Apprenticeship payments system malfunctions again

The government’s apprenticeship payments report system has been broken for almost a week – and there’s no fix currently in sight.

Complaints about the online system first appeared on the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s FE Connect site on April 10.

A day later, the agency admitted to “an issue with the apprenticeships monthly payments report” and that it had “identified the cause and are currently working on a resolution to this”.

Despite nearly a week of work, however, the problem has still not been resolved, even though it is being treated as an “urgent investigation”.

“The people behind the apprenticeship payments system have decided to add a second row of data now in the period and payments report for the erroneous ones made last month,” said the first complaint.

“The first row appears to take the full P7 amount back and the second row what looks like the correct YTD payment however I have yet to go through in fine detail. Just a warning for anyone else interested.

“I have actually found one apprentice with 27 programme aim rows!!! What the hell is going on??????????”

Two days later the ESFA was “testing a fix to the issue which was identified”, and an update had been promised this morning.

“Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused by this,” said a spokesperson.

The current message on the Hub, updated this morning, says that testing is ongoing.

“As confirmed to providers via the Hub forum, we have identified and are investigating an issue,” said a Department for Education spokesperson earlier this afternoon. “We will provide an update in due course.”

FE Week reported on other issues with the apprenticeship payment system last December.

Providers were again left irate messages on FE Connect. One of many was from Chris Bradley, who showed FE Week an apologetic message he received from the ESFA’s business operations service centre.

It recognised that the apprenticeship funding system had been incorrectly expecting cash contributions from levy-funded employers, in a case relating to Nottinghamshire-based provider SREducation, where Mr Bradley was data and contracts manager.

He has been back on the forum in recent days, to express further frustrations.

“It is time whoever is accountable stood up and answered what is going wrong,” he said. “If there is a problem with resource it is no excuse. If you or I were failing either directly or as a result of the team we would be held accountable for sure.”

 

 

Update: April 19: The government missed its own deadline to finally fix its malfunctioning apprenticeship payments reporting system.

The ESFA promised a fix by April 18. “We are currently in the final testing stage of an updated report that will fix the issue of duplicate rows and also fix many of the known outstanding issues we have been working behind the scenes to improve,” said a spokesperson on April 17.

“We are committed to releasing this new version of the report tomorrow. We apologise for the inconvenience caused.”

However, as at April 19, the system had still not been restored after a week and a half of work, even though it was being treated as an “urgent investigation”.

‘Last resort’ IfA quality assures almost half of all apprenticeship standards

The Institute for Apprenticeships is now the external quality-assurance provider for a massive 45 per cent of all fully-approved apprenticeship standards, even though it sees itself as the option of last resort.

This makes it by far the most popular option among employer groups developing the new apprenticeships, through a service provided on its behalf by Open Awards, whose contract has just been extended by six months from its original March end-date.

“We have a contract in place with Open Awards to deliver EQA on our behalf until September 2018,” an IfA spokesperson told FE Week.

The institute has been keeping this provision “under review” and would “assess these arrangements” nearer the end of the contract period, she said.

EQA is the process that ensures apprenticeship assessments are consistent and reliable, and that they deliver the right outcomes.

We are confident that the current arrangements are appropriate and sufficient

The IfA is one of four options from which employer groups can choose to provide this service.

According to the Department for Education’s strategic guidance, published in April 2017, the IfA was originally intended to be chosen “only in instances where alternatives are not viable”.

According to the latest Education and Skills Funding Agency figures, the IfA is named on 113 fully-approved standards.

That’s almost as many as the other options combined: 49 standards name the employer-designed model, while Ofqual is named on 33 and a professional body is named on 31 standards.

One standard names a professional body partnered with the exams regulator, and the Quality Assurance Agency, which regulates some degree apprenticeships, is named on eight standards.

A further 19 standards are yet to have a named EQA provider.

The IfA’s share of the market has more than doubled since FE Week reported on the issue in August last year, when it stood at 19 per cent.

A spokesperson denied that the IfA was worried by its popularity, and insisted it was “focused on delivering a high-quality service for our customers”.

The IfA is in “regular dialogue” with Open Awards “to ensure that they have the resources in place to deliver EQA”.

“We are confident that the current arrangements are appropriate and sufficient. We will continue to review our model for delivering EQA and the resource behind this as end-point assessment numbers continue to grow,” the spokesperson insisted.

CITB finds almost three quarters of Carillion apprentices new employers

Almost three quarters of the apprentices left jobless following the collapse of Carillion have secured new employment, following an “extraordinary effort” by the construction industry over the last month.

At first, 700 were offered alternative apprenticeships by the end of January, after the outsourcing giant entered liquidation on the 15th. But attempts to move more than 400 others stalled throughout February and early March, after it proved difficult to match them with companies close enough to where they live.

The Construction Industry Training Board has now cleared the bottleneck, and 824, or 72 per cent, of the 1,148 apprentices have moved on.

“The industry has well and truly rallied together, offering 1,600 job opportunities to affected apprentices,” said the CITB’s Gillian Cain, which has assumed responsibility for finding alternative employers.

She added that while not all of these opportunities have “met the needs of the apprentices”, there are 200 more relevant vacancies remaining, and the CITB is working hard to secure more.

The CITB is continuing its matching service for another 100 of the remaining apprentices who are still engaging with the process. A further 224 have not responded to various attempts to contact them.

The government have simply buried their heads in the sand

The success in sourcing new work for the apprentices has been put down to cash incentives of £1,000 which are being offered to employers.

The payments are part of a £1.4 million package that sees firms receive £500 up front, and a further £500 after six months if they’ve retained the displaced trainees.

Ms Cain said that while the additional incentive “may have helped”, the majority of companies offering jobs have done so “out of a genuine desire to help the affected apprentices and we are incredibly grateful to all those who have”.

Carillion was the UK’s largest employer of construction apprentices before it went into liquidation in January.

It was originally estimated that around 1,400 learners trained at the company’s skills division, Carillion Training Services, had been affected by the collapse.

However, this figure included recent finishers who were looking for a new employer. The true number of affected apprentices employed by UK’s largest employer of construction apprentices and delivered by CTS has now been confirmed as 1,148.

Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said the majority of apprentices who have been placed elsewhere would feel “huge relief”, but this “should not be allowed to distract from the repeated failings of the DfE to take the steps necessary to protect apprentices”.

“It has been the CITB that has been supporting these learners in the wake of Carillion’s collapse, while the government have simply buried their heads in the sand,” she added.

In an answer to a parliamentary question last month, skills minister Anne Milton revealed that just two of the 1,200 apprentices cut adrift by the collapse of Carillion were offered a placement by the government – and both joined the army.

Stephanie Peacock, Labour MP for Barnsley East, said the government “had a duty” to look after the apprentices who have been “badly failed by corporate bosses and Tory ministers alike”.

“They haven’t even found so much as one apprenticeship in a single government department or agency,” she continued.

The Department for Education had said it would continue paying the out-of-work apprentices beyond the end of March. However, it declined to comment on when these payments would end.

“We have been working closely with the CITB to find alternative employment for all those apprentices,” a spokesperson said.

Ofsted saves £400k with longer grade 2 inspection gap

Ofsted will save around £400,000 during the next academic year by elongating the maximum period between inspections for ‘good’ providers from three to five years, it has told FE Week.

This change in inspection policy was revealed in the April edition of the learning and skills inspection handbook.

“We estimate that this could potentially save around £400,000 in 2018/19,” said a spokesperson.

“We will inspect all ‘good colleges’ and skills providers within five years; that’s not to say we will inspect providers every five years, or indeed in the fifth year.

“As now, we will take into account risk information in deciding the timing.”

The watchdog has reviewed its inspection frequencies to “ensure we are using our resources effectively and efficiently so that inspection is intelligent, responsible and focused”, he added.

Apprenticeship numbers and Ofsted funding are going in opposite directions

The inspectorate is having to look at where it can make savings and stretch already limited resources, as provider numbers increase.

A major source of additional pressure has been the proliferation of government-approved apprenticeship providers.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman admitted to MPs on the Public Accounts Committee in January that she was trying to secure extra public funding because of this.

The House of Commons education select committee also heard in the same month from Joe Dromey, a senior research fellow for the policy think-tank IPPR, that apprenticeship numbers and Ofsted funding are “going in opposite directions”.

The total number of providers on the register of apprenticeship training providers increased to 2,588 last month. This was after a further 13 organisations were unexpectedly added, five months on from when the third and most recent window of opportunity to get onto RoATP closed.

The Ofsted inspection handbook explains how the extended gap between inspections will work in practice.

“Providers judged good for overall effectiveness at their most recent inspection will usually be inspected within five years of their last inspection,” it states.

“This will normally be a short inspection, but may be a full inspection where information suggests that this is the most appropriate course of action, for example if the provider’s performance has declined.”

Ofsted introduced short inspections for FE providers that were judged ‘good’ at their last inspection in September 2015. It claimed these two-day visits would allow for more frequent and effective monitoring than traditional five-day full scale inspections.

But they were viewed by some as a cost-cutting measure, and have attracted criticism for their limited scope and predictable outcome.

Short inspection reports almost always return a ‘good’ verdict, though they can be extended to a full inspection if serious problems are found and a lower grade is deemed appropriate.

Former Ofsted inspector Phil Hatton, who now works as an FE consultant, accepted that lengthening the maximum period between inspections for ‘good’ providers would save precious resources.

But he claimed it “really will lessen the grip on ensuring quality, as many will have had short inspections and then a possible five year gap”. Ofsted has denied this.

Market or system – what’s the best model for FE?

Further education is increasingly being used as a laboratory between competing models of education, and the market model is winning. Ewart Keep explains why marketising education might not be such a safe bet

Although many in FE still instinctively talk about the “system”, in reality there are now only markets for different segments of provision – 14-to-16, 16-to-18/19, AEB, loans-funded post-19, and apprenticeships. This change from a system-based model to a market model happened quite gradually, from limited contestability under New Labour to full-blown marketisation under the current government.

It also occurred with little public debate on the relative merits of this fundamental choice about how best to configure funding and provision. In part, this lack of debate helps explain why people still refer to a system. In FE there has been no decisive, overt break. The new marketised reality has simply crept up on the sector, and providers have adjusted accordingly.

Why have markets and contestability in education become so popular in England?

Why have markets and contestability in education become so popular in England? Scotland and Wales have retained a systems approach. The answer is a set of interrelated economic theories.

Their starting point is the “principal/agent dilemma”. This suggests that where a government (the principal) funds institutions (the agent) to deliver public policy, there is a danger that the latter will instead follow their own self-interest, ignore what the former wants, and deliver what is easiest, perhaps inefficiently.

The solution, according to the textbook, is to route funding through the customer – in FE’s case students and employers – so that competition will force the agent/provider to deliver that which is needed. The market and customer choices are seen as the most effective resource allocation mechanism. At the same time, contests between providers for resources (funding and students) will drive up efficiency, with the weakest going out of business.

There are at least four problems with this analysis. First, the evidence that this model works in the real world is, at best, limited. Few developed countries have gone down this route. Australia is the prime example, and it has resulted in a decline in vocational provision and multiple funding frauds.

Second, there has been little discussion about some of the downsides to marketisation here. For example, the need to maintain spare capacity to facilitate student choice. As UTCs and studio schools are demonstrating, the 14-to-18 marketplace is a crowded and demanding one. There are also major issues about financial instability, the costs – not least to learners – of institutional failure, and providers’ inability to plan long-term to support developments like the T-levels.

Third, so far limited thought has been given to the longer-term implications. To pick just one example, where is market regulation and governance heading? At present, the market is regulated by a range of different agencies and bodies – for example, the FE commissioner, the Institute for Apprenticeships, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, Ofsted and Ofqual. The boundaries between their respective remits are often blurry, and the overall regulatory system in FE is far more diffuse than for universities. At the same time, if the customer is king and market forces rule, what need is there for traditional governance mechanisms? Why have boards of governors when customer demand dictates strategy and defines success?

Fourth, FE policy is fundamentally incoherent. Overlaying official enthusiasm for markets there is a strand of thinking that still yearns for traditional elements of skills forecasting and planning.

An example here are the new skills advisory panels. Policy also hankers after greater cooperation and a systems-based approach for some forms of provision (see the DfE’s social mobility plan for example). How the tensions between markets and planning and partnership will be resolved is as yet profoundly unclear.

To try to throw light on the meaning and implications of marketisation, Oxford University, working in partnership with the Association of Colleges, is undertaking a project on the issue for the FE Trust for Leadership. Our main objective is to produce a set of scenarios for how marketisation could develop, and to explore some of the main challenges, tensions and contradictions with a markets-based policy. Keep an eye on the FETL and AoC websites for details.

Professor Ewart Keep is director of SKOPE at Oxford University

Catholic sixth-form colleges demand academisation protection

Frustration is reaching boiling point at Catholic sixth-form colleges over barriers to converting to academy status.

Becoming an academy, and in doing so enjoying the luxury of not paying VAT, has been an option for nearly all SFCs since former chancellor George Osborne changed the rules in November 2015.

However, a group of 14 which are Catholic-run claim they are prevented from doing so due to their religious character, which would not be maintained under current government rules.

If they converted, they would lose protections in areas of curriculum, acts of worship and governance.

A short clause in the education bill could “easily rectify this”, according to the Catholic Education Service and the Sixth-Form Colleges Association, which have been in joint talks with the Department for Education.

But 28 months after the option of academisation became available, no action has been taken.

The deadline to apply for funds from the government’s £726 million post-area review restructuring facility – which 31 SFCs have so far used to cover the costs of converting to academy status – ends in just five months’ time.

We have not had any movement or opportunity to progress

Peter McGhee (pictured above), the principal of St John Rigby SFC, who chairs the Association of Catholic SFCs, has begged the DfE to “hurry up” before that window closes.

“Other non-faith based colleges have been able to access the restructuring fund and there are a number that have converted but we’ve not even been able to start the process,” he told FE Week.

“We’ve raised this a number of times with ministers who are well aware there are legislative changes needed but we have not had any movement or opportunity to progress.”

He described the situation as “frustrating”, particularly for Catholic SFCs which had planned to academise two years ago following recommendations in their area reviews.

Becoming an academy means SFCs no longer have to pay VAT – letting them off an average annual bill of £385,000.

The first to convert was Hereford SFC in March last year. Seventeen have since followed suit, leaving 65 designated SFCs. Thirteen of these are however in the pipeline of converting.

Mr McGhee explained that VAT is not the main reason that Catholic SFCs want to convert: they want to “align themselves more closely with schools to work collaboratively”.

One Catholic SFC – Loreto in Manchester – is already an academy sponsor but cannot participate in the academy programme itself.

Mr McGhee, who will become an executive principal at Loreto from September, said the situation was a “peculiar anomaly”.

James Kewin

Under current rules, if a Catholic SFC decides to become an academy it will remain as an FE institution but won’t be governed by the statutory provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which contains protections for religious character.

The CES has been “working closely” with the DfE to reinstate the legislative protections for the colleges as 16-to-19 academies in the next education bill, but the DfE is yet to commit.

James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the SFCA, insisted there is a “pressing need” to make progress, especially as the restructuring fund approaches its end.

“With no education bill likely in the foreseeable future, we are keen to explore non-legislative solutions to breaking this impasse,” he told FE Week.

The Department for Education “remains committed to exploring” ways in which existing Catholic SFCs can convert to become academies while retaining their religious character.

“We will continue to work with the colleges and Catholic Education Service in developing these options and in supporting them to ensure the future success of the colleges,” a spokesperson said.

£73m unspent adult education budget funding is absurd

The adult education budget has been significantly cut over the last decade, to the annual £1.5 billion it is today.

And, we are told, as a result there are colleges in financial turmoil, training providers losing out in ESFA tenders, and ESOL courses with waiting lists in the thousands.

Yet this week we reveal that 441 providers have failed to use tens of millions of allocated AEB funding.

Many are colleges and the AoC was quick to blame “restrictive” funding rules and low rates.

As a former college curriculum planner myself, I’d argue that pointing the finger at the funding system is too simplistic.

In truth, it is often poor planning, over-optimistic targets and a preference to under-deliver rather than go unpaid for the costs of over delivery that’s to blame.

In response the ESFA appears to be taking two sensible steps.

Firstly, encouraging colleges to reduce unrealistic allocations, presumably with a view to reallocating the funding in-year to those able to use it.

And secondly, introducing a policy that commits to fund three percent of any AEB over-delivery in 2018/2019. It’s a complex issue – but surely the absurdity of leaving scarce FE funding unspent can’t be allowed to continue?

Ofsted watch: RNN Group criticised for poor oversight of subcontractors

A college group has been criticised for its poor oversight of subcontractors, in the latest of a new wave of special Ofsted monitoring reports. 

The RNN Group’s senior leaders’ “management of all subcontractors and subsidiary companies was not good enough” during a period when they oversaw two college mergers.

They failed to “evaluate accurately” the weaknesses in teaching and learning that led to “too few learners and apprentices” at the group’s 14 subcontractors achieving their qualifications.

Inspectors noted that governors had taken “positive steps” to increase their oversight of subcontractors since last summer.

But managers were found to be “over-optimistic” in their evaluation of the improvements they’re making.

In 2016/17, RNN Group had 2,569 apprentices and 14,860 learners. The group subcontracted 22 per cent of its apprenticeship provision and four per cent of its classroom-based learning.

This report on them is part of a new wave of monitoring visits that Ofsted recently announced would be carried out with a sample of providers, as part of efforts to keep a closer eye on subcontracted provision.

Elsewhere, it was a turn up for the books this week for colleges, with both full inspections resulting in ‘good’ grades.

But independent learning providers fared less well, as all but one full inspection this week received a grade three.

Lincoln College saw its rating go up from three to two in a report published April 13 and based on an inspection in mid-March.

“Substantial improvements” had taken place at the college since its last inspection, with the result that “the majority of learners make good progress and many more now achieve their qualifications”.

Governors and leaders were praised for creating a culture that “focuses on the needs of learners and employers”.

Governors and leaders were praised for creating a culture that “focuses on the needs of learners and employers”.

“They offer provision that meets the needs of the local community well, and most learners progress to positive destinations,” the report said.

Inspectors also noted that while attendance had “improved in the last year”, it was still “too low”.

Hugh Baird College held onto its grade two rating, in a report published April 9 and based on an inspection in late February.

Achievement rates had “risen over the last three years”, and were now “high” for 16- to 18-year-olds, learners with high needs and adults.

Learners enjoyed “an extensive range of enrichment activities and meaningful work experience” as well as “highly effective pastoral support and guidance” – with the latter meaning they were able to “remain on their course”.

But leaders’ efforts to improve the quality of apprenticeship provision – which received a ‘requires improvement’ rating – were “not successful”, the report said.

Independent learning provider Serco Limited was rated ‘requires improvement’ across the board, down from its previous ‘good’ rating, in a report published April 13 and based on an inspection in early March.

“Too many” apprentices were failing to complete their courses on time, and senior leaders did not “ensure that apprentices who fall behind catch up”, the report said.

Leaders were also criticised for being “too slow” to put in place plans to ensure that “all apprentices receive a high standard of teaching and learning and complete their qualification”.

Chamber Training (Humber) Limited also slipped one grade from two to three, in a report published April 12 and based on a late-February inspection.

The proportion of apprentices finishing their courses on time had “declined” and was now “too low”, the report said.

The proportion of apprentices finishing their courses on time had “declined” and was now “too low”

Inspectors found “too many instances” of tutors and assessors accrediting adult learners for existing skills and knowledge, rather than supporting them to “develop new vocational skills and knowledge”.

British Printing Industries Federation Ltd held onto its ‘requires improvement’ grade following an early March inspection, in a report published on April 10.

“Too many” apprentices “leave early without completing their programme”, the report said, while apprentices were not developing their English and maths skills “considering their starting points”.

Apprentices were also not receiving “appropriate” careers advice to ensure they “are well informed about their next steps”.

Skillnet Limited was the only independent provider to see its grade go up this week, from three to two, in a report published April 9 and based on an inspection in mid-February.

Apprentices were found to “develop an extensive range of workplace skills” and to receive “very good support from teachers, skills coaches and their employers”.

They also “gain a range of qualifications” in addition to their apprenticeships, which “enhances their employability”.

Newcastle upon Tyne city council slipped one grade from two to three, in the only full inspection report of an adult and community learning provider published this week.

The proportion of adult learners achieving their qualifications had “declined”, and was now “too low”, inspectors noted in a report published April 12 and based on an inspection in mid-March.

A lack of “accurate information about the progress and achievement of learners” was deemed to be hampering leaders’ ability to address “several areas of improvement”.

The third early monitoring visit to a new levy-funded apprenticeship provider, published April 10, was deemed to be a success, with Jigsaw Training found to be making reasonable progress in all areas.

Meanwhile, employer provider Compass Group UK and Ireland was found to be making reasonable progress in five areas and significant progress in one, in its second monitoring visit report, published April 11, after it was rated ‘inadequate’ last summer.

Four providers held onto their grade two ratings this week following short inspections: independent learning providers Oracle Training Consultants Limited, and Training Futures (UK) Limited, and adult and community learning providers Nottingham City Council and Azure Charitable Enterprises.

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Lincoln College 13/03/2018 13/04/2018 2 3
Hugh Baird College 26/02/2018 09/04/2018 2 2
RNN Group 20/02/2018 13/04/2018 Monitoring Monitoring

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Serco Limited 06/03/2018 13/04/2018 3 2
Chamber Training (Humber) Limited 26/02/2018 12/04/2018 3 2
British Printing Industries Federation Ltd 06/03/2018 10/04/2018 3 3
Jigsaw Training 14/03/2018 10/04/2018 Monitoring Monitoring
Skillnet Limited 20/02/2018 09/04/2018 2 3

 

Adult and Community Learning Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council 13/03/2018 12/04/2018 3 2

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Compass Group UK & Ireland 15/03/2018 11/04/2018 Monitoring Monitoring

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
Oracle Training Consultants Limited 06/03/2018 13/04/2018
Training Futures (UK) Limited 27/02/2018 11/04/2018
Nottingham City Council 05/03/2018 12/04/2018
Azure Charitable Enterprises  06/03/2018 12/04/2018

Why is there no T-Level pathway for sport?

Elite sports is one of the hardest industries to break into, yet there are no plans for any technical routes, laments Jo Maher

The independent panel on technical education’s report in 2016 identified “15 clear routes to skilled employment” where there is a “substantial requirement for technical knowledge and practical skills”.

Sport was not one of them.

Sport is one of the most competitive industries there is, with worldwide audiences, major international events and billions of pounds in revenue generated annually. Sport is an industry so technical that at elite performance level you have to complete up to three years of training after completing a master’s program to become accredited or chartered. Sport covers professional and technical jobs across biomechanics, physiology, psychology, performance analysis, coaching, and strength and conditioning.

Physical activity, exercise and leisure are industries in their own right but with a clear synergy to sport, requiring transferable knowledge and similar competencies. I fully endorse AoC Sport’s stance that a ‘Sport and physical activity’ career pathway should be acknowledged within the occupational maps and the route amended to ‘Health, science, sport and physical activity’.

Sport has not engaged as much as other sectors in the apprenticeship reforms

The Institute for Apprenticeship states that the “maps are not an exhaustive overview of the labour market and will be regularly reviewed and updated”. To be successful, it will be necessary to prove that sport is a skilled occupation, with a substantial requirement for technical education and training that cannot be learnt exclusively on the job. Is this the case?

To become a chartered professional is a mark of professional competency in a particular field of work. The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES) runs an accreditation scheme, which leads to chartered scientist status and the scheme is widely recognised in elite sport as a standard for employment. Furthermore, the role of sport and exercise psychologist is now a protected title. There is no doubt that high levels of technical education and training are required to operate in elite sport.

So why is the T-level sport missing?

I have been told that sport must be academic as opposed to technical because students go to university. The logic is that A-levels instead of technical qualifications would place sport on the academic side of qualification reform. However, employers still require technical training, leaving master’s graduates spending up to three years on technical training, at their own expense in many cases, in order to get a job.

The attraction of working in elite sport is meanwhile so high that professional clubs can ask for higher-level qualifications than roles may require, for low salaries, and still be spoilt for choice. I have seen professional football clubs in England offering £12,000 salaries and requiring a minimum of a BSc and to be accredited, while many teams offer internships and voluntary roles.

This is where the problem lies. There has been an overreliance on motivated postgraduates continuing to develop their technical skills, as opposed to improving the system in order to map the technical training as part of their studies. Not because technical training is not needed or is needed only at postgraduate level. The result is that sport has not engaged as much as other sectors in the apprenticeship reforms.

The uptake of vocational qualifications at level three across the sector has been strong for a number of years. However, apprenticeships in sport are not widely available, resulting in low enrolment numbers when compared to other sectors. The advanced apprenticeship in sporting excellence is the exception, and it has long supported young athletes with the training required to succeed in elite sport, specific to the performance side.

I cannot think of another industry that demands up to nine years of training, at a minimum cost of £36,000, to employ a person on an average salary of £18,000.

We must do better.

Co-ordinating the technical training requirements across the sector and including sport in the occupational maps may trigger the shift needed. Developing T-levels, level three apprenticeships and higher apprenticeships for elite sport job roles, supported by key stakeholders such as BASES, would benefit students, employers and the taxpayer.

Jo Maher is principal and CEO of Boston College