Carter Review

Carter Review

The Carter Review is an independent review authored by Philip Carter and published in July 2016 that evaluated delivery of technical education and apprenticeships in the United Kingdom. It examined relationships among Department for Education, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Education and Skills Funding Agency, GOV.UK procurement, and providers such as further education colleges and private training providers. The review aimed to inform policy debates surrounding the Richard Review and the Wolf Report on vocational training.

Background and Scope

The review was commissioned amid policy changes prompted by the Richard Review of Apprenticeships and legislative initiatives including the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and subsequent reforms under the Conservative Party administration led by David Cameron. It scoped interactions involving the Education and Skills Funding Agency funding rules, the Skills Funding Agency, procurement frameworks used by Crown Commercial Service, and contracts issued under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The review considered evidence from stakeholders such as Association of Colleges, Confederation of British Industry, Federation of Small Businesses, large employers like Rolls-Royce plc, BT Group, and training groups including City & Guilds and Pearson PLC.

Key Recommendations

Carter proposed streamlining procurement and contracting to reduce barriers for smaller providers and recommended aligning performance metrics used by the Funding Agency with employer needs as advocated by the Institute for Apprenticeships and the National Audit Office. It advised adopting model contract terms inspired by frameworks such as the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and contracting practices used by the NHS England and Department for Work and Pensions. Recommendations included establishing clearer accountability between the Education and Skills Funding Agency and prime contractors, improving data-sharing with agencies like Ofsted and Office for Students, and encouraging collaboration modeled on partnerships between University Technical Colleges and industry. The review urged revisions to procurement thresholds under the EU procurement directives then in force and promoted use of pre-qualification questionnaires consistent with standards from the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply.

Government and Industry Response

Government departments including the Department for Education and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy engaged with the report, and ministers referred to its findings in debates at House of Commons committees including the Education Select Committee. The Education and Skills Funding Agency and Crown Commercial Service undertook pilots to test simplified contracting approaches, coordinating with sector bodies such as the Association of Colleges, Federation of Small Businesses, British Chambers of Commerce, and trade unions like the Trades Union Congress. Industry commentators from Institute of Directors, Confederation of British Industry, and corporate apprenticeships teams at BAE Systems and GlaxoSmithKline referenced Carter's proposals when reshaping procurement practices.

Implementation and Impact

Some recommendations were incorporated into procurement guidance used by the Education and Skills Funding Agency and into contracting templates adopted by the Crown Commercial Service pilot schemes. Adjustments to prime-subcontractor accountability influenced tendering for large programmes run by providers such as A4e and Learndirect. Revisions to performance monitoring encouraged increased alignment with frameworks maintained by Ofsted, Institute for Apprenticeships, and awarding bodies including City & Guilds and Pearson PLC. Evaluations by the National Audit Office and academic analyses from institutions like the Institute for Fiscal Studies and London School of Economics reported mixed outcomes: reductions in administrative burden for some further education colleges and private training providers, but continuing challenges in contract enforcement and quality assurance.

Criticism and Controversies

Critics including commentators from the National Union of Students and analysts at the Public and Commercial Services Union argued the review underemphasised learner protections and safeguards championed by Ofsted inspectors. Some MPs on the Public Accounts Committee raised concerns about reliance on voluntary adoption by prime contractors and potential fragmentation similar to controversies involving providers such as A4e and Learndirect. Academic critics from University College London and University of Warwick noted limited empirical evidence for some proposed efficiencies, while legal commentators pointed to continuing tensions under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and implications after the Brexit referendum. Disputes persisted over whether the reforms sufficiently addressed issues highlighted in the earlier Foskett Report and broader sector inquiries.

Category:Education in the United Kingdom Category:Apprenticeships in the United Kingdom