Acland-Hood: I was wrong about our FE probe policy 

Susan Acland-Hood has admitted giving false evidence to MPs about probes into FE providers. 

The Department for Education permanent secretary wrote to the chair of the Public Accounts Committee to “correct an inaccuracy” she gave about the department’s policy on publishing findings of financial investigations. 

Earlier this year, in a letter defending her department’s apparent lack of transparency, she claimed the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s (ESFA) policy on publishing investigations “only” applied to academy trusts. 

But the publication policy covers any organisation receiving ESFA funding – including colleges and independent training providers. 

The majority of the ESFA’s probes concern claims related to the £10 billion in public funding that is spent on FE each year, through 16-19 education, apprenticeships, adult education and skills bootcamps. 

The DfE had made the incorrect claim to FE Week on two previous occasions, contradicting its own publication policies dating back to at least 2014, which are archived online. 

A departmental spokesperson refused to engage with questions on the accuracy of her statement until we raised concerns directly with Acland-Hood and the committee last month. 

She then admitted her January evidence was “inaccurate”. 

Focus on academies 

The permanent secretary said the ESFA had “focused” on publishing details of investigations into academy trusts, following concerns raised by the committee in 2019. 

She said: “It was inaccurate to say the scope of the previous publishing policy related only to academy trusts; its scope covered all ESFA-funded institutions, but in practice the focus was on academy trusts, and publications of reports on other remits were rare.” 

A review of its investigation publishing policy in 2023 also resulted in a “strengthened and clarified” commitment to publishing reports from December 2023 onwards, Acland-Hood added. 

Although it failed to clarify this at the time, the DfE also decided to water down the format of reports from lengthy and detailed investigation findings to short “outcome” reports which briefly summarise “issues” in general terms, without explaining how failures occurred.