Skip to content
4 June 2026

Latest news from FE Week

FE and social justice: Top six education committee chair recommendations

Robert Halfon is set to give the keynote address on the theme of social justice and skills at an event run by the Centre of Social Justice, the Learning and Work Institute, and the Open University on Monday morning.

The chair of the Commons education select committee will set out his vision for how FE and HE can help the economy grow and deliver social justice.

FE Week has highlighted six of Mr Halfon’s ideas for how this can happen.

  1. Tapered levy payments for employers taking on disadvantaged apprentices

Mr Halfon – who has previously spoken passionately about the need to better support disadvantaged apprentices – will urge the government to be “smarter” about how the levy is used.

“We could, for example, introduce a taper allowing employers to pay smaller contributions if they develop apprenticeships for disadvantaged pupils, and if they address skills shortages,” he will say.

“Once we are clear about what works best, we could then make a powerful case for expanding the levy.”

  1. Massive roll-out of degree apprenticeships

The former skills minister will repeat his earlier call for half of university students to be on degree apprenticeships – but also to propose a penalty for those universities that don’t offer them.

“There are currently just 11,600 degree apprenticeships. I hope that one day, half of all university students are doing them,” he will say.

He will urge the government to “ring-fence some of the enormous public subsidy that still goes to universities, so that universities can only draw down on this protected funding stream if they offer degree apprenticeships,” by way of incentive.

  1. Functional skills not GCSE English and maths

He will add his voice to those of other major sector figures, including Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, by calling for the controversial GCSE English and maths resit policy to be scrapped.

“FE can be a vital player in helping the current and next generation build the basic skills they need,” he will say.

“However, rather than swallow valuable resources by insisting on retakes for those who fail English and maths (with failure rates of over two thirds in each case), we should be offering these individuals functional skills courses to improve their basic literacy and numeracy.”

  1. Better support for FE colleges to deliver higher-level and technical courses

“There is a strong need for intermediate skills,” Mr Halfon will say – rather than the “over-supply” of graduates that currently exists.

Instead, he will propose that colleges “which are ideally place to offer flexible and local options” should be “better supported and incentivised to deliver intermediate and higher technical courses”.

  1. Universities as centres of technical excellence

The “graduate premium” – the extra money that a graduate will earn over their lifetime compared with a non-graduate – “varies wildly”, he will say – with some returns “paltry”.

As part of his plans for “rebalancing higher education” he will suggest that universities “that do not provide a good return on academic courses could reinvent themselves as centres of technical excellence”.

  1. Clear routes from FE into HE

Mr Halfon will call for the creation of “clear routes” from FE into HE, which could be supported through “Next-step loans for individual higher education modules”.

“To build a continuum of learning, we must also make it easy for people to learn flexibly throughout their lives,” he will say.

Qualifications WILL be allowed for apprenticeships

Strict rules that apprenticeships cannot involve qualifications are set to be overturned next week, FE Week understands, potentially unsticking a series of standards held up for years by the ban.

The Institute for Apprenticeships is expected to announce that qualifications, such as technical certificates that show evidence of knowledge, will be considered in the future.

Both existing qualifications and those in development will be covered in the rule change, representing a significant U-turn on previous guidance.

It’s part of the IfA’s promise to make its process and policies “faster and better”, announced in December after skills minister Anne Milton admitted that “some oil on the wheels” was needed.

The change – revealed exclusively to FE Week by a source close to the IfA – will be welcomed by many across the sector.

Current rules state that, except in “certain specific circumstances”, standards “should not incorporate qualifications”.

Exceptions exist where a qualification is a “licence to practise”, where one is required for professional registration, or if an apprentice’s career would be held back without it.

Last summer the rules were tightened to include a bar on allowing employer groups to submit a standard for approval if it includes a qualification that’s still in development.

In December, the IfA promised it would clarify when qualifications can be included in apprenticeships, because current policy had “led to some unpredictable results”.

Minutes from a board meeting held earlier that month reveal an upcoming shift in the rules.

These indicate that the board agreed to proposals from a presentation on mandatory qualifications, but noted that “there needed to be effective communication on the changes to both trailblazers and relationship managers”.

The minutes also reveal that, for the first time, Ms Milton attended the meeting, held on December 6.

A spokesperson for the IfA confirmed that this had been the skills minister’s first meeting, but declined to comment on the nature of the changes, ahead of a February 6 briefing on its ‘Faster and Better’ programme.

Since the IfA became operational in April last year, the process of standard development appears to have slowed down.

The number of standards approved for delivery fell from 84 in 2016, to 63 in 2017, according to the IfA’s own figures.

In total, just 222 (42 per cent) of the current 531 standards approved for development are available for delivery.

In a wide-ranging interview in November, Ms Milton told FE Week that she understood “where the sticking points are, where we need to put some oil on the wheels” in the apprenticeships process.

“Anything that the IfA does, anything on standards, it needs to be quick and responsive,” she said.

Anthony Elgey, the general manager at MP Futures, which is responsible for the national occupational standards for the quarrying, mineral products and mining sectors, told FE Week he’d been “fighting from the very beginning” to have qualifications included in standards for those sectors.

These included qualifications that were required by the Health and Safety Executive for someone to be permitted to work unsupervised.

But despite it appearing to fit the IfA’s criteria for an exception to the general rule, Mr Elgey said he’d been told “flat out” by the IfA that “you either remove that qualification requirement or we will never approve it”.

Without frameworks or standards the sectors could use for the last four years, “we’ve been turning apprentices away,” Mr Elgey said.

Richard Longthorp, the lead for three agriculture standards, said the issue of qualifications had “delayed the finalisation of the standards by a good 18 months”.

He enlisted the support of agriculture minister George Eustice, who raised the issue in a meeting with then-skills minister Robert Halfon, but “they still kicked it out”.

Meanwhile, Sarah McMonagle, the lead for two master builder standards, said employers in her sector had hoped to develop a “rebranded, high-quality, all-singing, all-dancing qualification” to include as the existing ones weren’t up to scratch – “but were told no”.

Employers are not alone in lobbying on the issue.

In a briefing paper published in September, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers argued that their omission “could adversely affect portability and transferability, while making it difficult to make comparisons between standards of level and breadth”.


The return of qualifications to apprenticeships is at the heart of  the IfA’s ‘faster and better’ regime

The Institute for Apprenticeships, under the new regime of Sir Gerry Berragan, launched its assault against government red tape in December.

Under the heading “faster and better”, the IfA outlined a number of improvements it would make in 2018.

“We’ve always recognised some of the systems, policies and processes we inherited needed improving,” it acknowledged.

In addition to clarified qualification rules, it promised to work with the Department for Education to refresh policy in a number of areas, including occupation and standards criteria.

The institute committed to “developing a quicker and more transparent system for making funding band recommendations” aligned to a new approvals process, “to cut out unnecessary stages and make sure new apprenticeships are ready as quickly as possible”.

It’s also pledged to speed up the process of standards development, with new two-day workshops on offer “to complete the writing of standards or assessment plans from start to finish, saving about a third of the usual time”.

It also plans work with the groups so that “standards and EPA plans can be submitted and approved in parallel, saving about six weeks from the end-to-end process”.

Other promises included a simplified process for reviewing standards, fixed templates for drafting proposals, standards and assessment plans, “strong upfront support for trailblazers” and improved communications.

Colleges ditch 14-16 provision to save their reputation

Two huge colleges are walking away from their 14-to-16 provision because the government’s new progress measures are too “onerous” and damaging to their reputation, FE Week can reveal.

London South East Colleges was the third-biggest college recruiter in this age group last year, and its principal has described the situation as a “travesty”.

NCG, one of the largest college groups in the country, is the other formally putting a stop to the provision more commonly known as “direct entry”.

They revealed their decision this week after the Department for Education released its latest Progress 8 data on January 25.

It showed that the 17 colleges which offered direct entry last year scored -2.10 on average, by far the lowest of any type of educational institution (see Progress 8 explainer below).

Individual data was also published, and showed that all but one of the colleges were below the government’s floor standard of -0.5.

National media subsequently ran stories listing “the worst schools in the country”, in which the colleges were included.

In an FE Week expert article, LSEC’s principal Sam Parrett (pictured above) describes the negative reputational impacts of this “misleading” measure on the wider college, which is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted, and claims direct entry is simply now too big a reputational risk.

Her college had 122 students in direct entry last year, with a Progress 8 average of -2.57.

“Every single student in our own year 11 cohort progressed successfully into employment, further education or training,” she said, asking: “Is this really what ‘underperforming’ looks like?”

But rather than being able to celebrate this success, Ms Parrett explained her board had to take the decision last year to close its 14-to-16 provision.

“Despite these young people making up less than one per cent of our total student community, the effect of these league tables on the reputation of our wider college is a risk we can’t afford to take,” she wrote.

“This is a travesty for young people in Bromley who wanted and indeed needed a technical alternative to mainstream school.”

She added that her college is not alone in its “disappointment” and expects others will “sadly have to follow suit”, a prediction that has proved true.

A spokesperson for NCG, also rated ‘good’ by Ofsted, had a cohort of 18 direct-entry students last year, who scored an average of -3.26.

A spokesperson told FE Week that the college had made the decision to stop direct recruitment in 2016 and “focus on school partnerships instead as the requirements to comply with Progress 8 and other national curriculum requirements were proving onerous in relation to the number of learners”.

Independent school data analyst Philip Nye, who works at the research group Education Datalab, is asking whether Progress 8 is an “appropriate” performance measure for colleges, and said it’s “clearly having big unintended consequences if it’s forcing them to consider whether they continue doing so”.

While the loss of 14-to-16 delivery at two high-profile colleges will be damning news to the government, it appears its progress measures are not the final nail in the coffin for direct entry.

Two colleges, South and City College Birmingham and Northumberland College, took on cohorts of 14-year-olds for the first time in September 2017.

This will keep the number of college delivering direct entry this year at 17.

Like nearly every other colleges currently delivering 14-to-16 provision, both are backing the Association of Colleges’ wishes to change how the “extremely misleading” Progress 8 measures are reported.

Alison Maynard

“It is like comparing apples and oranges”, said principal of Newbury College, Dr Anne Murdoch.

Nevertheless, she insisted that her college would continue to recruit key stage 4 students as it “provides an important service” to young people who’ve had barriers to learning at mainstream school.

East Durham College principal Suzanne Duncan said that for the DfE to present “the performance of our college’s near-4,000 learners in this way is extremely misleading to the public and detracts from the excellent achievements of so many of our students”.

Alison Maynard, the Tyne Coast College principal, described the data as a “slap in the face” for colleges who are “actually looking at alternative provision for all levels of learners”.

But she isn’t allowing this setback to stop her college delivering the provision.

“The devil is in the detail not the data,” she said. “Where are these young people ever going to get education if we pull away another opportunity for them?”

A spokesperson for Hugh Baird College agreed that the general public was “unlikely” to understand how “poorly” the Progress 8 measure fits the unique provision of direct entry, and that results would have a “negative impact” on the college as a whole’s reputation.

Niki McKenna, deputy head of Leeds City College’s 14+ Apprenticeship Academy, added that this provision offers an “invaluable lifeline” to young people who are struggling in mainstream education and shouldn’t be stopped.

The expert view: Colleges are treated ‘very harshly’

An independent researcher believes colleges are being harshly treated by the government when it comes to Progress 8.

The performance measure, brought in by the Department for Education in 2016, looks at the progress a pupil has made between the end of primary school and follows their results across eight GCSEs, comparing their achievement with other students of similar ability.

Schools are judged against the measure every year, and are considered to be below the floor standard if, on average, students score half a grade less (-0.5) across these eight GCSEs.

The government believes this to be a “fairer way” to assess overall school and college effectiveness, because unlike the previous five A*-C headline measure, Progress 8 allows them to “get credit for the good work they do with all their pupils, not just those on the C/D borderline”.

Philip Nye

But Philip Nye, a researcher at Education Datalab, believes college key stage 4 provision is unique and they are being judged “very harshly” as it stands, with almost all finding themselves below the DfE’s floor standard as a result.

“Pupils will only have spent two years in these institutions, and in many cases they will be pupils who wouldn’t have done well had they stayed at a mainstream school,” he explained.

“Progress 8 also measures the performance of pupils entering a majority-academic basket of subjects – and these institutions don’t always have curriculums well aligned with P8, so inevitably they do badly.

“We’d make the case – as we have with alternative provision – that mainstream schools should retain accountability for pupils who leave to pursue an education at a college.”

There is no automatic consequence to being below the Progress 8 floor standard, but scores are used as one factor when deciding if a school or college requires government intervention.

A Department for Education spokesperson claimed the data is “just a starting point for a conversation” about college performance.

“We are clear that while colleges should not be judged on the basis of 2017 figures alone, they are an important part of the picture of a school or college’s overall performance.”

She added the overall picture of Progress 8 is “one of stability” and many colleges are “rising to the challenge of higher standards.”

Revealed: Gove was forced to create UTCs

As education secretary, Michael Gove was “forced” to create university technology colleges by George Osborne and David Cameron, a former senior minister has revealed.

David Laws

David Laws, a Liberal Democrat who served under Mr Gove as schools minister in the coalition government from 2012 to 2015, told FE Week that he “never liked” the policy, but had it “imposed” on him by the ex-chancellor and former prime minister.

Mr Laws, whose think-tank the Education Policy Institute is currently investigating the UTC project after several have closed after failing to recruit enough pupils, even suggested that it should be scrapped and its model replicated within the existing system of schools and colleges.

Invited as a speaker at the launch of a report into the educational needs of 16- to 18-year-olds, Mr Laws said Mr Gove, who last February suggested in a Times column that the programme had failed, had “never liked” the UTC policy, but claimed Lord Baker, another former education secretary, had persuaded those above him that it had merit.

It was a very rare example during his time as secretary of state of a policy being imposed on him

“It was a very rare example during his time as secretary of state of a policy being imposed on him, as a consequence of the prime minister and the chancellor who were persuaded by Lord Baker. There are not many people who managed to do that during his time in education.”

Mr Laws said his concerns about UTCs related to their age range; most have struggled to recruit pupils at 14, and eight have closed as a result.

“My concern about this is you’re trying to inject a 14-to-18 solution into a system which isn’t 14-to-18, and is not one the government wishes to be 14-to-18,” he said.

“I think the difficulties of that are very obvious, and I would far rather we embedded some of the principles Lord Baker is trying to lead us towards, that seem to be on the whole sensible, in the existing system, and redesign that, which is far more likely to succeed, rather than creating lots of expensive institutions that don’t fit the rest of the education system.”

Lord Baker, who heads UTC advocacy charity the Baker Dearing Trust, said he was “surprised” Mr Laws had come out against the colleges and their age range, and argued that UTCs have “become an established part of the English education system and ministers accept their unique contribution”.

He accepted that recruitment at 14 had initially been difficult, but said numbers had increased by 21 per cent last year after councils were forced to write to parents of year 9 pupils to inform them of the existence of UTCs.

Lord Baker

A new duty for schools to give alternative providers access to their pupils, dubbed the Baker Clause, will also help, he claimed, and UTC principals are already preparing visits.

He cautioned Mr Laws against “writing off UTCs”, and invited him to visit one of the institutions “so that he can appreciate the way that the life chances of thousands of students have been significantly improved”.

An investigation last month by FE Week revealed that almost all UTCs missed recruitment targets and were overpaid last year, leaving combined debts of over £11 million. The Education and Skills Funding Agency is trying to retrieve cash from 39 of 44 UTCs still open in 2016/17.

The EPI’s review will seek to “disentangle” problems surrounding UTCs.

“We plan to investigate the impact of UTCs with the aim of publishing a report in the summer,” it said “At this stage the work is in its very early stages and we haven’t yet finalised its scope.”

Last year, UTCs were described by Mr Gove as “the biggest institutional innovation in vocational education made by David Cameron’s government”, but he admitted that “twice as many UTCs are ‘inadequate’ as ‘outstanding’, according to Ofsted”.

He added: “UTC pupils have lower GCSE scores, make less progress academically and acquire fewer qualifications than their contemporaries in comprehensives.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “The UTC programme is playing a key part in our ambition to change technical education by working closely with employers to ensure young people have the skills they need to get on in life.”

 

Enforcement measures proposed to keep kids in education until 18

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.

David Hughes

“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.

Nearly £25m in non-levy cash went to new providers

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.

Mark Dawe

“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.

Ofsted watch: Top grade for independent learning provider

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.”

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Skills Edge Training Ltd 05/12/2017 02/02/2018 3 2
IXION Holdings (Contracts) Limited 21/11/2017 30/01/2018 1 2

 

Carillion update: £1.4m apprentice rescue package

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.

Non-levy apprenticeship funding process was as fair as possible

Every month, Anne Milton, the minister in charge of skills and apprenticeships, will write a column for FE Week, giving her perspective on the issues facing the sector. For her first outing, she tackles the non-levy procurement exercise

As a government we have made significant changes to the way our apprenticeship system will work – placing quality at the heart of this programme, with employers centre-stage. Our wider reforms have introduced a number of important changes, which will naturally present challenges for businesses, so this is a chance for me to explain some of those.

I want to use my first column to talk about the non-levy procurement process, which was undertaken to fund organisations who can provide training to smaller businesses. This has meant providers have faced important changes to the way they receive funding before the apprenticeship service becomes the norm for every employer in 2019.

This procurement has been all about ensuring and increasing access to apprenticeship training for small- and medium-sized employers

The procurement exercise was not a policy choice, but as a contracting authority we were under a legal obligation to run it in order to comply with the EU’s Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

Tender exercises like this are always tough, and I’ve been open about these challenges after we had to restart it when we saw that the outcomes would not have delivered our goals of stability and continuity. Throughout this process, we have wanted to be careful, to take the time to get this right for providers, apprentices and employers. I know it won’t have been an easy time for many.

So that we can help keep the supply of training as stable as possible, we introduced a number of elements. This included capping the amount of funding for which different providers could bid, and a minimum contract award of £200,000 to make sure all contracts awarded would be financially viable. That naturally has led to disappointment from some, and I understand the challenges this led to for those who did not win contracts.

We wanted all providers to do their best and published evaluation and scoring criteria to help them in this process. Unfortunately, this was still a competition and not every bid – and we received over 1,000 of them – could be successful in such a highly competitive bidding process.

We were mindful of the uncertainty, and took steps to extend the contracts of all current providers that were unsuccessful by a further three months. Of course, we will also make sure all existing apprenticeships continue to be funded until they are completed.

This procurement has been all about ensuring and increasing access to apprenticeship training for small- and medium-sized employers. We are encouraging them to take on apprentices and to take advantage of support available, including the joint investment of 90 per cent of training and assessment costs for apprenticeships provided by the government.

The awards have maintained the same proportion of funding across each of the nine regions as is currently delivered, and allow providers to meet the demand across all of the sectors apprenticeships currently support.

We have also 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.

Anne Milton is Minister for skills and apprenticeships