Enforcement measures should be introduced to make sure that 16-to-18-year-olds participate in education and training, a leading sector figure has said.

The controversial proposal, which would see parents legally bound to ensure their children’s attendance, has split the sector.

The boss of the Association of Colleges, David Hughes, has said the idea deserves “serious consideration”, but his counterparts at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and the Sixth-Form Colleges Association have lined up next to the former schools minister David Laws to condemn it.

The proposal was made in report from the NCFE and the Campaign for Learning written by New College Durham principal John Widdowson, and entitled ‘Mending the gap: Are the needs of 16- to 18-year-olds being met?’

Its stand-out recommendation is for the government to extend the legal duty on parents, which currently applies for children aged under 16, to make sure learners participate in education and training until 18.

“Sanctions should be introduced as a last resort to ensure young people and parents support the duty to participate, not to criminalise young people, but ensure cases of non-participation are highlighted to ministers to stimulate necessary policy change,” the report said.

In 2007, the Labour education secretary Alan Johnson announced in a green paper that participation in education and training should continue until 18.

This was subsequently legislated, and is referred to as “raising the age of participation” or RPA.

Mr Widdowson’s new report criticises the ways “successive governments” have “turned a blind eye” since then.

“The Labour government planned a range of enforcement measures on 16- and 17-year-olds to participate and on employers to offer jobs with training, but these were not introduced,” he wrote.

As a result, 8.5 per cent of the “cohort still remain uninvolved, with a relatively large number of ‘not-knowns’, quantified to around 99,000 individuals”.

Mr Widdowson said at the launch that “if you have a legal duty that then is explicitly not enforced, it’s not a duty”.

“Young people and families work it out pretty quickly,” he continued. “They know that if they don’t attend there’s not a lot that can be done; there are no real sanctions applied.

“It might be an appearance before magistrates, or some restriction on benefits entitlement which usually encourages families to encourage the kid out of bed in the morning. Something is needed that actually says ‘we are serious about this’.”

Speaking after the event, Mr Hughes said that this and other suggestions on improving participation deserve “serious consideration”.

Sanctions should be introduced as a last resort

“His proposal that Parliament shouldn’t pass laws that it doesn’t intend to enforce is right,” the AoC chief said.

“The RPA law is different to the law on school attendance, because the post-16 duty is on the young person not their parent. The Department for Education would need to also act on funding, curriculum and transport recommendations.”

However Mark Dawe, the boss of the AELP, disagreed: “While we should fight for a shift in culture towards more learning after 16, trying to impose sanctions on families won’t help.

“Many of those young people potentially in scope will come from broken homes or very disadvantaged backgrounds and they will end up alienated even more.”

Bill Watkins, chief executive of the SFCA, said his organisation “would like to see a focus on the carrot, rather than the stick”.

“For example, RPA ambitions are more likely to be realised if we can properly inform and advise young people at 16,” he said.

Mr Laws said he was “very cautious about a highly sanctions-driven approach for all the really obvious reasons”.

He warned of “issues that might be impairing young people from participating”, and questions over “how much parents are in a position to actually tackle some of the issues that are causing them not to participate”.

The DfE did not comment ahead of publication.

Around £25 million was given to providers entering the apprenticeship market for the first time in the controversial non-levy tender, Anne Milton has revealed.

In her first monthly column for FE Week, the skills and apprenticeships minister makes a robust defence of the government’s approach to the procurement exercise, explaining how it was unavoidable due to EU law.

But in what will likely be taken as bittersweet by the top colleges and providers that received no funding, she disclosed that five per cent of the £485 million pot – £24.25 million – went to new providers who were neither prime nor subcontractors before.

“We have enabled more new providers and employers to enter the market while still supporting the existing supply where we could; approximately 95 per cent of the funding awarded will be to providers currently delivering apprenticeships,” Ms Milton (pictured above) writes.

While disgruntled providers who were denied contracts in the tender continue to fight their appeals, the AELP has hinted that there could yet be some good news on the horizon.

“We are working very closely with ESFA to get a package of measures agreed that we hope should help ease the position for our members through to April 19,” the association’s chief, Mark Dawe, wrote in his newsletter to members this week.

“Usual line of ‘imminent’ I’m afraid, but we are aware how important this is to many of you.”

Meanwhile, Conservative MPs have begun weighing in on the debate, with one requesting that all colleges have access to funding for apprenticeships with smaller employers.

Jeremy Lefroy, the MP for Stafford, became the latest prominent voice to raise the issue in parliament after Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, which is in his constituency, was denied a non-levy contract.

“Just having the levy on its own is not necessarily sustainable,” he said in a written question. “Will the minister ensure that all further education colleges have access to funding for non-levy apprenticeships?”

Universities minister Sam Gyimah failed to address the latter issue in his response, but insisted that the levy is in its “infancy” and needs to be given time to work.

Mr Lefroy is likely to be joined in the non-levy fight soon by Royston Smith, the Conservative MP for Southampton, who is jumping to the defence of SETA, a registered charity who has delivered engineering apprenticeships in the area for 48 years.

We have re-appealed to the better judgement of government to see the damage this could cause our sector

The Ofsted ‘good’-rated provider was unsuccessful because it fell below the £200,000 threshold the ESFA used to apply its pro-rata methodology.

“We have re-appealed to the better judgement of the government to see the damage this could cause our sector,” Mike Driscoll, director of operations at SETA, told FE Week. “We have liaised with our local MP and will continue to fight the decision.”

He added that if the ESFA continues to deny them a contract, then the message to employers in the short term is that “size matters”.

“So, if you’re a large levy-paying employer you can continue to use SETA. However, if you are small, sorry – you will have to find another provider with the funding to train you,” he said.

“Or, perhaps you can hold off recruiting until April 2018 when we may well be able to fund the service you’ve enjoyed for the last 48 years.”

Other top training providers and colleges have also turned to influential MPs in an effort to squeeze the cash they need from the government after they were denied contracts in the much-delayed procurement.

Exeter College, which FE Week rates as the best college in the country, is working with Ben Bradshaw, a former culture, media and sport secretary who described the situation as “inexplicable”.

Meanwhile, ‘good’-rated HYA Training is liaising with its own MP, Emma Hardy, who sits on the education select committee.

An independent learning provider has boosted its grade to ‘outstanding’ – reversing a trend that has seen a number of providers lose the top accolade in recent weeks.

Ixion Holdings (Contracts) Limited received the highest grade overall and in five headline fields in a report published January 30, and based on an inspection in November.

Leaders and board members were found to have a “very clear strategic vision” for the Chelmsford-based not-for-profit provider, which delivers adult learning programmes, apprenticeships and traineeships.

“Senior leaders operate with great integrity; the organisation demonstrates substantial corporate and social responsibility through its work,” the report said.

“Excellent and fruitful partnerships” developed with a wide range of organisations had helped to “establish highly innovative learning programmes”, inspectors noted.

The “vast majority” of adult learners and trainees made “excellent progress”, thanks to “high-quality teaching and learning”.

Ixion’s apprenticeship provision was rated ‘good’ – the only area not to receive a grade one.

While the “vast majority” of apprentices “quickly develop excellent practical skills”, some had an “understanding of theoretical concepts” that was “less well developed”.

Skills Edge Training Ltd slipped a grade this week, from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’, in a report published February 2 and based on an inspection in December.

Leaders and managers were criticised for being “too slow” to take action on “all of the weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”, in 2015.

Apprentices – who make up the majority of the national provider’s learners – failed to make sufficiently good progress, with the result that “too few achieve within the timeframe allocated to them”.

Meanwhile, the small number of adult learners “make slow progress in developing their theoretical knowledge”, because teachers and assessors “do not plan and deploy effective teaching methods” in this area.

“Too many” learners and apprentices were also making “slow progress in developing the English and mathematical skills pertinent for their future prospects,” inspectors found.

In addition, the report noted: “Skills Edge managers do not assure the quality of training centres and do not routinely track and monitor learners’ progress.”

Cash incentives of £1,000 are being offered to every employer who takes on apprentices caught up in the collapse of Carillion.

The payments have been sourced by the Construction Industry Training Board in a £1.4 million package that sees firms receive £500 upfront, and a further £500 after six months if they’ve retained the displaced trainees.

Over 550 of the 1,400 affected apprentices have been given new job offers since the outsourcing giant ceased trading two weeks ago, according to the CITB.

If all the apprentices are found new employers, the board would pay £1.4 million over the next six months.

“To encourage employers to take on and retain Carillion apprentices, we will pay in-scope employers an encouragement grant of £500, with a further £500 retention grant after six months,” a CITB spokesperson explained.

“This is in addition to any apprenticeship grants an employer is entitled to.”

Meanwhile, the government this week confirmed that any former Carillion apprentice yet to find alternative employment will be paid beyond January, despite initial reports that they wouldn’t.

It’s a relief that the apprentices will at least get some pay

A story by The Huffington Post on January 29 claimed that Anne Milton had said payments to the out-of-work construction trainees would stop at the end of the month, in an answer to the shadow education secretary Angela Rayner.

“The ESFA can confirm that all affected apprentices will continue to be paid by the receiver until the end of January,” Ms Milton said.

The Department for Education later U-turned, and confirmed that pay would stretch beyond January 31.

“At present all former Carillion apprentices will continue to be paid while alternative employers are being sought,” a DfE spokesperson said.

She added that the CITB has already secured new employment, with wages, for nearly half of the apprentices and is working “around the clock” to sort out the others.

Liz Green, the mother of one former Carillion apprentice, called Alex, said it was a “relief” that the government stepped in to ensure that apprentices would still be paid.

She did however add that it “would have been nice” to have been personally informed on the Carillion “disaster”, rather than “relying on the press to tell us”.

Ms Rayner described the decision as a U-turn and said she hopes the government now sticks to its word.

Immediately after Carillion’s collapse, the CITB set up a project team to assist with the retention and redeployment of its apprentices.

Over 40,000 construction employers are said to have been contacted and encouraged to take on the trainees, who are mostly aged 16 to 18.

More than 850 employers have responded and offered job opportunities, the CITB said.

“I’m delighted that we’ve been able to help so many former Carillion apprentices; so many small firms have been critical in finding these roles but the job is not done,” said Gillian Cain, head of apprenticeships at CITB.

“I want to reassure those who have not yet received job offers that the team at CITB will continue to do everything they can to help apprentices find new employers and get on with their training. We are confident that with industry support we can get all apprentices back on track very soon.”

The Carillion apprentices were being taught at the company’s skills division, Carillion Training Services, which held a £6.5 million ESFA contract last year.

New education secretary Damian Hinds promised last week that he would ensure every apprentice affected by the collapse of the UK’s second biggest construction firm would be found new employment to complete their training.

Learndirect has entered redundancy talks with an unknown amount of its staff.

A consultation on job losses was launched on Thursday, and is directly linked to the termination of its ESFA contracts which will end in July.

“We have entered a period of consultation with a number of colleagues,” a spokesperson for the nation’s biggest provider said.

“This is directly linked to the cessation of a number of ESFA contracts in July 2018 that was announced last year.”

Learndirect has over 1,500 staff on its books but the spokesperson would not say how many were in line to lose their jobs.

The decision to terminate the provider’s funding came about after Ofsted slammed it with a grade four in August last year.

Although its contracts are coming to an end, the government singled it out for special treatment by allowing it to retain its contracts for almost a year – much more than the usual three-month termination period.

Learndirect, which was subject to a recent National Audit Office investigation and Public Accounts Committee inquiry, was given £95 million from the ESFA for 2017/18.