The FE Week newspaper, which I edit, has reported that the government is on the verge of announcing a u-turn on the apprenticeship funding rate.
Unless you’ve been ‘off the grid’ for the last two months, you’ll be aware the government approach to reform meant cuts to 16-18 apprenticeship framework funding rates from 1 May 2017.
Cuts that are deepest in the most deprived areas of England, in some cases more than halving the current level of funding (yes, you read that right).
So a u-turn would be a huge win, given we produced the impact analysis that was reported in national newspapers and formed the basis for our first campaign.
Overwhelming pressure also came from our official #SaveOurApprenticeships campaign supporters, including AoC, AELP, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, along with over 500 online comments from readers.
However, more importantly, a u-turn should serve as a wider lesson to the government about the perils of not consulting on funding reform.
Consider the way the government announced the changes.
The new and offending ‘proposed’ rates were published by the Department for Education in mid-August, on the same day as 11 other documents and related web-pages.
It then quickly became clear that the offending spreadsheet containing the new rates did not form part of the three-week consultation ending in early September.
Plus, there was no impact analysis showing the 16-18 cuts and we now know the three government advisory groups had not been informed, let alone consulted.
In fact, the planned removal of the current disadvantage uplift funding did not even feature in any of the 11 documents or webpages.
So either the government hoped nobody would notice, or more likely they just didn’t think it necessary to consult or explain the funding of frameworks from May 2017, given they are slowly being phased out anyway.
Either way, the rates cuts were a big mistake and the FE sector’s reaction was predictable.
A government u-turn, once confirmed, will expose the flaws in a decision-making process that failed to use – and in so doing undermined – four consultations since 2013 and three advisory groups.
It is important the government returns to consulting on technical funding plans, as they used to do when, for example, I was a member of the then Learning and Skills Council’s advisory group.
We would regularly be given detailed impact analysis to understand why a change was needed, with time to comment before a decision was made.
Consulting experts and providers in this collaborative way made for better decision making, avoided many unintended consequences and I’m convinced, averted a number of embarrassing government u-turns.
Today the top civil servants from the Department for Education will face a grilling about the apprenticeship reforms from MPs on the Public Accounts Committee.
Committee members have read the damning verdict of the national audit office, and will demand explanations to the lack of: strategy; contingency planning; definitions of success and financial assurance.
It is also likely the civil servants will be asked about the apprenticeship rate cuts. It only seems fair that their voices are heard, given the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Education and Apprenticeships Minister have all had their chance to explain themselves in Parliament.
Let’s hope this time the answer is a confirmation of plans to reverse it, as well as a commitment to share impact analysis and consult with the sector in future.
