least £2 million per year for the past three years “in order to ensure the provider is able to deliver the required volume of services”.

This limited the number of providers eligible to bid for the contract, and it has now come to light that SS&L was the only provider to take part in the procurement.

“The ESFA conducted a transparent and fair process and the Invitation to Tender document was open to all providers who were able to demonstrate they could meet the specific service requirements in Somerset,” a Department for Education spokesperson said.

We are absolutely delighted to have been successful in the recent tender

SS&L has battled for more cash since last year’s AEB tender fiasco, which saw independent training providers bid for a share of just £110 million for adult education.

Its initial allocation of £111,000 represented just three per cent of the £3.4 million it received in 2016-17. 

Following a campaign to lobby MPs and ministers, the ESFA made a partial U-turn on funding for providers that saw SS&L receive 75 per cent of its previous allocation on a “transitional basis”.

Nonetheless, it was still forced to close centres and make redundancies. 

FE Week reported in January that representatives from the provider were set to meet with ESFA officials to argue the case for more cash, claiming that Somerset was the only county in England not to get a major grant in the tender process.

Originally funded through Somerset county council, in 2015 SS&L was encouraged by the government to transition to a private provider. Had it stayed part of the council, it would not have been forced to take part in this bidding round, as local authorities are outside the public procurement regulations.

Photo caption: From left: David Warburton, MP for Somerton and Frome, James Heappey, MP for Wells, Anne Milton, apprenticeships and skills minister, Rebecca Pow, MP for Taunton Deane, and Marcus Fysh, MP for Yeovil

The skills minister is expecting a “slow take-up” when T-levels are launched, and admitted that as a parent she would tell her children to “leave it a year” before studying a brand new qualification.

Anne Milton left one member of the commons education committee “staggered” by her comments on the post-16 technical qualifications during an accountability hearing this morning.

Lucy Powell, the MP for Manchester Central, quizzed the minister on the tight timescale for rolling out the first three T-levels by 2020.

“The specifications [for the first three] won’t be ready until the spring, which is around six months before they’re actually being taught,” she said.

If somebody said to me your children can do this new qualification I would say ‘leave it a year’

“As a parent I wouldn’t understand why anyone in the autumn before would choose to do those T-levels. I don’t think that is a realistic timeframe, do you?”

Ms Milton admitted that the qualifications will be “landing on very fertile ground” and while she “doesn’t underestimate the challenge”, the 2020 timetable is “possible”.

“Parents have got to buy into this for their young people,” she said.

“The job of persuading parents to take on a new qualification is always quite tough and we know not huge numbers will do it in the first instance.”

Ms Milton then admitted: “I’m a parent of four children; if somebody said to me your children can do this new qualification, I would say ‘leave it a year’.

“Instinctively that is what parents will do.”

Her honesty left James Frith, the MP for Bury North, “staggered”.

“I find your comments there quite remarkable that you envisage a moment where you yourself consider what is best for your children and you would say ‘leave it there’ in regard to the qualifications that you are responsible for delivering and launching,” he said.

“Why shouldn’t every other parent of the children considering what they should do next also say ‘leave it here’ when the minister responsible for launching them [T-levels] doesn’t think they would be right for your children?”

Ms Milton attempted to backtrack.

“I probably made the mistake in using my own personal experience to emphasise the point that all parents are always wary of new qualifications,” she said.

“I know that take-up will be low in the first years. It was probably a mistake to use my own personal experiences but I do know we have to do a very good job of making sure parents and the providers understand these are a qualification like no other that has been done.

“It will take a while to convince both young people and their parents that actually these are a cut above.”

For the minister responsible for the launch to also say ‘leave it here’, I am staggered by that

The minister added that there would be a low take-up of T-levels whatever year they were started.

“If you took five years putting these in place there would always be a low take-up for a new qualification inevitably; it would never be great,” she said.

“Parents are naturally and understandably cautious.”

Mr Frith concluded by saying: “For the minister responsible for the launch to also say ‘leave it here’, I am staggered by that.”

Gordon Marsden, Labour’s shadow skills minister, said he was astounded by Ms Milton’s revelation.

“It’s astounding that the minister doesn’t have confidence in her own government’s flagship education policy,” he said.

“It is not acceptable for there to be one rule for the government, and another for everyone else.”

University and College Union general secretary Sally Hunt was also shocked.

“When the minister in charge of T-levels has said she wouldn’t want her own children taking one up in their first year, and the department’s permanent secretary has publicly called for their delay, it is probably time for the government to take stock,” she said.

Ofqual’s recent four-week consultation on T-levels, which was branded “ridiculous” by Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, was also brought up by Ms Powell as an example of tight timescales for delivering on the 2020 timetable.

Ms Milton said she thinks it is an “ambitious” deadline, but added: “I don’t think it is too short”.

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

Battle lines have officially been drawn by the Federation of Awarding Bodies, after it outlined its intention to launch a judicial review of the government’s T-level implementation plans.

The legal action began with a letter sent to the Department for Education and the Institute for Apprenticeships yesterday setting out FAB’s grounds, following a unanimous decision by the federation’s board.

FE Week understands the judicial review will challenge on three areas: irrational (timescales), unreasonable (lack of proper engagement on the single provider model) and unfair (has a disproportionate impact on the awarding sector).

It comes after FAB chief executive Tom Bewick first revealed to FE Week that the organisation was considering a legal challenge following market engagement events with the DfE last month, which left awarding organisations (AOs) fuming.

It is highly regrettable that we feel the need to take these steps

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

“FAB is advancing several grounds of legal challenge to the approach being taken by the DfE (and IfA) to the ‘wave 1’ T-level procurement process.

“The rationale for the timescales being pursued by the DfE (and IfA) does not add up. It is unclear whether these bodies even have the powers they need to act as they intend.

“Further, the ongoing uncertainty around numerous matters that are essential to bid preparation will make it impossible for some AOs to participate in the procurement process, will dissuade other AOs from participating, and will significantly disadvantage those AOs that do decide to participate.

“The single-provider model has, moreover, been adopted without proper stakeholder engagement, regardless of the duties owed by the DfE (and IfA), and irrespective of the serious implications for the sector.”

Mr Eeles continued: “Ultimately, our concerns come down to the future job prospects of the 30,000 learners who will be invited to enrol in the first wave of the T-level programme.

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

“Of course we are four-square behind the government in wanting to introduce a genuinely world-class technical qualification. But the desire to meet a politically driven timescale of September 2020 should not come at the expense of the capacity of the education and awarding system to respond adequately.”

The proposed legal action comes after AOs wanting to deliver the new qualifications were left enraged at “market engagement” events last month, over the commercial terms to which they will have to agree.

They believe, among other things, that their ownership of the content they will have developed will be limited.

We can’t afford a rushed process that could result in a whole generation of people being let down

“Other proposed aspects of the ‘wave 1’ procurement process (including around co-branding and intellectual property rights) remain unresolved and may well give rise to further concerns,” Mr Eeles said today.

“These are being kept under review.”

The debate over rushed timescales has raged on in recent weeks.

Ofqual’s four-week consultation on T-levels at the end of term was branded “ridiculous” by Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

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”.

And just yesterday skills minister Anne Milton made the national papers after admitting that as a parent she would tell her children to “leave it a year” before studying a brand new qualification like T-levels.

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

Mr Eeles said his organisation “stands ready to engage in constructive talks with the government about ways it could improve its T-level implementation plans”.

The letter is the first step in the judicial review process. The government will typically now have 14 days to respond.