Academy trust and two ITPS awarded Ofsted ‘outstandings’

An LGV bootcamps provider, an academy trust, and a hairdressing specialist training firm are among the latest FE providers to score an ‘outstanding’ Ofsted grade.

Waterton Academy Trust is understood to be the first multi-academy trust to receive top marks from the inspectorate for its delivery of teaching apprenticeships.

At the time of inspection last month, there were 36 apprentices on the level 3 teaching assistant programme and a further six progressing through their end-point assessment.

Ofsted found tutors at the 14-school trust “expertly” structured the curriculum for apprentices, who develop the knowledge and skills to make a positive contribution.

For example, apprentices learn how children learn and how to avoid cognitive overload, meaning they become skilful in leading small-group activities to support children who fall behind in class.

According to this week’s report, leaders, managers and trustees evaluate the quality of education from feedback from inside and outside of the trust.

“Managers were able to take prompt and appropriate action to improve their teaching of functional skills mathematics. Headteachers now praise the quality of the teaching and support that apprentices receive to improve their mathematics skills,” the report said.

The trust also set up a people committee with expert trustees to ask leaders challenging questions about their oversight of the apprenticeship programme and the progress made in relation to functional skills mathematics provision. 

Dave Dickinson, CEO of Waterton Academy Trust, said: “This outstanding rating is a testament to the hard work and dedication of our staff and apprentices. Our commitment to delivering high-quality education and training is unwavering, and we are thrilled that Ofsted has recognised our efforts. We will continue to strive for excellence in all that we do, ensuring that our apprentices are well-equipped to make meaningful contributions to the field of education.”

Elsewhere, North West provider Collinge & Co Training, which trains 106 apprentices in level 2 and 3 hairdressing professional apprenticeships, was awarded top marks in every area of inspection – its second ‘outstanding’ grade in its 38-year history.

The report, published today, revealed that apprentices “thoroughly enjoy” their experience and “achieve their full potential” from the provider employing “highly skilled hairdressers”.

Ofsted inspectors found leaders and managers have prepared a “highly ambitious” curriculum and provide effective feedback for learners, designed to meet the needs of hairdressing employers across the region.

Collinge & Co Training has apprentices in 66 salons across the North West, around one fifth of which are based in Collinge & Co salons. 

The watchdog praised the providers’ bespoke training sessions and the “rapid” expertise apprentices develop from tutors’ guidance. Employers also said they “appreciate greatly” the knowledge and skills that apprentices bring to the salon.

The report also commended the members of the training board, responsible for governance, for holding leaders “effectively” to account for the quality of education.

Collinge & Co Training apprenticeships director Alison Gibson said: “I’m very proud of the training team and delighted that Ofsted have recognised their commitment to providing the best possible experience for the apprentices who train with us.”

Charlie Collinge, managing director of Collinge & Co said the award was a “fantastic achievement”.

“I would also like to acknowledge the apprentices and the salons we provide training for – the high pass rate, and the number of distinctions the apprentices achieve, show that they are equally as ambitious in reaching their goals,” he added.

Logistics Skills and Consultancy receives grade one from Ofsted

Another ITP celebrating a grade one rating from Ofsted is Logistics Skills and Consultancy (LS&C), a North East independent training provider, for offering “life-changing” education to 100 learners in the logistics, warehousing and transport sector.

In its first full inspection, inspectors said learners on the large goods vehicle (LGV) driving skills bootcamp provider gain their LGV C+E licence often on the first attempt and with high scores.

Inspectors praised leaders for preparing learners “exceptionally well” for future employment, such as creating a mock transport office at the skills bootcamp training centre.

The report detailed “highly experienced” tutors provide individualised teaching, such as creating sign language specific to LGV driving for a learner with profound deafness.

LS&C also offers a four-week ‘routeways’ programme course, mostly for learners referred directly from Jobcentre Plus, which leads to level 2 qualifications in warehousing principles or onto its skills bootcamp.

Learners, who have experienced “significant barriers” to employment, told inspectors the opportunities afforded to them were “life-changing” and they valued the high-quality education they receive.

Jill Taylor, commercial director at LS&C, told FE Week, one example is that the company pays for driving theory retests because “we know that people can’t afford it and the cost for us is quite minimal”.

She said that they have helped asylum seekers, people who’ve never worked before, and even employed people who’ve been on its routeway programme.

She added they were “absolutely blown away” by the report.

The report said leaders recruit learners who are suitable for the programme and are aware of the expectations of the teaching prior to enrolment. Taylor said this approach was not about “bums on seats”, it was about ethical recruitment.

“We don’t want to grow too quickly,” she said. “We want steady growth, and we have grown just recently. We’ve taken on new members of staff and we’re moving premises.”

Troubled Leicestershire college group finds merger partner

A Leicestershire college group in severe financial trouble has found a proposed merger partner to secure its future.

SMB College Group is consulting on a partnership with Loughborough College that is hoped to be finalised by August 2025.

SMB was handed a government warning notice last July after “serious cash flow pressures” came to light. FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave later flagged an insolvency risk after governors “took their eye off the ball” and revealed the group was being propped up with emergency funding to the tune of £4.6 million.

Dawn Whitemore, chief executive of SMB College Group, said: “This strategic partnership marks an exciting step forward for both our colleges as we combine our strengths to enhance educational opportunities for our students and community.”

Corrie Harris, principal at Loughborough College, added: “This partnership represents a highly exciting proposition, promising significant benefits and opportunities for students, staff, and employers throughout Leicestershire. 

“We hope that it will be transformational, by delivering greater economic prosperity and by offering a larger number of students from across our region an outstanding experience.”

A spokesperson said that following the current consultation period, both organisations will create a joint merger steering group of governors to oversee the proposal and perform due diligence. The colleges will also need to secure final approval from the Department for Education.

The plans will “ensure a minimal amount of disruption for students who will continue to experience a high level of academic and pastoral support”, the spokesperson added.

The SMB Group was formed shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 through the joining of Brooksby Melton College and Stephenson College. Quality at both colleges pre-merger was judged by Ofsted as ‘good’ and the financial health of the newly merged college was also good. The group is now rated ‘requires improvement’.

In a report published in January, Legrave said a downward trend in student numbers has continued since the merger and made a large dent in income.

There was also a “significant” increase in pay and non-pay costs in 2022/23, which resulted in a “substantial operating loss”.

Loughborough College is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted and is in a healthy financial position.

Jacqui Smith should use her bully pulpit to challenge employers

How do you get employers to make different decisions? Specifically, how to you get more employers to recruit more apprentices, and more apprentices at the start of their careers?

The King’s Speech was all about just one of the tools available to government: changing the law. The government needs primary legislation to create Skills England, for example – but there are lots of things it can do with existing powers.

Just like the flying ants I saw swarming yesterday, policy wonks across the sector are busy with their ideas for how our new government might put flesh on the pretty bare bones of its ‘Skills and Growth Levy’.

Some ideas cost more money (new money, which Rachel Reeves says is scarce). Others mean dropping less useful features of existing arrangements in order to re-allocate money saved to somewhere it would be of more use.

We’ll all argue over the details, but the apprenticeship programme is under-performing. So it’s important to listen to the policy wonks who know the details, and pull every lever to sort things out.

But let’s not forget the bully pulpit: “a conspicuous position that provides an opportunity to speak out and be listened to,” as Wikipedia defines it. I’d add: “ … with listeners changing their behaviour as a result”. Because changed behaviour is key.

Every few weeks Danny Finkelstein writes in The Times that most things that most government ministers, most of the time have absolutely no effect on what most of the rest of us do. Why do I think it might be different this time? Because we have a brief moment when a new government is catching people’s attention (“The NHS is broken,” says Wes Streeting) on a mission to ‘reset relationships’.

Let’s hear Jacqui Smith simply calling on employers to take on more apprentices

So let’s hear Jacqui Smith, the new minister responsible for apprenticeships (and a former home secretary brought back into government in one of the more eye-catching appointments) make her first big speech about apprenticeships, simply calling-on employers to take on more apprentices.

Much the easiest target is those employers who have already decided to recruit apprentices; the aim is to get them to do more. I can hear Jacqui Smith saying:

“I want to challenge every company that is planning to take on new apprentices this autumn. To the larger companies, my challenge is this: for every 10 you planned to recruit, can you take another two?. To the smaller companies, my challenge is: for every one you planned to recruit, can you take another?”

You’re sceptical! I understand, but I recall the response during the pandemic when we challenged employers across the maritime sector to sign up – publicly – to two pledges:

  • We pledge to do everything we can to keep apprentices in their jobs
  • We pledge to do everything we can to stick with the next phase of our apprenticeship programme

We had big names and small sign up, right across the sector (all still there on our website for everyone to see).

I can’t prove that our pledges made a difference, but no company is going to sign a public pledge like that without a serious discussion internally. And that’s the prize: getting businesses to ask themselves: “why have we agreed to X as our target? Could we do more?”

I also recall the story of Princess Yachts in Poole, builders of very smart yachts. A couple of years ago they aimed to recruit 35 apprentices in their annual round, but they were knocked out by the quality of the applicants and took 60 instead. Many other firms have similar flexibility in the numbers they take; let’s use it.

And as to those very odd words ‘bully pulpit’: Bully hardly sounds like the sort of thing Labour would sign up to. Wikipedia rides to the rescue: it seems that when President Roosevelt coined the phrase, he understood bully to mean superb or wonderful. Sounds good!

Labour’s curriculum and qualifications review to include 16-19

The new government’s curriculum and qualifications review will launch a call for evidence in September, and 16 to 19 education will be included.

However, the review will not impact the current level 3 qualifications reform that involves defunding courses that “overlap” with T Levels, like BTECs, from 2025. This policy is being considered separately amid calls for a pause and review.

As revealed by FE Week’s sister publication Schools Week yesterday, Professor Becky Francis (pictured) will lead the curriculum review, starting as chair next month.

She will be supported by an expert panel, with a call for evidence launching in September. Results will be published in 2025. Here’s your FE Week round up of everything you need to know…

‘Broad, inclusive and innovate’ curriculum sought

The review will cover from key stage 1 through to key stage 5.

On 16 to 19 education specifically, a government press release said: “The review will look at ensuring all young people aged 16 to 19 have access to rigorous and high-value qualifications and training that will give them the skills they need to seize opportunity as well as ensuring they are ready for the changing workplace.”

The release included no mention of Labour’s pledge to “pause and review” current level 3 qualification reform, an issue which former prime minister Gordon Brown and T Levels architect Lord Sainsbury intervened on this week.

The Department for Education told FE Week the level 3 reforms will be considered separately.

The government’s press release said it wants a curriculum that “delivers excellent foundations in reading, writing and maths, and ensures every young person gets the opportunity to develop creative, digital, and speaking and listening skills particularly prized by employers”.

It will “build on the hard work of teachers who have brought their subjects alive with knowledge-rich teaching, to deliver a new national curriculum which is rich and broad, inclusive and innovative”.

The review will also look “closely at the key challenges” to youngsters’ attainment and the barriers that hold children back, in particular those who are socio-economically disadvantaged and those with special educational needs.

It will also look at whether the current assessment system “can be improved for both young people and staff, while protecting the important role of examinations”.

But ‘evolution not revolution’

However despite that, the government said the review will “seek evolution not revolution” as they recognize the “pressure schools and colleges are already under, and the further strain the wholesale reform can bring”.

They have pledged to be “alive to the trade-offs required to deliver high and rising standards alongside greater breadth – in particular any recommendations that would increase workload”.

Francis said: “I know how stretched schools, colleges and their staff are. So it’s particularly important to me to consider how any changes could contribute to staff workload and to avoid unintended consequences. 

“Crucially, I want to make sure that the review and its recommendations are driven by evidence and a commitment to high standards for all our young people, irrespective of background.”

But one big change, already announced, is that academies will now have to follow the national curriculum up to age 16.

Expert panel, and sector views ‘vital’

Francis will lead the review as its chair.  She will start on August 6.

Francis will also be supported by an expert group “made up of individuals with experience right throughout the education system”. They have yet to be appointed.

A government press release also said the views of experts, parents, teachers and leaders “will be pivotal to the recommendations”.

September launch and curriculum roadshows!

An official call for evidence will be launched in September. The review will also take written evidence from “key stakeholders”. Plus – there will be a “national roadshow” to meet and get input from staff “on the frontline”.

Findings next year, but could be 2026 before changes

The government would only say the review will publish recommendations “in 2025”.  The Department for Education has not said when changes would be implemented.

But its own workload commitment is that any major curriculum changes should be brought in, where possible, at the start of an academic year – with a “lead in time of at least a year”.

If this was adhered to, it means any eventual changes might not be introduced until as late as September 2026 – more than two years away.

Phillipson: review will ‘breathe new life into outdated curriculum’

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said this is an “important step in this government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity, deliver better life chances and enable more young people to get on”.

The review will “breathe new life into our outdated curriculum and assessment system” which has “for too long … held back” children.

Former DfE adviser and tutoring chief to lead EEF

Francis will join the DfE on secondment to lead the review. The EEF’s directors of impact and research, Chris Paterson and Emily Yeomans respectively, will provide interim leadership as joint CEOs in her absence.

Paterson was formerly a policy adviser at the DfE, while Yeomans was a director of the National Tutoring Programme.

Dame Christine Gilbert, EEF chair, will “provide additional time and extra support” as “executive chair”.

Gilbert added: “A common thread running throughout Becky’s career has been a laser-like focus on addressing educational inequalities. I have no doubt that she will bring this commitment to the review.”

A comprehensive model for post-16 vocational qualifications

There is broad agreement on the need to offer students a strong range of vocational pathways to address an evolving skills landscape and boost economic growth. However, what form this will take is still unclear.

This issue will only become more important as the skills market is impacted by shifting demographics and a landscape in which AI becomes increasingly prevalent in our working lives. The World Economic Forum estimates that a billion people will need reskilling by 2030, as work adjusts to emerging technologies. 

Labour has previously committed to a ‘Pause and Review’ approach to the withdrawal of funding from some BTECs. However, a report published this week by WPI Strategy, commissioned by Lord Sainsbury, author of the 2016 report which paved the way for T Levels, calls for the government to ‘keep going with existing reforms and accelerate the roll-out of T Levels’.  

The right path for the government to take should be guided by the needs and demands of learners. Importantly, it’s government’s duty to consider the impact that the defunding of BTECs would have on the students who are taking them, as this is a policy which will affect the lives and futures of many thousands of young people. 

The sheer scale of impact is significant: over one in five working-age adults in England hold a BTEC and 32 per cent of current provision for 16-18 year olds is at risk as a result of the reforms, equating to around 300,000 students.

By comparison, T Levels only account for 2.5 per cent (23,000) of learners. Analysis by the #protectstudentchoicecampaign indicates that at least 155,000 young people could be left without a suitable course from 2026. The DfE’s Impact Assessment estimates that defunded qualifications represent around 12 per cent of all 16 to 19 enrolments at level 3, and 40 per cent of non-A Level enrolments at level 3.  

This in turn is expected to impact the talent pipeline in the UK at a time when the country is facing massive skill shortages for key professions.

The removal of BTECs would exacerbate significant shortages

Data from NHS England showed that over 31,000 positions for nurses, midwives and health visitors were unfilled in the UK as of March 2024. BTECs support one in five students in entering nursing degrees and 3,000 people in earning early years qualifications, one for every nursery in the UK.

The removal of BTECs would exacerbate the significant shortages we are seeing today. Many NHS organisations have expressed concern about the impact that the defunding of BTECs will have on the workforce and say that it is counterintuitive to their efforts to engage more people from a diverse range of communities.  

Finally, there is the important matter of educational inclusion. The DfE’s July 2022 impact assessment estimates that those with SEND, ethnic minorities and disadvantaged backgrounds are some of those most likely to be affected by the reforms.

The removal of alternatives to T Levels would likely result in a decrease in access and have a negative impact on the diversity of talent reaching higher education and employment. 

Certainly, there is a place for T Levels in the landscape of vocational qualifications. They are a welcome addition, providing more choice for young people.

But there is a way forward which does not require a stark choice between the two, as the WPI report suggests. In its place should be a comprehensive model which embraces both T Levels and BTECs and recognises their combined contribution to meeting the needs of the modern skills landscape. 

Eight things we learned from Ofsted’s 2023-24 corporate accounts

Ofsted has faced a “difficult” year in which it has “rightly” come under scrutiny over Ruth Perry’s death, and faced “significant” financial challenges, its annual report and accounts states.

The watchdog has has published its corporate report for the 2023-24 financial year.

The documents cover the last nine months of Amanda Spielman’s tenure as chief inspector and the first three months under Sir Martyn Oliver.

Here’s what we learned.

1. ‘A difficult year’

Ofsted said its guiding principle was to be a “force for improvement” and the sectors it inspects and regulates “must have confidence in our ability to improve standards”.

But they added the last year “has been a difficult one”.

A coroner ruled last year that an Ofsted inspection contributed to Perry’s death. In response, Oliver launched his “Big Listen” consultation in order to shape proposed reforms.

“We launched the Big Listen at a time when Ofsted has – rightly – been under scrutiny following the tragic death of headteacher Ruth Perry last year. HMCI and everyone at Ofsted are determined that such tragedies should never happen again,” the report stated.

The watchdog said stakeholder engagement continues to be “a critical part of our response, with government, the public and sector representatives”.

2. Financial position a ‘significant challenge’

The civil service pay increase last year meant Ofsted’s staffing costs were “significantly more than we had been funded for”. Managing the financial position has been a “significant challenge”.

The watch said it required “some significant and difficult choices to mitigate the risk of overspending” and engaged “extensively” with DfE and the Treasury to “agree the savings proposals we put in place”.

However, Ofsted has not set out what savings it made.

3. Digital developments ‘paused’

Sir Martyn Oliver, chief inspector, said that as Ofsted responds to its “Big Listen” consultation, it “will need to marry the calls for change with the need to provide value for money”.

Ofsted said it had to slash its spend on digital developments during the year, in response to underfunded civil service pay rises.

It did this by “pausing work on a number of developments”, including a new service it was building to “support education inspections”.

Ofsted has not set out what the new service was, but said it would look into resuming it in the run up to the next spending review.

4. Auditors downgrade watchdog

The government’s internal audit agency previously gave Ofsted a “substantial opinion”, meaning its governance, risk management and control was “adequate and effective”.

This has now changed to “moderate”, meaning it is “largely adequate and effective”. 

Ofsted said this reflected the impact of external factors, such as “significant criticism” of the inspection system and “adverse media coverage that Ofsted has received in the past year”.

5. Departing chief Spielman got a pay rise

Before Spielman left Ofsted at Christmas, it appears she received a pay rise. However there was a pay increase for most staff of between 4.5 to 6 per cent, the report added.

Spielman’s salary rose from the £190,000 to £195,000 pay bracket to £200,000 to £205,000. 

Her successor Oliver is paid between £160,000 to £165,000 a year. Neither have received bonus payments.

6. Grades changed and inspections ‘incomplete’

This year, Ofsted changed the overall judgment given to FE providers on 3 occasions following a quality assurance process, the same number as the year before.

And 8 further education inspections were found to be incomplete in 2023-24, two more than the 6 recorded the year before.

7. Inspection target missed due to pause

Ofsted conducted 859 inspections of FE and skills providers, missing its target by 16 inspections, or 2 per cent.

It said this was caused in part by pausing routine inspections, in the wake of Perry’s inquest, between December 2023 and January 2024 to roll out mental health awareness training for inspectors.

8. Big Listen changes will come in next year

Ofsted reiterated that it will consult on any major changes it proposes as a result of the “Big Listen”.

It plans to put those changes in place during the 2024-25 academic year.

The King’s Speech: Much to celebrate but something is missing

As the priorities for our new government were laid bare in today’s King’s Speech, there is much to be excited about for those working in the further education and skills sector. However, as is often the case in politics, interpreting the legislative agenda is as much about what isn’t said as what is.

Labour’s previous promise to ‘pause and review’ the Conservatives’ plans to defund qualifications that compete with T Levels was never gong to feature today, because it doesn’t require primary legislation. However, continued silence on the matter is of grave concern, especially after yesterday’s intervention by Gordon Brown and Lord Sainsbury.

The formal announcement of the new Skills England is welcome. It promises to partner together central and local government, businesses, training providers and unions to meet the skills needs of the next decade. 

So is official recognition in Labour’s report Breaking down the Barriers to Opportunity that in recent years there has been a lack of clarity and an absence of a long-term strategy under which learners, businesses and training providers could thrive.

But why no mention of that promise to pause and review Level 3 qualifications? If it wasn’t technically necessary for the King’s Speech, the sector would nevertheless benefited from some certainty in this regard.

As reported in FE Week, former prime minister Gordon Brown and Lord David Sainsbury have called on the new government to ignore that promise. They call for an end to “the ‘wild west’ situation that currently exists”. According to them, the multiple and overlapping vocational courses of “varying quality” on offer to school leavers “supress talent”.

At the Skills and Education Group, where our core mission is to advance skills and education to improve the lives of individuals, we couldn’t disagree more.

Limiting post-16 education to a choice between A Levels, T Levels or an apprenticeship, narrows learner and provider choice, reduces opportunity and does absolutely nothing for social mobility. 

The result would be many learners falling by the wayside

It puts the emphasis on and the opportunity back into the hands of those who are academically driven and causes us to ignore the heavily practical, hands-on training that currently epitomises vocational training.

I am a product of an FE vocational training course. I did not thrive in a classroom setting. I am also the former chair of the Federation of Awarding Bodies. Now, as chief executive of the Skills and Education Group, I know that a choice of courses, of ways in which to learn and of environments to learn in is crucial if we are to serve all of the young people we should.

Yes, options may need tidying and standards may need clarifying, but to eradicate a breadth of choice would be a big mistake. The result would be many learners falling by the wayside: the carers, chefs, computer programmers, engineers, builders and the chief executives of tomorrow.

Let’s not forget: we know there are already problems with T Levels. Reports are starting to emerge of low attainment, especially in deprived areas. We know there aren’t enough work placements to fulfil the T Level offer. And we also know it is near impossible to create T Levels in some disciplines.

So we would ask the government to give our sector that pause and review. You say you want economic growth, to partner businesses and working people and to break barriers to opportunity. Please don’t start by reducing the opportunity currently open to many. 

Why Gordon Brown is wrong to go against Labour’s T Level promise

Few former Prime Ministers have been as vocal in championing FE and skills as Gordon Brown, who has picked out skills for young people as “central” to Labour’s growth mission. He makes a hard-to-ignore call to action for the new chancellor to move skills and post-16 technical qualifications “from the sidelines to centre stage” in the upcoming budget. 

Unfortunately, on the basis of Edge’s latest interim report, What do students really think about T Levels?, I’m not sure we can agree on the best way to do that. 

Brown has recently written a foreword to a new report, Delivering Skills for Growth. The report blames the “critical skills gaps” (which we have highlighted consistently at Edge through our Skills Shortage Bulletins) on “failures in post-16 technical education”.

This is a grossly unfair argument, when technical skills and preparing young people for the world of work pre-16 have been supressed by policymakers embattled in ideological debates for decades. 

The WPI Strategy report, “supported by” T Levels architect Lord Sainsbury, suggests: “T Levels are already producing strong outcomes. Almost all T Level completers move on to employment, apprenticeships, or university degrees”. This is intended to bolster the case for accelerating their roll-out and to ignore calls to pause and review the bonfire of BTECs. 

However, our research finds that T Levels are not (yet) well enough established in the qualifications landscape for students to feel confident that employers and universities will value, recognise or even be aware of their qualification on completion.

Students told us they felt “apprehensive” about their prospects, sometimes limited by the very specialist nature of the course. The path to “good pay in the very sectors of the economy where we are experiencing key shortages” may be there, but it takes time to be realised. 

That “almost all” who complete a T Level do not become NEET at the end of their course is not exactly the marker of successful outcomes you might expect from a report calling for their accelerated roll-out. 

But critically, this claim also skirts the major challenge affecting T Levels: poor retention. It therefore masks a whole host of issues with the qualification which we must first examine and address, before cutting off viable alternatives for good. 

T Levels have potential – but potential is where they currently stand

According to FE Week’s analysis, among the 2021/22 cohort, nearly one in three (31 per cent) of 16-year-old T Level students withdrew from their course. This compares with one in five students on other large VTQs and one in ten A Level students that same year. 

The risk of making such bold claims is that we skew the truth and mislead young people.

During our focus groups, many students described having been ‘mis-sold’ the qualification. The actual experience of their T-Level course diverged significantly from their expectations, set by the guidance and information they received when making choices.

These include reliance on rote learning and PowerPoints over opportunities for practical, hands-on work, limited subject-specific teacher knowledge, high teacher turnover, as well as a lack of textbooks for certain courses and of past papers for exam preparation. 

Where we can agree is on the importance of rocket-boosting communication and promotion efforts with employers.

Industry placements were a key selling point for the students we spoke to, and often their favourite part of the course. However, we heard how a limited pool of employers meant common delays (of more than a year) to commencing placements, causing unnecessary stress for students over whether they would actually be able to complete their qualification. 

It’s great that 65 per cent of firms who hadn’t previously heard of a T Level would look at offering an industry placement, but we’ve got to make it easy for them. That means solid communication between parties, reliable guidance and support, flexible delivery and bureaucracy kept to an absolute minimum. 

Of course, one way to force T Levels to ‘work’ is to remove the competition. That is definitely an option available to the new skills minister, who served under Brown at the end of the last Labour administration.

After all, the post-16 landscape is over-crowded. But there is a balance to strike. Our polling of adults in England at the start of this year revealed that 57 per cent think young people should actually have more choice in 16-18 education. 

There are also much bigger questions around T Levels as a replacement for other level 3 technical qualifications:

  • the chunkiness of the qualification
  • squeezing out any room for modularity and ‘mix-and-match’ with other subjects (currently possible with BTECs and A Levels)
  • whether a twin-track system of A Levels and T Levels would actually entrench divisions, undoing years of progress to build parity of esteem
  • their value in a properly functioning apprenticeship system, with lower-level apprenticeships readily available to young people, and progression pathways onto degree apprenticeships for those wishing to pursue more ‘academic’ study. 

T-Levels have potential. They sought to raise the status of technical qualifications, and that can only be a good thing. But potential is where they currently stand.

So, while young people, their advisers (parents and careers leaders), educators and employers get to grips with the many benefits that T Levels can offer and we resolve the teething issues to deliver high-quality provision and good outcomes for all young people, it would be re-miss to toy with the credible alternatives in the meantime. 

It’s good to see healthy debate and challenge within the Labour party’s education and skills policy, but let’s listen to the views of young people undertaking these qualifications to make sure they don’t get caught in the crossfire. 

Between October 2023 and May 2024, we visited 11 colleges across England, conducted 28 focus groups and 13 interviews with 210 T Level students (Foundation Level, Year 1 and Year 2), and 24 teachers and staff supporting T Level students. 

Positive trends hide serious 16-19 challenges for the new government

EPI has this week published its latest annual report, which highlights inequalities in students’ educational attainment in 2023. The findings show that since 2019, economically disadvantaged students have fallen further behind their peers in the early years, key stage 2 and key stage 4 phases of education. In contrast, the 16-19 disadvantage attainment gap appears to have returned to 2019 levels.

Comparing through time has been somewhat messy in recent years. Two years of cancelled exams and a staggered return to usual grade boundaries make direct comparisons a bit of a non-starter, so we instead focus on how gaps compare to 2019, prior to the pandemic.

In the 16-19 phase, economically disadvantaged students appear to be no further behind their peers than they were in 2019, though this is no cause for celebration. We know that there have been changes in the participation rate, retention and choice of post-16 qualifications since 2019 too.

These compositional effects will impact our measurement of the gap, and we will be exploring this through a deeper analysis to be published later this year. 

Moreover, a return to 2019 levels means we have seen no meaningful improvement since before the pandemic. Disadvantaged students are still 3.2 grades behind their peers across their best three results by the end of 16-19 study.

If we dig a bit deeper than our headline trend, we see other less positive patterns emerging.

Looking at A Level students only, economically disadvantaged students are over half a grade behind per qualification. This is a small increase since 2019, and we see similar trends among disadvantaged applied general students and those taking other level 3 qualifications.

It is safe to say that the new government has inherited a post-16 education system that has not worked well for a large cross-section of the young people it is meant to serve. This could be a moment of opportunity, but are the plans set out to date bold enough to make a material difference?

Disadvantaged students fall further behind during the 16-19 phase

There were some good ambitions set out in the Labour manifesto, as scrutinised in our recent general election report. However, they lacked detail.

Rolling out T Levels looks set to continue, but challenges with take-up and securing work placements remain.

Meanwhile, pausing and reviewing the defunding of the alternative level 3 qualifications is a positive step to ensure students from all backgrounds have suitable options available to them; but not going ahead with a planned Conservative policy is hardly the kick-start that the sector desperately needs.

Enabling providers to become ‘Technical Excellence Colleges’ formed another key part of Labour’s post-16 vocational offer, which will be funded through local skills improvement plans. If well executed, this may improve outcomes for the students attending these institutions. However, there is a long history of specialist institutions struggling to recruit students. They sound great in a manifesto or policy announcement, but focusing more on supporting existing colleges may ultimately be a more effective approach.

Reforms to apprenticeship funding are long overdue, as the decline in take-up under the current system demonstrates. Despite this, it is not clear how the increased flexibility Labour are proposing will boost take-up among young and disadvantaged learners, for which apprenticeship numbers have dwindled in recent years.

More positively, Labour’s commitment to form a cross-government child poverty strategy is a very welcome pledge and reflects a long-standing EPI recommendation. We know that much of the attainment gap in the 16-19 phase is a result of disadvantaged students falling behind in earlier phases. Therefore, addressing poverty at younger ages will also have the benefit of helping to reduce this gap.

However, it is also the case that disadvantaged students fall further behind during the 16-19 phase. None of the policies set out so far by the new government would appear to do much to address this. They are largely tinkering at the edges.

Plans to raise participation, retention and attainment among the most vulnerable students are needed if we are to make progress in closing the gap.

The new government should begin by focusing on addressing the teacher recruitment and retention crisis in the FE sector, where the majority of disadvantaged learners study. More support for disadvantaged students in 16-19 education is also required, preferably in the form of a student premium.

For many young people the 16-19 phase is the final opportunity to address the educational inequalities that they have experienced over their lifetimes. If the new government is to make progress on closing long-standing inequalities, it must not forget the 16-19 phase.