Look closely at the data and you’ll see hope for FE attendance

College attendance isn’t what it used to be. The familiar refrain across the FE sector reflects a genuine concern. But the picture is more nuanced than a simple decline. While attendance remains a challenge, the data shows some steady, if sometimes overlooked, improvement since the pandemic.

At VLE Support we work with dozens of colleges and training providers to help them manage and interpret their learner data. This gives us a wide-angle view of what’s really happening across the system – and the signals are more encouraging than many might assume.

One area where concern rightly remains is GCSE English and maths – a perennial challenge. These resit subjects continue to see lower attendance compared to learners’ main vocational programmes. But even here, the data shows progress.

Among 16 to 18 year olds, the attendance gap between vocational learning and English and maths has been narrowing steadily since the pandemic.

In 2020-21, attendance in GCSE English was 6.4 percentage points lower than the study programme average. For maths, the gap was wider – at 7.8 points.

By 2024-25, both gaps have narrowed – although the 2024-25 data only covers until February so should be treated with some caution as attendance normally drops in spring and summer terms.

The English attendance gap now stands at 3.8 points, while maths has improved to 4 percentage points. The difference between the two subjects has remained modest with English maintaining a slight edge throughout.

Colleges have invested time and energy in re-engaging learners post-pandemic, strengthening support and adapting delivery. But data is playing a crucial role too – not just in tracking attendance but in helping identify patterns, target interventions, and measuring what’s working.

Too often, attendance is treated as a binary figure – up or down, good or bad. In reality, the story is more complex. Patterns vary by subject, by time of the week, by age group and course type. Digging into the data reveals where problems are emerging – and where they’re being solved.

While the Department for Education collects some data on FE, it is not as complete or timely as the data available for schools. Universities benefit from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) while colleges often rely on fragmented or delayed national reporting.

Yet FE providers are collecting detailed data every day on attendance, engagement, attainment and more. As a sector, we need the tools and platforms to interrogate this data nationally, to spot trends and tell stories that might otherwise be missed.

Used well, this evidence can challenge anecdotes and received wisdom, and paint a more accurate picture of what’s really happening in our classrooms.

For example, we’ve worked with providers who used attendance data to spot emerging issues in particular groups or curriculum areas, allowing them to adjust timetables, address travel barriers or strengthen pastoral support. In some cases, small tweaks have had big impacts – but only because the data revealed what wasn’t immediately obvious.

Attendance also has a significant impact on staff. Persistent absence makes it harder for teachers to plan, increases their workload, and can affect morale. A better understanding of attendance trends helps teams feel more informed and better equipped to support students, rather than constantly responding to problems after they’ve taken hold.

None of this is about quick fixes. The pressures on students are real – from the cost of living to mental health, from transport to timetabling. But when colleges have access to clear, connected data, they can move from firefighting to foresight – responding with insight rather than assumptions.

What the post-pandemic years have shown is that progress is possible. Even in the toughest areas – like English and maths resits – attendance is improving, albeit slowly. That should give the sector confidence.

The next step is to keep investing in the tools that help us understand what’s happening, and why. Good data isn’t just about compliance or reporting. It’s about knowing your learners, spotting issues early, and acting decisively.

The challenge of attendance hasn’t gone away. But the idea that it’s in freefall doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The data tells a different story: one of steady recovery, focused effort, and sector-wide commitment. And that’s a story worth shouting about.

Competition to collaboration: LSIF reshapes FE for the better

In the past year many colleges have collaborated on a level not seen before – embracing partnerships rather than competition in a challenging financial landscape.

One catalyst for this has undoubtedly been the Local Skills Improvement Fund (LSIF).

LSIF has driven innovation across the sector and is delivering opportunities for both learners and employers. It has enabled colleges to invest in cutting-edge infrastructure and capabilities in expanding industries with rapidly growing skills gaps.

In London, our colleges (LSEC and Newham) have worked together to lead the LSIF project on behalf of 23 education partners. Uniquely, this collaboration includes adult education and private training providers alongside FE colleges – encompassing expertise from every part of the skills delivery landscape.

Together we secured £6.5 million of capital funding to accelerate progress in two critical growth areas: digital and green skills. As a result we’ve seen the creation of 21 immersive digital suites and eight green skills hubs in colleges across the region.

One aim of this game-changing network has been tackling teaching skills shortages in these specialist areas. Through these high-quality immersive suites, a single tutor can now deliver lessons to student groups in multiple locations across the capital simultaneously. This is a truly innovative way to share limited resources and expert knowledge.

This future-forward approach aligns with the themes that the government is building its post-16 strategy around, specifically the ‘competition to co-ordination’ and ‘fragmented to coherent’ strands. By joining up education and training we can strengthen industry links by helping employers more easily address their skills needs.

Our high-tech facilities are paying dividends. Over 4,000 learners will benefit from learning in these new environments, with teaching staff undertaking CPD and cascading this training across teams. Employers are engaged too – with 23 recently reporting that LSIF-enabled training is equipping learners with the skills their businesses need.

But what makes this project different is the shared vision behind it.

From the outset, every local London LSIF partner made a conscious decision to work together rather than compete.

We’ve developed joint action plans, hosted peer-to-peer learning events and designed facilities with shared use in mind. These efforts are broadening the student offer and sharing often-limited teaching expertise in specialist areas.  

We can now deliver curriculum in AI, solar panel technologies and higher-level construction methods via our immersive hubs.

The result is a more relevant and increasingly resilient education and skills ecosystem, aligned with local employer needs and capable of responding to shifting economic priorities.

Across the country, other colleges have collaborated on LSIF in equally inspiring ways. From boosting manufacturing and engineering facilities at South Tyneside College to establishing low-carbon construction hubs at Rugby College and a cyber resilience simulation suite at South Devon College, this funding is helping to address a variety of regional economic challenges head-on.

The benefits of collaboration have been significant, with networks of providers developing innovative and lasting solutions to shared challenges such as workforce skills and staff retention.

We are committed to sustaining these partnerships beyond the lifespan of the LSIF capital funding as they have proven to be as valuable as the capital investment itself.

Yet as this first phase of LSIF funding concludes, there is a critical point we must make to policymakers: capital investment alone is not enough.

We now need follow-up funding to ensure continued partnership, coordination and collaboration – leveraging these resources to their full potential.

Maintaining cutting-edge technology, recruiting and retaining skilled staff and expanding employer engagement all require revenue support, especially in a sector already facing significant financial pressures.

A second round of LSIF is welcomed. But it must be accompanied by longer-term revenue funding and incentives to support the sustainability of what we’ve built. Without it, we risk these incredible facilities becoming under-utilised assets.

The sector’s collective success here and around the country shows what’s possible when colleges work as a system – not a set of isolated institutions. Our own immersive suites and green skills hubs are testament to what can be achieved through trust, collaboration and a shared mission to support both learners and employers locally.

DfE toughens up on ITP contract sanctions

Training providers with back-to-back ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted grades could see their Department for Education funding contracts terminated from August.

New contracts for education and skills services covering independent training providers for the 2025-26 academic year were published yesterday with tough new rules around financial health, reporting and accountability. 

Rules giving the department the power to cancel contracts based on Ofsted inspection results have been bolstered for most provider types, but not colleges. 

Next year’s contracts also give DfE the power to “engage directly with learners to ascertain the contractor’s performance” and transfer some or all learners to a new contractor if it is concerned about a provider’s financial health. 

Until now, training companies receiving an ‘inadequate’ grade in an inspection, either overall or for a sub-judgment, faced contractual penalties. These range from enforceable requirements to improve and suspensions to learner starts through to contract termination. 

Contracts for 2025-26, which come into effect this August, extend the Ofsted performance rules to include ‘requires improvement’ grades. 

A new group of clauses details how two consecutive ‘requires improvement’ grades for overall effectiveness or “any graded sub-judgment” will now result in penalties at the DfE’s “absolute discretion”.

The same will apply to grant-funded employers, higher education institutions, local authorities and trusts. It also applied to local authorities with accountability agreements.

DfE’s new contracts for services come as Ofsted digests consultation responses on its new inspection regime, due to be implemented in the 2025-26 academic year, which will replace the ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ judgments. 

Further education and skills providers will also no longer receive overall effectiveness grades from September. 

Sub-judgments currently include; leadership and management, behaviour and attitudes, quality of education and apprenticeships. 

The number of sub-judgments is set to spiral under the proposed inspection regime with new grades for areas like curriculum, developing teaching and training, achievement and participation and development for each provision type. 

Ofsted is yet to confirm its new five-point scale (‘exemplary’ to ‘causing concern’) which it proposed to replace the current four-point scale from ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’. 

A DfE spokesperson told FE Week: “We’ll update our post-16 intervention, accountability and oversight policies in line with the new framework once it’s confirmed”.

Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) said: “Make no mistake, this is a strengthening of the DfE’s intervention triggers for dealing with providers who are not meeting expectations. They are right to expect high standards and value for money, but interventions should be proportionate and consistent when compared to other types of providers.

“This is also very strange timing, given that single word judgements, including the ‘requires improvement’ terminology, are set to end a month after these contract changes start. A proper consultation process would have highlighted this.”

The 2025 contracts also introduce tough new penalties for providers receiving an ‘insufficient progress’ score in an Ofsted monitoring visit. 

Alongside existing sanctions like suspending recruitment of new learners, the 2025 contracts include the suspension of payments for current learners and new DfE powers to force providers to become a subcontractor for another provider. 

Elsewhere, training providers must now tell the department if their credit rating, or the credit rating of one of their subcontractors, is downgraded by any rating agency. This new clause also requires “prompt notification” of any suspected or actual fraud, financial irregularity, anything which “could cause” or does cause “an insolvency event of the contractor or subcontractor”.

New actions have been added to the menu of options the department can take “in its absolute discretion” against providers whose financial health or ability to deliver the contracts declines, or “may be declining”.

These include talking directly to learners about their provider’s performance, and unilaterally transferring all or some of a provider’s provision to another provider chosen by the DfE. 

Liverpool college repays DfE after investigators find ‘inaccurate’ funding claims

The government has clawed back a six-figure sum from a Liverpool college after an investigation into apprenticeship claims found “refutable” electronic signatures and unreliable evidence.

An Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) investigation found that between 2020 and 2022, City of Liverpool College breached several funding rules by submitting evidence that was either invalid or inaccurate.

According to the report published today, the college failed to keep reliable evidence, submitted inaccurate data and incomplete off-the-job hours evidence.

The college has repaid £177,885 and “is implementing changes to its procedures”.

It is the first investigation report about financial fraud, irregularity or error at a further education college published by the government since 2019.

The short ‘outcome report’ includes general descriptions of financial issues, such as a “failure to keep effective and reliable evidence”.

This included electronic signatures not being “supported by evidence to show they were non-refutable” and recommended new processes to ensure signatures are “secure and cannot be replaced easily”.

City of Liverpool College “inaccurately” claimed additional training costs and failed to keep “effective and reliable evidence” of claims, the report said.

Other issues included “incomplete” off-the-job, “too infrequent” reviews with apprentices, and individualised learner records (ILR) that investigators found did not reflect “what is happening”.

A spokesperson for the college said the report’s outcome “reflects the complex regulatory landscape” for apprenticeships.

They added that staff “swiftly adapted to remote working” during the time the issues occurred.

The spokesperson continued: “We acknowledge that the audit identified discrepancies and resulted in a recovery of 0.2% of our funding for the review period.

“We agree with the audit findings which pertained to our provision in 2020/21 and 21/22, and we have since addressed and resolved all identified concerns.

“The funding was recovered in the 2023/24 academic year and has no impact upon current college finances.”

The investigation report also includes “prevention” recommendations related to each issue it found, such as conducting monthly audits of evidence to “highlight any gaps” and undertaking “frequent reviews” with apprentices.

Audits should be conducted by a “internal audit/quality assurance function” who can identify issues, including that apprentices are “on track” to reach their off-the-job requirement.

Providers should also carry out monthly “detailed analysis” of their ILR, provider data self-assessment toolkit, and financial risk management reports to help “identify and correct” any issues, the report suggested.

Regular data checks “will ensure” that additional payments are “claimed accurately”, it added.

The investigation, carried out by the ESFA before it merged with the Department for Education in March this year, concluded in June 2024.

Unlike detailed, multi-page ESFA reports published before a change of policy in 2023, the ‘outcome’ report does not set out a chain of events and only three bullet points summarising the concerns and outcomes.

Further education funding expert Steve Hewitt said details of the investigation findings were “useful”, but said he would benefit from “more detail” about how the college’s processes failed with its electronic signatures.

He added: “The department, and the agency before it, has never given us a meaningful definition of ‘non-refutable’ and publishing something like this with no further detail is likely to scare providers into sticking with, or even returning to, paper-based forms.

“Having said that, I’ve always been somewhat sceptical that, just because it’s on paper, means it’s any less open to fraud or forgery.”

The DfE was contacted for comment.

ITP judged ‘inadequate’ after expanding provision despite ‘poor’ teaching

A north Yorkshire independent provider that “continued to expand” its provision without addressing “fundamentally weak” teaching has been handed Ofsted’s lowest possible grade.

Northern Regeneration CIC, which specialises in construction and electrical installation apprenticeships, was found to have unqualified tutors, high numbers of apprentices dropping out, and poor curriculum planning.

The Scarborough-headquartered ITP was rated ‘requires improvement’ at its 2022 inspection but a critical report published today rated the provider ‘inadequate’ overall and in three out of five areas.

Northern Regeneration CIC had 139 apprentices enrolled during its March 11 to 14 inspection visit. Around two-thirds were aged 16 to 18 and almost all of the cohort were men.

The ITP in the last year has also started offering skills bootcamps in construction subjects but had no enrolments at the time of inspection.

Today’s report slammed leaders for being too slow to act on the areas for improvement from its last inspection.

Inspectors highlighted leaders’ “poor” oversight of training and their lack of recognition of “fundamentally weak” teaching.

“Although the quality of teaching is poor, leaders have continued to expand their provision,” the report said.

Principal and CEO Graham Ratcliffe said that he “respectfully” does not agree with the overall outcome.

“We accept some of the findings, and we are already enacting improvements. However, we must respectfully express that we do not agree with the overall outcome,” he said.

“We honour the role Ofsted plays in upholding standards. It is a necessary authority in the pursuit of educational excellence. Yet we also say this, measured but firm: we believe the conclusions reached do not reflect the quality, integrity, or outcomes of the provision we deliver daily and when Ofsted returns in the autumn, we shall endeavour to prove just that.”

Ofsted inspectors said the work given to learners was not set at the appropriate level for the apprenticeship standard.

For example, level 2 site carpentry and level 2 bricklaying apprentices complete theoretical work at entry level 3 and level 1 as their main curriculum content. But level 3 electrical installation apprentices were learning the work at the expected standard.

The trainers at Northern Regeneration CIC were found to have good vocational knowledge but inspectors said there was a “longstanding” need to get teachers to complete their assessor and teacher training qualifications.

Tutors were found not to mark apprentices’ work or evaluate what needs to be revisited or reinforced.

Apprentices’ progress in functional skills qualifications was positive, Ofsted found. The report said a high proportion of learners pass on their first attempt, but that trainers do not correct poor spelling or grammatical errors.

While the report noted that apprentices had positive attitudes towards their studies and good behaviour, it also found in a few instances that level 2 joiners use inappropriate language in class and trainers did not challenge it “well enough”.

Inspectors were not impressed with staff at the ITP for being “too willing” to allow apprentices to stay at work than attend lessons.

The report said that too few apprentices attend off-the-job training sessions and staff do “too little” to help learners with what they’ve missed.

Additionally, not enough apprentices finish their training, and those currently enrolled are already “beyond” their expected completion date.

Inspectors were concerned that employers were not committed to the apprenticeship programme and that apprentices leave early to earn additional income as “unskilled, but better paid, workers”.

The non-executive directors, who act as the providers governors, were found to be weak in holding the leaders to account as they rely too much on what senior leaders tell them and therefore consider the quality of training to be “much better than it is”.

Ratcliffe said: “We shall continue to support learners not merely to pass qualifications, but to build careers. We shall continue to back local tradespeople who wish to pass on their craft and we shall continue to push boundaries where others accept limits.”

Private providers judged ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted are usually sanctioned by the Department for Education, which can include contract termination.

Three reforms would help FE tackle our country’s labour shortages

Launched in January, the Making Further Education Fit for the Future inquiry is examining how the FE and Skills sector can better equip young people with the skills and qualifications needed to tackle labour shortages.

Wide-ranging in its scope, it recognises the contribution of our sector in addressing growing skills gaps and facilitating the government’s mission-led agenda.

One critical area of focus is how the FE and skills workforce can be supported to achieve the highest standards of teaching to deliver the best opportunities and outcomes for learners.

Current barriers to this objective include recruitment and retention challenges, inconsistent pedagogical approaches, lack of consistency in training opportunities and difficulties embedding essential/basic skills, English, maths and digital skills into teaching and learning.

In our written submission to the inquiry, the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) made three recommendations: a kitemarking system for Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers to ensure consistent, rigorous standards; a targeted national workforce strategy to help recruit, retain and develop those who work in FE and Skills; and devolved funding to regional bodies so they can invest in data-driven solutions tailored to local growth and skills needs.

Giving evidence to the inquiry’s select committee in late April, ETF CEO Dr Katerina Kolyva built on these recommendations, emphasising the value of dual professionalism and the need to support up-to-date training for our sector’s workforce.

She called for parity of esteem with other parts of the education system, reminding the committee of the role we all play in ‘talking up’ the sector and its vital contributions to our economy and society.

Kitemarking for quality

Those contributions are facilitated by high-quality teaching and training, and the Department of Education has recognised that variation in ITE is a barrier to consistent standards.

A kitemarking system for ITE providers would ensure teacher training programmes adhere to rigorous standards so they deliver value for those new to the profession, and thus improve outcomes for students.

Workforce strategy

Beyond ITE, a national workforce development strategy would enable a coordinated approach to identify and address skills shortages and inconsistencies in professional development across the FE and Skills workforce.

Unlike other sectors, including healthcare and schools, FE and Skills does not have a systematic mechanism for workforce planning, and there is no overarching structure for tracking and forecasting teaching capacity.

A bespoke strategy for FE and Skills would support our diverse and complex sector to address its challenges, from ineffective and disjointed approaches to professional development to persistently high levels of attrition and vacancies in some subjects.

Devolution and data

Within the framework of national workforce planning, regional and local skills needs must be considered.

Colleges and independent training providers are the institutions closest to learners, employers, and communities. They have the expertise, infrastructure and professional knowledge to meet local skills needs.

The devolution of skills funding offers an opportunity to shape provision around local labour markets, aligning workforce training with employer demand and responding directly to community priorities.

This means improved data to support place-based metrics, recognition of technical and vocational pedagogy and ring-fenced funding for CPD and pedagogical innovation. 

The challenge in all this lies in managing this shift in ways that neither dilute national standards nor entrench existing power imbalances within the tertiary education landscape – particularly between FE and higher education institutions. 

Without clear national oversight and shared standards, there is a risk workforce development pathways could fragment, leading to regional disparities in CPD access, expertise and expectations.

While local autonomy can drive innovation, it must be balanced with a strong, national framework and consistent investment in the professionalism and capacity of the whole FE and Skills workforce.

By taking this whole-system approach we can ensure our sector has the right professional development support to deliver the best experiences and outcomes for learners.

TikTok could lay foundation for a career in construction

The construction industry faces a crisis in apprenticeship recruitment and retention, with nearly half of all apprentices not completing their training.

This challenge is deepening the skills shortage in an industry that is vital to the country’s infrastructure and economy.

Figures from the British Association of Construction Heads (BACH) show that only 8,620 construction apprentices reached their end point assessment in 2022-23 – just a fraction of the estimated 96,000 new workers that are now needed each year.

The dropout rate stands at 47 per cent. Meanwhile, the number of new apprentices entering the sector continues to decline, with a 1.4 per cent drop recorded in 2023-24 and a 14 per cent fall since 2021-22.

We urgently need to address the barriers that are stopping apprentices from completing their training.

That means providing better support throughout the learning process, ensuring training is accessible and relevant, and securing the funding needed to properly resource our FE colleges.

The talent is out there – but without the right structure and support we risk losing it before it even gets started.

One way the government has made apprenticeships more accessible is by removing the mandatory English and maths functional skills requirement for apprentices aged 19 plus.

I believe this change is really positive and will be a big incentive to attract new talent – it removes an additional barrier to entry for a lot of adult learners. For many, returning to education later in life is already a huge step, and functional skills requirements have often added unnecessary pressure.

The move could make apprenticeships more accessible, particularly in construction, where we desperately need to boost numbers and bring in more diverse talent.

A big reason many don’t stay the course is financial constraints – apprenticeship wages are often too low, especially for adults with rent or families to support. It’s just not sustainable.

There’s also limited guidance in finding the right apprenticeship, and when you add transport issues, long commutes and unclear career paths, it’s no surprise that some drop out. These practical barriers need tackling if we want more people to succeed.

To help improve apprenticeship retention and attract new entrants, here are some other key areas that should be focused on:

Make construction attractive to the next generation

To attract the next generation to construction – and to entice lecturers to teach these subjects – we need to showcase the advantages of the industry.

Using platforms like TikTok and Instagram can effectively reach young people with short, snappy and engaging content that makes a career in construction attractive.

Debunking myths – such as the industry being for ‘low-skilled’ workers – can be done by using real people as case studies. Hearing from experienced workers in skilled roles such as project management, engineering, design or BIM (Building Information Modelling) can be powerful.

Targeted support for apprentices

We also need to improve the support available to apprentices once they’re on placement. That means offering tailored employability training and helping them build the confidence and skills they need to succeed in real-world placements.

We should also be extending that support once an apprenticeship has finished, checking in and making sure they have left ready to succeed.

Highly trained lecturers

In order to keep these students engaged and inspired, we need the right lecturers and teachers to provide high-quality training.

We also need to encourage experienced professionals from the construction industry to transition into teaching by highlighting how rewarding it can be to pass on their expertise.

Promoting the benefits of this career path is one way to attract candidates – offering competitive salaries, job security and benefits such as pensions, healthcare and development opportunities can make teaching more appealing.

We’re facing the perfect storm, but it could also be the ideal time for experienced professionals to down their tools and explore a rewarding career change into teaching. They could help shape the future of the industry.

It’s possible to get students talking safely about gender violence

Educators and those working with young people are now understanding that we cannot view incidences of gender-based violence as ‘one-off’ situations which exist in isolation to, or solely at the extremities of, our communities. The sheer rate of these incidents leads us to believe they are firmly rooted in our culture. 

Any preventative efforts must focus on exposing, understanding and challenging the root of this violence in our communities. Everything from socially ingrained gendered attitudes like misogyny, slut-shaming and victim-blaming, to the messages young people are receiving every day from social media and pop culture, must be addressed. 

But how do we intentionally create spaces for critical conversation about a culture of gender-based violence that leads to behaviour change?

At Bold Voices we have specialised in curating these very spaces within over 200 educational settings across the UK, and engaged with over 100,000 young people, staff and parents.

Here are some key lessons we have learned. 

Being intentional about space:

When we deliver classroom workshops, we want to change the dynamics that often dictate engagement such as social hierarchies, relationship with the teacher, worries about being judged for your experiences and losing social face. So we change the layout to reflect the type of atmosphere we want to create. 

Pupils sit around tables in small groups all facing one another, so they can see and hear everyone on the table, creating a more intimate and inclusive environment.

We ensure space between tables so young people don’t feel like they are being listened to outside of that group, which encourages authenticity because body language is easier to see and read when there is space around each person. 

We allow young people to sit in small groups of their choosing, allowing for their natural micro-cultures to arise. Any learning is then far more likely to be sustainable. Critical reflection and conversations are more likely to continue if started in groups that spend time together, and commitment to change is more likely to be taken more seriously. 

Being intentional about time:

We usually find the best time to hold educational conversations is not in response to a specific incident within the group of students. This education should not be a reactive measure, it is preventative.

It is best to avoid times where young people are feeling particularly defensive or angry about a situation as critical thinking and self-reflection are much less likely to occur if these are the immediate emotional responses.

Instead, find a way to have these conversations regularly, and use stimuli and case studies to help create distance from specific incidents. 

Being intentional about framing:

Why are we talking about this topic? To cultivate a shared awareness of and responsibility for this culture. Gender inequality and gender-based violence negatively impacts all of us.

We also all play a part in reinforcing it, even when this isn’t intentional, and so we must all play a part in challenging it. 

This is not about shunning young men and identifying them as ‘the problem’ – this is about understanding the culture leading to a repeated pattern where males are more likely to harm themselves and others. It is a culture that we all play a part in reinforcing. 

Are we setting up a debate?

We encourage conversations rather than debates. We all have a different experience with this culture so instead of trying to decide who is right/wrong or worse/better off, it can be more beneficial to understand how our experiences and frustrations are connected.

Practise this using the “yes… and” model of conversation participation, where contributing to the conversation is about adding your own detail (even if contradictory) to the bigger picture, rather than disputing the experience of others. 

The ‘call in’ approach to challenging:

A core facilitation principle, the ‘call in’, can be described as using instances of potentially harmful language or attitudes as opportunities to kindly but critically reflect and learn. It is led by open questions which make no assumption about the intention of the individual and do not attempt to ‘prove them wrong’. Instead, these questions are about genuinely learning what they were trying to communicate and why.

It is an approach that changes the stakes of self-reflection and makes being challenged less a question of character, but more a chance to question the ‘culture’.

For resources to use in the classroom, see Bold Voices

Three exam papers for resits…the maths doesn’t add up for FE

Across the country, FE colleges have once again become vast examination halls. Here at Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group (NSCG), the scale of this operation is stark.

In one morning across our two campuses, over 1,300 learners sat their GCSE maths exam, a crucial hurdle for so many on their journey to further study or employment.

To facilitate this single exam, we had to ring-fence a staggering 144 rooms, including our sports halls, dance studios and auditorium spaces, employ 175 invigilators, and mobilise a team of support staff to aid operations. The ripple effect extends further, with regular lessons suspended to accommodate logistical obstacles.

The post-16 resit landscape is challenging. While the goal of ensuring functional numeracy is crucial, the current structure of GCSE maths, with its three separate exam papers, places a significant burden on FE colleges. This is particularly concerning given that demographic trends suggest the number of students needing to resit is only likely to increase in coming years.

Let’s be clear: it’s not the principle of resits that’s the issue. It is the sheer scale and complexity of administering multiple papers for each student each time an exam series comes around.

The current format, requiring colleges to organise and manage three distinct exam sittings, creates an immense logistical challenge. This diverts college resources away from other essential activities.

Consider the practical implications. The cessation of timetabled lessons disrupts the learning of all students, not just those sitting the exam.

The deployment of a large number of staff as invigilators pulls them away from teaching, support and pastoral duties.

The administrative burden of organising these large-scale exams – from timetabling and room allocation to the meticulous management of papers – is considerable.

For us, the cost of entering learners to their summer GCSE maths exam alone totals £69,000 in associated fees and the cost of employing external invigilators is significant.

These are resources that could be better invested in enhancing the quality of teaching, expanding enrichment opportunities, and providing more personalised support to students across the board.

Furthermore, the emotional and psychological impact on students facing repeated resits across three papers cannot be ignored. While the opportunity to retake is important, the constant cycle of preparation and exams can breed anxiety and frustration, potentially hindering rather than helping their long-term engagement with mathematics.

I believe it is time to consider a fundamental shift in the design of the GCSE maths assessment, and I urge policymakers in the Department for Education, Ofqual and within the examination boards to consider reducing the number of exam papers from the current three to two within each exam series.

A streamlined structure would allow colleges to allocate resources more efficiently, minimising the disruption to regular teaching and freeing up staff to focus on core delivery.  Students and staff could concentrate their efforts on two key exam dates, allowing for more intensive and targeted preparation for each exam. 

Additionally, a reduction in the number of examination papers would inevitably lead to savings in administrative costs and the fees associated with the operation.

This is not about lowering standards or diminishing the importance of GCSE maths. It’s about finding a more sustainable and effective way to assess students whilst minimising the strain on an already pressurised FE sector. By reducing the number of exam papers in each series, we can ensure colleges can focus on what they do best: educating and empowering students.

The current system, with its three-paper format, places undue pressure and financial strain on colleges. We need a more balanced approach that serves the needs of both students and institutions. Reducing the number of exam papers is a practical step towards achieving that goal.

Finally, I want to thank all of the staff who work tirelessly to support learners in their preparation for these exams, and to those working diligently behind the scenes to ensure the smooth running of the summer exam series. I wish all learners the very best of luck in their exams.