Latest news from FE Week

Ofsted to introduce report cards on reduced inspection timetable

Only the most senior Ofsted inspectors will carry out inspections when they return in November, meaning fewer will take place than usual.

However the watchdog was unable to say how many fewer inspections this would mean for education providers.

The move is the latest from Ofsted as it attempts to assure the sector over its plans to introduce new report card inspections this autumn.

Critics say the reforms are “far too rushed”, with providers having just weeks between seeing the final plans and being inspected. Ofsted previously pledged education institutions would have a term’s notice to get used to the new framework, but later reneged on this, sparking backlash from the sector.

Many also still have huge concerns over the proposals for a new five-point grading system an potentially 20 inspection areas.

But in a bid to further “reassure” the sector, Ofsted today announced an “enhanced quality assurance process” that it says will help ensure “a steady and assured start” in November.

Inspections will be led and carried out only by “the most senior and experienced” HMIs to begin with, the watchdog announced.

Fewer autumn inspections

HMIs are civil servants who often work for Ofsted full-time, whereas Ofsted inspectors (OIs) work for the watchdog on a freelance basis and usually hold other positions in the sector.

OIs will be phased into inspections following training, but Ofsted does not yet know when this will be.

This means there will be fewer inspections than usual in November and December. There will also be no education inspections in the final week before the Christmas holiday, “to allow for further inspector training”.

Ofsted could not say how many inspections there are likely to be in November and December, or how this compares to usual numbers.

Pilot Ofsted inspections to be scrutinised

In early autumn, senior inspectors will also take part in pilot visits to volunteer settings.

Ofsted said its national director for education and its principal inspector, Lee Owston, will personally quality assure the work of most senior inspectors following these visits. Inspectors will also carry out a “comprehensive” training programme before being deployed on a live inspection.

During autumn inspections, a random sample of providers will be invited to take part in “exit interviews” with Owston and senior Ofsted officials, to give feedback on their inspection experience and the reforms.

All providers will be invited to carry out a post-inspection survey.

Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver will also invite sector representatives to a series of roundtable meetings “to share their thoughts on the renewed framework”.

Julie McCulloch, director of strategy and policy at leaders’ union ASCL, today welcomed Ofsted’s efforts to provide assurance to schools and colleges, but said “the fact remains that the timeline is far too rushed and the five-point grading system proposed is fundamentally flawed”.

“The assurance that the sector needs is for Ofsted and the government to rethink the current proposals and then introduce the new inspection system in a less frantic manner giving schools and colleges time to absorb and prepare for what are very significant changes.

“A headlong rush towards a poorly constructed inspection system benefits nobody.”

But Oliver said he is “confident” the inspectorate’s reforms “will deliver an improved system of education inspection”.

“But we’re also serious about giving providers the support they need to engage confidently and fairly with the changes, and ensuring a steady and assured start to inspections under the renewed framework,” he added.

“I want to reassure everyone that we’re taking every possible measure to provide a consistent and high-quality inspection experience for all, right from the off.”

Ofsted also confirmed leaders’ all requests for an inspection deferral will be reviewed directly by its deputy chief inspector, “to make sure each case is treated with utmost sensitivity and consideration”.

For the first few months of inspections Ofsted will continually update an online FAQ document and produce blogs to “share reflections” and “counter any emerging myths”.

Ofsted is expected to provide more information in September, when it publishes its delayed response to its consultation.

Compulsory to 18? Too many still drop out at 16

Ten years have passed since it became compulsory to stay in education, apprenticeships or other work-based training until age 18. However, for most of this time only around 90 per cent of young people actually did so. We wouldn’t expect this rate to be 100 per cent as despite being a requirement, there are no repercussions for those that turn away from education, with increasing numbers becoming NEETs (not in education, employment or training) after they complete their GCSEs.

For most of the last decade this picture has been fairly static. However, new evidence suggests it’s time for policymakers to sit up and pay more attention to post-16 participation. Firstly, the Education Policy Institute’s annual report shows that the proportion of young people opting out of post-16 education entirely has been on the rise since the pandemic.

Secondly, it is young people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who are becoming particularly more likely to disengage.

There will of course be cases where students dropping out of education after their GCSEs does not harm their long-term prospects. Some will find good employment or begin endeavours that lead to fulfilling careers. But this won’t be true for the majority.

DfE’s own statistics show that only a minority of those that weren’t in post-16 education or training secured sustained employment, and there’s a plethora of research showing how qualifications achieved in the 16-19 phase improve employment prospects.

Disadvantage gap

Our report sets out just how stark the situation is. Of those disadvantaged young people who took their GCSEs in 2022, more than one in five did not begin studying towards any substantial post-16 qualifications, or alternatives such as apprenticeships or traineeships. This compares to less than one in ten of their non-disadvantaged peers. And the gap between the two groups has widened by two percentage points in just the last two years, equating to thousands more disadvantaged young people leaving education at age 16.

The focus of our report for 16-19 education is usually to provide an update on the disadvantage attainment gap. On this we find that disadvantaged students were 3.3 grades behind other students across their best three qualifications in 2024. This is marginally worse than in 2023 and reflects zero progress since we started the time series in 2017. However, the overall attainment gap for all 16-19 year olds may be even worse than our analysis indicates, as

it does not take account of those not in education post-16. It is likely to be the lower attaining disadvantaged students who struggle the most in this crucial transition point between school and college.

Given our findings, calls for increased disadvantage funding in the form of a student premium payment are more pertinent than ever. Increased disadvantage funding for 16-19 providers by itself, however, would not be sufficient. Disadvantaged young people must be in education before they can benefit from any additional support, so further work must be undertaken to understand exactly what is happening on the ground, and the government must engage with this worsening problem urgently.

Increasing disengagement

Research cannot yet tell us exactly what is driving this trend. One likely explanation is the increasing disengagement from the education system that has led to an absence epidemic in pre-16 education is now affecting participation post-16. The rate of persistent and severe absenteeism at school has doubled since the pandemic, and it is likely the very same young people are then disengaging from education entirely at the end of year 11. The fact that if not done properly, post-16 education for lower attainers can feel like a cycle of failure will also not help. What’s more, this problem is only likely to be exacerbated by the population bulge that is now working its way through the 16-19 phase. With more students vying for places in some areas, the most vulnerable young people may find it even harder to secure a place on a suitable post-16 course without greater support.

While research continues to demonstrate that compulsory education to age 18 is beneficial, to reap this benefit, the government must ensure that there is a suitable, accessible and appealing post-16 education offer for all young people, and better support mechanisms must be put in place to ensure the most vulnerable are not allowed to fall through the gaps.

Online learning flattens barriers in the age of devolution

Devolution in post-16 education isn’t a passing policy trend – it’s the direction of travel, whatever your political stripes. Whether you’re enthusiastic or cautious, the reality is that localism is here, and it’s expanding.

Thanks to technology, we live in an era of extraordinary accessibility. Entertainment, information and services are at our fingertips streaming into our homes. Sometimes, it sparks unlikely comebacks. Kate Bush’s resurgence through Stranger Things wasn’t just a pop culture moment – it reminded us that timing and access can bring long-standing talent back into the spotlight.

We should treat online learning the same way. It’s not new, but it’s never been more powerful. As we embrace devolution and build more responsive systems, we must not overlook the transformational potential of online education.

Local leaders understand their communities – the challenges, employers and opportunities. From tackling youth unemployment to green skills pathways, a local approach enables decisions closer to where they matter most.

Devolution gives colleges, training providers and community organisations the platform to shape provision that reflects local ambitions. But delivery models must not unintentionally narrow access. While “local” speaks to geography, skills challenges don’t respect borders, and neither do learners.

Flexibility: The other local solution

I spend a lot of time on the road, putting miles on my beloved motorbike visiting colleges, combined authorities and more. No two places are the same but the barriers learners face often are.

And while I have the freedom to choose my route, many don’t have access to transport or the flexibility to fit learning into their lives.

Not everyone can reach a training centre. Geography, travel costs, caring duties or health concerns can all make attendance a challenge.

That’s where online learning becomes essential. It opens doors for:

Rural and coastal learners
Parents and carers
Individuals with health needs
Shift workers
Adults returning to education

The list goes on. Online learning isn’t an add-on, it’s a core enabler of inclusion. At recent conferences, the message was clear: if we want inclusion, we need flexibility.

Like many Kate Bush tracks, online learning has stood the test of time in adapting and expanding and is now more relevant than ever.

Aligning with national strategy

The industrial strategy, Building a Britain Fit for the Future, makes clear that skills are key to growth. One pillar, ‘people,’ calls for a world-class technical education system.

Online learning supports that vision. It connects people to opportunity enabling reskilling, career shifts and wider participation.

Some of the best ideas aren’t new, they just need the right moment. Like Running Up That Hill, online learning is being recognised for what it’s always been: effective, accessible and essential.

Connecting the dots

If devolution is about local need, we need systems, not silos.

No one provider can do it all. Strong systems connect colleges, training providers, community learning, employers and local authorities working together.

That’s the power of devolution: connecting the dots. Or as Bush might say: less Cloudbusting, more clarity.

Don’t keep learners on the hill

In 2023, I wrote a Bon Jovi inspired article and said, “devolution is not incompatible with learner demand, but it is a barrier.” That still stands. When systems favour what’s nearby over what’s accessible, learners are left running up that hill.

Online learning flattens that hill. It meets people where they are. Like Bush’s chart return, it shows trusted solutions still create transformative results.

Let’s not let geography decide futures

Devolution holds promise. Local leaders can build bold, inclusive systems. But that means going beyond what’s on the doorstep.

Let’s stay true to the spirit of localism meeting learners where they are, in classrooms or online. As Kate Bush might say, stop wuthering and build systems that help every learner fly, not fall.

JCB Academy breaks ground with Ofsted grade 1

An independent training provider specialising in construction and engineering apprenticeships has been upgraded by Ofsted to ‘outstanding’.

JCB Academy, headquartered in Staffordshire, was praised for its work with “world-leading organisations” to develop curriculums and “exceptional” teaching to help hundreds of engineering and construction apprentices.

In a glowing grade 1 report published this morning, Ofsted found that apprentices thrive in their studies and go onto supervisory and leadership roles after completing their apprenticeships at JCB Academy.

At the time of its June 3 to 6 inspection, the ITP had 250 apprentices in learning, 135 of which were on the engineering technician apprenticeship, its most popular standard.

The provider was last inspected in 2019, where it was awarded a ‘good’ rating.

Inspectors were impressed that apprentices develop “mastery” in very sought-after skills in the engineering and construction sectors.

Though most apprentices start with little or no prior knowledge, the report said they quickly learn skills that make a “swift and lasting positive contribution in the workplace”.

They noted that most apprentices achieve their qualification and go onto long-term employment, with many “securing promotions to supervisory and leadership roles”.

JCB Academy principal Jim Bailey said the firm was “pleased” that its apprenticeship programme has been recognised as ‘outstanding’ in every category.

He said: “This achievement reflects the exceptional commitment of our staff, the dedication of our apprentices, and the valuable partnerships we maintain with dedicated and passionate employer partners.

“At The JCB Academy, we remain committed to providing an industry-focused education that prepares learners with the skills, character, and confidence necessary for success in their chosen careers.”

Apprentices were found to have high attendance to lessons, a good understanding of extremism, and often exceeded their expected progress. Ofsted pointed out that sometimes, apprentices have instructed more experienced colleagues on how to operate unfamiliar equipment in the workplace.

The watchdog’s report added: “Level 3 engineering technician apprentices learn to use industry-standard software for their computer-aided design drawings rapidly and skilfully.”

The inspectorate also complimented tutors for “skilfully supporting” apprentices to build confidence and character and providing comprehensive career advice.

Apprentices also gain a “deep understanding” of diverse career pathways and receive tailored support to help them achieve their ambitious goals.

“Exceptional teaching helps apprentices thrive in their studies,” inspectors said.

JCB Academy subcontracts construction apprenticeship provision to Accxel Limited to 47 apprentices, half of which were aged under 18 when enrolling.

Inspectors said leaders have input “rigorous assurance processes” to understand the quality of education, including within its subcontracted provision.

“They undertake frequent learning walks, annual lesson observations and apprentice and employer surveys. Leaders take precise and well-considered actions where necessary to improve the provision’s quality continuously,” the report said.

Governance at JCB Academy was found to be “highly effective”. Senio leaders provide governors with detailed information on performance of apprentices and course, which they use their expertise to hold leaders to account.

Term limits and recruitment reform is vital for effective FE governance

If the FE sector is to thrive in an era of devolved authority and heightened accountability, one thing is clear: governance reform can’t wait. Too many colleges are stuck in a cycle of complacency, where boards are packed with allies, scrutiny is superficial, and term limits are ignored.

The result is a system that values stability over challenge and conformity over innovation.

The fix? Two fundamental changes: mandatory term limits for governors and independent recruitment processes.

Without these, FE governance risks becoming an echo chamber where accountability statements collect dust and real oversight takes a back seat.

Self-perpetuating boards and the ‘old guard’

A senior governance colleague recently told me: “When new governors push for progress, they’re often vilified by the ‘old guard’, leaving them intimidated into silence.”

Sound familiar? It’s a culture that’s all too common. CEOs and chairs handpick governors who won’t challenge them, long-serving members dominate discussions, and promising candidates are rejected for fear they’ll rock the boat.

But here’s the thing: harmony isn’t the goal of governance, robust scrutiny is.

As one Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review notes: “The governance office is the conscience of the organisation, ensuring short-term pressures never eclipse long-term values.”

Why term limits are essential

Guidance on governor tenure is so vague it’s practically an invitation to overstay.

While the FE Code of Good Governance suggests nine years as a benchmark, many treat it as a starting point, not a limit.

The fallout? Groupthink, reduced independence, and boards that lack the fresh ideas needed for today’s challenges, from local skills improvement plans to devolution.

Mandatory total term limits of, say, eight years max, would ensure a steady influx of new ideas while keeping institutional memory intact through staggered rotations and succession planning.

Meanwhile, allowing CEOs and chairs to dominate governor recruitment is a glaring conflict of interest. Instead, FE colleges should adopt independent nomination committees to bring in diverse, skilled appointees.

Skills-based recruitment should be the norm, prioritising expertise in finance, education and digital transformation. And boards should reflect the communities they serve, not just the inner circle of leadership. Whilst this is seen and done in many colleges, it is too often controlled from the top.

This isn’t pie-in-the-sky thinking. Australia’s TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) audits and enforces strict governance standards, and Canadian colleges use independent panels to appoint board members.

Training and culture: Learning from Weston

The Weston College scandal around the chief executive’s pay laid bare the gaps in governance training. While the Institute of Directors’ Governance Professional Programme is a step in the right direction, we need mandatory training for governors as well, covering financial oversight, risk management and inclusive leadership.

A national governance qualification, written for governors, backed by the Association of Colleges and the Education and Training Foundation, would raise the bar.

Whistleblower protections are a must, so concerns can be raised without fear.

And we must guard against items such as accountability statements being treated as tick-box exercises. Because if that’s all they are, then once completed they become forgotten and any potential for behavioural change is lost.

Change for the better

Governance needs a cultural change with boards’ performance being measured. Such measurement could be undertaken via an annual review, and overseen by a specialist body such as the Association of Colleges or even the FE Commissioner’s team.

The FE sector isn’t a collection of independent fiefdoms, it’s a cornerstone of the public sector that is accountable to mayors, employers and learners. To meet its responsibilities governance must step up with term limits, independent recruitment and professionalised training.

Governors are ready to lead this change, but they need support from policymakers and sector bodies to speak up and break the status quo.

Bottom 10 per cent missing out on GCSE core subject success

Between 2012 and 2023, young adults in England went from being one of the worst-performing groups in the OECD for literacy and numeracy to one of the best, making improvements on a scale not seen across other countries or other age groups in England.

The Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) shows dramatic improvements in essential skills among 16 to 24-year-olds. Literacy scores improved by seven per cent and numeracy by nine per cent.

Some, including the current skills minister Jacqui Smith, have attributed this improvement to schools. However, we have not seen similar improvements among 15-year-olds in PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment). Between 2012 and 2022, their scores stagnated. Improvements in maths for year five and nine in TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) were not on the same scale as the increase seen for 16 to 24-year-olds.

The 16-19 condition of funding, introduced in 2014, has drastically increased the continued study of English and maths, supporting around 3 million young people over the decade – specifically the lower attainers who would be represented in the bottom half of the PIAAC distribution.

Concerning lack of progress

The graphic below shows the average improvement among young adults between 2012 and 2023 by decile of the PIAAC distribution. Decile 1 (D1) are the lowest 10 per cent of students and decile 10 (D10) the highest.

It shows how the largest improvements were concentrated in the bottom half of the distribution, particularly for literacy. This signals improvements arising from resits.

But it also demonstrates a very concerning lack of progress for the bottom 10 per cent of students.

Students in decile 2 (between the 10^th and 20^th percentile of achievement) make the most progress in literacy and numeracy, with a huge spike in attainment between deciles 1 and 2. These are students very likely to have been subject to the resit policy. In numeracy, improvements have been larger and spread across more of the distribution (deciles 2 to 7 make more than 7 per cent improvements in scores). This wider increase in numeracy probably reflects the growth of A-level and Core mathematics.

We can triangulate these improvements against the increase in 16-19 English and maths achievement from 16.4 per cent in 2012/13 to 28.9 per cent in 2018/19 (the last year before Covid grading interferes with analysis). Taken together, the evidence suggests the condition of funding has been effective on average.

Remaining stuck

However, the bottom 10 per cent of the distribution is concerning. These learners should continue to study English and maths during their post-16 education. But between 2012 and 2023, they remained stuck at the lowest standard on the PIAAC scale.

This aligns with the curriculum and assessment review’s interim report finding that those “with lower grades [at 16] were less likely to achieve” by 19, though the report did not explore the causes in detail.

One is that these young adults are more likely to have not been in education or training (NET) between the ages of 16 and 18 (when they would have been resitting GCSE English and maths). The rate of NET for 16 to 18-year-olds between 2012 and 2023 ranged from 12 to 15 per cent.

They are not well served by ‘flexibilities’

There are also many flexibilities in the resit policy that are likely to disproportionately exclude lower attainers from continued study. The policy’s ‘tolerance’ allows institutions to not provide further study of GCSE English and maths for up to 5 per cent (changing to 2.5 per cent) of their entire student body. This disproportionately affects lower attainers and those with additional learning needs.

Moreover, EHCP (education, health and care plan) learners can be exempted altogether rather than being given extra support.

Finally, the policy allows learners with lower prior attainment to study towards functional skills, which has half the guided learning hours of the GCSE. These flexibilities are likely resulting in less English and maths support for those who need it most.

The huge improvements in young adult literacy and numeracy over the last 10 years deserve to be celebrated. They have been concentrated among the bottom half of students, suggesting that the resit policy has had a material impact on literacy and numeracy for young adults.

Sadly, students at the bottom 10 per cent of the distribution have been left behind. They are more likely to be disadvantaged, have additional needs, and are not being well-served, both by the unintended consequences of ‘flexibilities’ and by a 16-19 education system that sees too many students become NET. This needs to be a clear focus for the ongoing curriculum and assessment review.

Colleges can play their part in getting more teens to vote

The government’s announcement that 16- and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in the next general election is nothing short of a seismic shift for democracy. For those of us working to engage young people in civic life, it’s also the defining moment we’ve long hoped for and which brings new urgency to the work we do every day in further education.

At Trafford and Stockport College Group this news lands with particular resonance. Over the past two years, we’ve been piloting a pioneering voter registration initiative that allows students to register at the point of college enrolment. It’s a simple opt-in tick-box on a form; practical, secure, and student-friendly. But its impact has been anything but small.

Auto-enrolment pilot

Our first-year pilot in 2024 saw over 1,000 students register. Since then, momentum has grown rapidly. With the backing of local election managers, MPs, and Greater Manchester leaders, the scheme is now ready to be rolled out across all Great Manchester colleges and other colleges across the UK have begun replicating our model. What started as a local pilot is fast becoming a national movement and the government’s announcement is the wind in our sails.

But with this new right comes a critical question: how do we ensure that newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds feel empowered to use their vote?

This is where FE colleges have a unique and powerful role to play to ensure our young people are socially aware, politically engaged, and more than ready to take part in shaping their future. What they need is a system that lets them in, and educators who help them feel confident once they’re there.

Registering to vote isn’t just about participating in elections. It supports independence, boosting credit scores, making it easier to rent a home, and giving young people the power to sign their own phone contracts. But more than that, it sends a message: your voice matters. You belong in the democratic process.

For too long, our youngest citizens have been trusted with responsibilities – working, paying taxes, even joining the armed forces -while being denied a say at the ballot box. Now that imbalance is being corrected. The right to vote at 16 affirms a belief in young people’s capacity to lead, to contribute, and to make informed decisions about the world they’re inheriting.

Matching belief with action

Our job now is to match that belief with action. We need to ensure voter registration becomes a seamless part of post-16 education across the UK. That means practical infrastructure, yes, but also a shift in mindset. Civic participation shouldn’t be treated as an extracurricular add-on. It should be embedded in the student journey from day one.

At Trafford and Stockport College Group, we’ve learned some important lessons along the way. Building strong partnerships with local authorities is vital. So is putting student experience at the heart of every decision. When you make registration easy, respectful, and relevant, students respond. And when they feel heard, they’re far more likely to engage not just in politics, but in shaping the communities around them.

This is a proud moment, not just for me personally, but for everyone who’s worked to get us here. From local councillors to policy advocates, educators to students themselves, this change has been powered by people who believe in democracy’s full potential.

But pride must now give way to purpose. The vote at 16 is not the end of the journey; it’s the start of a new chapter.

A copy-and-paste into AI opens up a new shadowy world of risk

Artificial intelligence is transforming how we work by offering opportunities to enhance productivity, improve service delivery and streamline processes. But with these opportunities comes a growing, often invisible risk: shadow AI.

Shadow AI refers to the use of artificial intelligence tools, applications or models within an organisation without formal approval, oversight or governance from IT, data protection or risk management teams.

Three-quarters of knowledge workers are using AI tools at work, according to the 2024 Work Trend Index annual report by Microsoft and LinkedIn.

This may be seen as positive news for AI adoption and efficiency, but a more concerning statistic is that 78 per cent of those workers are doing so without their employer’s knowledge. For apprenticeship providers and their employer customers, this presents a significant risk.

Apprenticeship providers and colleges hold large volumes of sensitive learner, employer and funding data – from ILR and LRS records to Ofqual-regulated qualifications. Shadow AI use within these organisations introduces several risks:

Data privacy and GDPR breaches: Unregulated AI tools may process personal or sensitive data without consent or safeguards, breaching UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Information security and data leakage: Shadow AI can transmit sensitive organisational data to external servers in unknown locations, increasing the risk of data exposure, intellectual property theft and security breaches.
Non-compliant use of publicly funded data: The mishandling of sensitive apprenticeship and funding data through unapproved AI tools could violate strict Department for Education/Information Commissioner’s Office compliance rules.
Academic integrity: Unmonitored AI use in assessment processes can undermine academic standards, devalue qualifications and complicate appeals processes.
Bias and fairness: Without human oversight, AI-driven assessment and decision-making risks embedding unconscious bias, potentially breaching equality legislation.
Damage to public trust and sector reputation: As education providers hold a position of public trust, any scandal arising from shadow AI can severely damage both institutional and sector-wide reputations.

Providers must protect employer data too. For instance, if a tutor puts a transcript from a progress review into ChatGPT to generate a summary, it could well contain information that their employer partner wouldn’t want exposed. Examples could be information gleaned from a leadership programme covering specific internal challenges and how the apprentices have applied their learning to that issue, or a project management apprentice talking about a sensitive project that isn’t yet in the public domain.

To address these risks, apprenticeship providers need AI tools that are built for their specific context – with data protection, compliance and academic standards at their core.

Aptem collaborates with providers to have in place secure, auditable AI solutions designed specifically for apprenticeship delivery. Partnership working ensures:

Secure AI solutions to prevent data and security breaches
Audit trails to demonstrate compliance and transparency
Human-in-the-loop solutions to prevent bias and uphold fairness
In-built compliance with regulatory requirements.

In this way, we can guarantee the compliant handling of publicly funded data, while AI tools designed for the apprenticeship sector maintain academic integrity and quality standards.

Providers need the confidence to use AI in the right way. The conversation should be one of opportunity, because there is significant potential to deliver efficiency gains and higher quality standards. At the same time, being responsible is equally important.

At present, neither Ofsted nor Ofqual has taken an overly prescriptive approach to the use of AI, but that may change if audits reveal widespread misuse.

Both bodies are balancing the need to embrace innovation with the equally important need to protect learners and preserve academic standards. The regulatory principles offer a clear framework for providers that demonstrates why shadow AI usage presents such a risk.

Providers who understand the dangers of shadow AI usage can proactively implement IT policies to support the proportionate use of AI. These policies will support the adoption of secure, compliant solutions, which can mitigate the risk of shadow usage.

The right policies and solutions allow apprenticeship providers to protect their data, reputation and academic standards while making the most of AI’s potential.

We’ll not alert Gen Z students to roles using dusty old job boards

It’s always disappointing to see once-successful businesses go into administration, but the recent collapse of Monster and CareerBuilder should serve as a wake-up call. In a rapidly changing labour market, no one is immune to disruption.

For training providers, the UK careers landscape has seen little innovation in 30 years. A new approach to recruiting apprentices isn’t just desirable – it’s overdue.

So it’s no surprise only 4.5 per cent of 16 to 18-year-old school-leavers become apprentices, despite a growing NEET (not in education, employment or training) crisis. Careers guidance in England simply isn’t working and it’s not equipped to meet the demands of the government’s industrial strategy.

Ministers appear to recognise this. Last month, the Department for Education announced it would start checking whether schools are complying with the Baker Clause, which requires them to give FE providers access to speak with pupils about post-16 options.

But despite this and a string of well-meaning initiatives, not to mention a mountain of investment, the needle has barely moved since 2018. It’s clear we need something radically different.

With exam season over, we’re now at the height of apprentice recruitment. At Remit Training we never struggle to find applicants for our automotive programmes. But we know our employer partners would benefit from a broader and more diverse talent pool.

Many recruits come from families already in the sector, which is no bad thing. But we also need to appeal to those outside the traditional pipeline. Take young women, for example. They remain underrepresented in automotive roles.

That’s why my heart lifted during a recent Sky F1 grid walk when the presenters interviewed Jodie, a former female apprentice with Mercedes who now works on engine recovery systems for Aston Martin. Her journey is a powerful reminder that university isn’t the only pathway into a high-profile motorsports career.

So, how do we find and inspire more Jodies?

For starters, Gen Z is finished with endlessly reworked CVs and carefully crafted cover letters that often lead nowhere. On our side, AI-generated applications are making it even harder to sift through candidates and identify those with real potential.

In our search for better solutions, we partnered with urfuture, a careers-tech disruptor that understands young people get their information from TikTok and mobile apps, not outdated job boards. Remit Training is the first provider to introduce the new app. It allows would-be apprentices to create a profile in under 10 minutes, avoiding the need to tweak a CV for every job.

Algorithms connect candidates to suitable roles

The platform uses matching algorithms to connect candidates with a genuine interest to suitable roles.

We’ve worked closely with partners to create a customised pathway for automotive and digital apprenticeships. That includes a mechanical reasoning test to help identify aptitude early. It’s short, accessible and non-intimidating so when we reach out to a candidate via a chat or video call, we already know they’re a good fit.

We’re also addressing one of the most common complaints from young applicants: lack of feedback. We’re introducing a system to ensure every unsuccessful candidate gets a proper response and constructive guidance.

This approach is built specifically for Gen Z and designed to support entry-level opportunities at levels 2 and 3. It arrives at a crucial moment: graduates are facing the toughest job market since 2018, and many are questioning whether university was the right choice. Now, more than ever, we must get careers guidance right so school and college leavers can make informed decisions about their futures.

Our new app allows Gen Z talent pools to gain careers advice from other young people in a method that works for their age group. A pilot, run with one employer client and supported by nine TikTok videos, resulted in over 900,000 views.

Could this be the answer to help schoolteachers reach out to all young people and add better knowledge, advice and guidance? After all, nearly everyone has a mobile phone!

National providers can invest in innovative, tech-enabled solutions in a way that local providers often can’t. That’s why we believe the DfE and devolved administrations must urgently abandon tired careers guidance models and adopt new, Gen Z-friendly tools which benefit learners, employers and providers everywhere.