I’m not going to quote Shakespeare at length, but many college leaders will feel they are suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune today.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported late last year that 37 per cent of colleges were operating in financial deficit in 2022-23, and 44 per cent of these colleges had been in deficit for at least three consecutive years.
My sense is that after five years or so of having slowed down – partly as a consequence of Covid – we will see an increase in the number of colleges that fall into difficulty. This could trigger more central government intervention, and potentially more mergers.
I have written before about how colleges could get on the front foot by conducting their own “College led SPA” (structure and prospects appraisal) but I haven’t seen much appetite in the sector for undertaking them recently.
Whereas 10 years ago there may have been a government policy aim to have fewer, larger colleges in England, I am unable to detect any national blueprint for FE today.
There may be a generalised feeling in government that a proliferation of providers is not ideal. But there is probably also an understanding that structural consolidation has natural limits.
We’ll see if a post-16 strategy changes that, but for now the improvement and intervention functions in government seem happy to allow providers to exist as currently configured, provided they are healthy in quality and financial terms.
So – for now – the most likely trigger for a merger remains organisational failure, government intervention, a diagnostic assessment that follows and a commissioner-led SPA that recommends a merger.
The key question is whether mergers actually work. Do they improve student outcomes and do local communities actually benefit?
There’s not much hard evidence on that front. Department for Education research in 2019 found no strong statistical evidence of college mergers leading to an improvement or deterioration of college performance.
Ofsted statistical analysis in 2023 found that since mid 2016, of those merged colleges that received their first full inspection, 81 per cent were ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. This was 16 per cent higher than the proportion judged that way prior to merging. However, those colleges that didn’t merge also improved, by similar percentage points.
Context is everything when it comes to mergers. The two London mergers I led as chair were necessary to secure the colleges’ futures, but they were very different cases.
The Kensington and Chelsea College (KCC) merger took place in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy. The college merged with a wonderful mainly adult education college, Morley College. And Morley definitively improved outcomes at KCC.
When I was chair in 2018, KCC extraordinarily received its fifth ‘requires improvement’ judgement. Morley College was judged ‘good’ in 2023, arresting years of poor outcomes at KCC.
The North Kensington Centre for Skills (as KCC is now named) is today a vibrant and thriving part of the local community – a fantastic transformation in just five years since the merger, and nearly eight since Grenfell.
Richmond upon Thames College (RuTC) was officially ‘good’ at the point of merger in early 2023. But years of circling around a merger had taken its toll on achievement and student experience.
RuTC merged with Harrow College and Uxbridge College, and HRUC (the merged group) has also just been judged ‘good’. HRUC’s leadership no doubt hoped to secure ‘outstanding,’ but the Ofsted report details progress made.
A key question was how the merger would work given the geographical distance between Richmond and Harrow and Uxbridge. Ofsted offers nothing to suggest that this has impacted negatively on the student experience at any campus.
However, it is a key question for future mergers. I would like to see more detailed surveys of parent and student opinions feeding into the merger due diligence process, to ensure there is a good cultural and student-experience ‘fit’ when a merger takes place across significant geographical distances.
It’s difficult to say whether mergers work on a policy level. But there will very likely be more of them.
I remain of the view that colleges should get on the front foot and run their own structure and prospects appraisals. It could be the most effective way for a college leadership to take arms against its sea of troubles, avoiding the slings and arrows coming down the line!
The number of academy-converted sixth form colleges is set to overtake standalone sixth forms for the first time – with seven awaiting a government decision on applications.
About a fifth have since merged with general FE colleges, 34 have converted to academy status and seven have live academisation bids.
If all applications are approved there will be just 31 standalone sixth form colleges left.
The trend highlights the diminishing appeal of being a standalone sixth form. The government’s pay snub to sixth form college teachers while funding a 5.5 per cent rise for their counterparts in 16-to-19 academies last year ignited strikes and a judicial review threat.
However, the change of government has caused uncertainty about the likelihood of future conversions, with one sixth form principal suggesting Labour had gone “lukewarm” on academisation.
What’s the appeal?
Paul Britton, chief executive officer of Wyke Sixth Form College in Hull, applied to set up a multi-academy trust with two secondary schools and an infant school last April but is still awaiting a decision.
He said the current funding system “incentivises” becoming a 16-to-19 academy as school budgets are less likely to be cut and academies don’t pay VAT that costs him upwards of £300,000 annually.
He told FE Week: “Sixth form colleges are at a crossroads where they either become an FE college or they become academies. The idea of being an incorporated sixth form is a hangover concept.”
Sixth form colleges are also held to account for meeting local skills needs through vocational courses despite many focusing on A-levels.
Another sixth form college principal awaiting a decision on academy conversion, who did not wish to be named, agreed financial security and local collaboration were drivers of conversion.
He said: “The recent FE teacher pay snub is just another example of the insecurities of being a sixth form.”
Labour’s approach to academisation appears to be “drifting and requires clarity”, the principal added.
Academies curbed
Labour’s new education bill has sparked criticism for attempting to curb academy freedoms, including on pay.
The bill also proposes to stop the enforced academisation of failing schools and instead introduce a “discretionary” duty that includes alternatives such as the involvement of regional improvement teams.
It will remove the legal presumption that new schools should be academies and allow local authorities to table their own proposals.
Schools and sixth form colleges with outstanding applications are also rapidly approaching the deadline for accessing a conversion support grant of £25,000 per school or college, which ends in February.
A government spokesperson told FE Week it will continue to consider applications from sixth form colleges that choose to convert or join a high-quality academy trust, where there is a strong case to do so.
According to DfE guidance, academy applications are ultimately decided by regional directors who consider each case “on its merits”.
Who wants to convert?
The most recent academy conversion applications have come from Hills Road Sixth Form College in Cambridge, Scarborough Sixth Form College in North Yorkshire, and Leyton Sixth Form College in East London.
According to Leyton’s governing board minutes from September last year, the exclusion of sixth form colleges from the July pay deal “raised serious concerns”.
To “maintain financial health and provide effective, impactful sixth form education” the board voted unanimously to academise with William Morris Sixth Form in Hammersmith.
Earlier this month the College of Richard Collyer in Horsham, West Sussex, launched a public consultation on the formation of a multi-academy trust with a nearby secondary school after the Department for Education approved its application in November.
Wilberforce College in Hull, which hopes to form a trust with Withernsea High School, is still waiting for a decision after submitting an application in August 2023.
Sixth Form Colleges Association deputy chief executive James Kewin said the interest in academisation “continues to grow” and it is possible that this year will see convertor sixth form colleges “outnumber FE-sector sixth form colleges for the first time”.
He told FE Week the main drivers of academisation have changed little since 2015 – they include a desire to work more closely with academies or other sixth form colleges to drive up standards, improve efficiency and create CPD opportunities.
Sixth form colleges became incorporated bodies under the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, which brought independence benefits.
But this status means they face the same funding inequalities and local skills accountability measures as general further education colleges.
Kewin said that since sixth form colleges and general FE colleges were reclassified as public sector bodies in 2022, “many sixth form colleges report they find it difficult to identify the benefits of remaining in the FE sector as bureaucracy has increased, funding inequalities have not been addressed and policy continues to be driven by a narrowly-defined skills agenda”.
At Heart of Worcestershire College we believe education should go beyond technical training and academic achievements. In today’s jobs market, employers increasingly value a combination of technical expertise and soft skills – those vital abilities that shape effective communication, innovation, teamwork and problem-solving.
With this in mind we’ve introduced our 5Cs initiative to prepare students for the realities of the modern workplace and help them thrive in their careers.
Why the 5Cs?
The 5Cs framework incorporates critical thinking, creativity, communication, collaboration and company behaviours.
It is the product of collaboration between students, staff and employers, plus insights drawn from our area’s local skills improvement plan (LSIP).
These efforts highlighted a growing need for employability skills that complement technical know-how.
Feedback from businesses highlighted the demand for candidates who excel in a range of skills alongside their qualifications.
They have long expressed the need for candidates who not only have technical proficiency but also possess a wider set of skills that demonstrate they are ready for work. The LSIP reinforced these findings, identifying core skills as essential to enhancing productivity and supporting economic growth.
By introducing the 5Cs, HoW College is not only addressing these workforce demands but is fostering a new generation of adaptable, confident and work-ready individuals.
Each 5C focuses on core skills essential for success in the workplace:
Critical thinking
Research, problem solving, analysis, scrutiny, decision making, diversity of opinion.
Creativity
Design, innovation, resourcefulness, adaptability and idea generation.
Communication
Writing and listening, digital, personal reflection, summarising, presenting and negotiation.
Collaboration
Teamwork, inclusivity, participation, engagement, interpersonal skills and conflict resolution.
Company behaviours
Time management, professionalism, accountability, reliability.
How it works
The 5Cs initiative is integrated into every aspect of the student experience. These core skills are not taught as standalone modules but are embedded across the curriculum.
Within classroom settings, students engage in projects that require collaboration, creative problem-solving and real-world application of critical thinking.
In vocational and technical courses, practical assignments mirror workplace scenarios where communication and company behaviours are as important as technical competence.
For example, bricklaying and plumbing students designed and built a Christmas tree as part of a project. This activity delivered lots of problems for them to overcome – they had to use critical thinking and creativity for solutions, collaborate with peers and agree the correct sequence of design and construction.
Regular feedback from local employers ensures the 5Cs initiative remains aligned with industry needs and expectations.
And to help students articulate these skills to future employers, the college has invested in a platform that supports them to assess their progress against the 5Cs, capture their journey towards their chosen career and support them in preparing for job opportunities.
Who benefits?
Students are at the heart of the initiative. By developing these skills, they become more employable and adaptable to a variety of roles and industries. These attributes are particularly important in today’s job market, where the ability to adapt and upskill is essential for a long and successful career.
Employers will also benefit. The 5Cs address the skills gap identified by local businesses, providing them with candidates who are ready to meet the demands of modern workplaces. As a result the initiative contributes to regional economic growth and productivity.
The initiative also reinforces HoW College’s reputation as a forward-thinking institution. By embedding the 5Cs into our ethos and mission we’re setting a benchmark for preparing students not just for jobs, but for impactful, fulfilling careers.
The 5Cs initiative for our students is also endorsed and supported by the Herefordshire and Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce.
Its chief executive, Sharon Smith, described it as a “fantastic step forward in addressing the skills gap that many employers are currently facing”.
As we implement the 5Cs, we’re excited about the impact it will have on our students, our college and the wider community.
The AoA recently conducted its Big Apprentice Survey 2024, gathering insights from over 2,000 apprentices across the UK.
Our report provides insight for those working with apprentices into the impact and value of the schemes, the challenges encountered by apprentices and their perspectives on improvements needed.
Outside of Department for Education surveys, it’s a significant data set. But more than that; it is the voice of apprentices themselves.
The survey highlights what apprentices value most: practical, hands-on learning combined with clear career progression.
Three-quarters (74 per cent) value the ability to gain work experience at the same time as a qualification. Career progression is the next most valued benefit of an apprenticeship, cited by over half of respondents (51 per cent).
They also report significant personal growth (78 per cent), a career foundation (59 per cent) and development of enhanced employability skills (57%) as key advantages.
These findings point to apprentices seeing apprenticeships as a strategic investment in their future, not just acquiring a qualification. Interestingly, these benefits are universal; we found no major differences in the responses from apprentices across different ages, levels or stages of apprenticeship.
One of the most important findings of the survey is that over a third (36 per cent) of apprentices believe they would not be working in their current industry without access to their apprenticeship. This rises to 40 per cent for those who received free school meals, highlighting the role of apprenticeships in promoting social mobility.
Listen to apprentices
Gathering direct feedback from apprentices offers us a unique and essential perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the schemes and helps us to understand and address the factors that contribute to a positive experience.
Despite the current consultations, debates, and discussions about proposed skills and apprenticeship policy, apprentices are not as actively involved as they should be.
Their experiences can benefit future learners, yet they are often excluded from these conversations. Apprentices should have a seat at the table alongside employers, providers, and government.
Apprenticeships are challenging, and while it’s true they shouldn’t be easy, some believe apprentices should simply push through.
The survey reveals the most common challenges apprentices encounter include managing work/life balance (36 per cent), time management (33 per cent), and completing and recording off-the-job training (32 per cent). And these strongly correlate with the reasons why 62 per cent of apprentices reported feeling stressed or anxious in the last 12 months, with work/life balance (42 per cent) being the main cause.
Here we see differences in apprentices; the survey identifies that respondents with learning difficulties, those at higher apprenticeship levels, and those who are approaching their end-point assessment tend to experience higher levels of stress.
So, what can be done to support apprentices?
In their own words they told us:
Better mentorship programmes, clear career progression paths, flexible working arrangements and improved communication are highly desired from employers.
Enhanced learning support, tailored study options, improved communication with employers and reduced administrative burdens were cited as aspects for training providers.
Increased funding for apprenticeships, apprentice subsidies and mental health resources are needed from government.
Specifically for the government, apprentices shared their reactions to policy changes announced in the autumn Budget, revealing a mix of optimism and concern. Some, for example, view the increase in minimum wage positively whereas others worry it may negatively impact the number of apprentices that smaller companies hire, and call for incentives to help these businesses manage the burden.
Overall, the findings highlight the critical importance of apprentice wellbeing and the necessity for comprehensive support systems that address the practical aspects of apprenticeships, helping to manage workload and reduce stress.
Incorporating these elements into working practices and policy design is vital to ensure a positive experience that leads to successful outcomes.
We hope the survey results will prompt discussions among employers, training providers and government bodies to work together to enhance the apprentice experience.
After all, providing a better experience leads to more successful outcomes, deters people from quitting, and maximises return on investment – and who doesn’t want that?
England’s biggest exam board has been fined £250,000 after teachers who drew up its assessments could have known which papers their pupils would be taking.
Pearson told regulator Ofqual that it did not follow “its own policies designed to ensure the confidentiality” of papers.
It also failed “to identify conflicts of interest” among 195 GCSE, A-level and BTEC examiners, who it employed “as tutors at schools where students sat” the assessments under the National Tutoring Programme.
Amanda Swann, Ofqual’s executive director for general qualifications, stated: “Our rules protect students taking regulated qualifications including GCSE, A Level and BTECs.
“We will take action when our rules are breached, and the interests of students are put at risk.”
Risk to exam ‘integrity’
Swann added there was “no evidence of any direct impact on students”. But Pearson “failed to guard against conflicts of interest and breaches of confidentiality and we intend to fine them accordingly”.
The incidents occurred in 2023. Six of them, Ofqual said, related to Pearson failing “to follow its own policies designed to ensure the confidentiality of live assessment materials, thereby creating a risk to the integrity of exams”.
In one case, “a teacher at one of Pearson’s centres was also a senior associate involved in the production of the final assessment for one of” its A-level papers.
The firm’s policy in such instances is to produce “multiple possible question papers” to ensure they do not know “with certainty” which of the exams will be used.
“Pearson confirmed that it did not follow this process for this GCE paper,” Ofqual said.
Papers remarked
Pearson “identified a similar failing in that multiple versions of an exam paper in another qualification were also not produced for summer 2023, despite the policy criterion being met”.
Multiple papers for four other qualifications were produced in a separate instance. But Pearson admitted “internal failures stemming from human error meant that the senior team could nonetheless have identified which version of the exam paper would be used”.
The exam board reported that 195 of its examiners in summer 2023 also “carried out tutoring in schools (under contract to Pearson) as part of the National Tutoring Programme”.
In all, they marked “7,244 exam responses by students at schools, where they had potential conflict of interest”. Any compromised papers were remarked by other examiners before grades were awarded.
“These individuals had not declared the tutoring activity in connection with their role as an examiner,” Ofqual said.
“No cross-reference or verification had been undertaken by Pearson which itself held all relevant information.”
Review launched
Ofqual stressed Pearson “co-operated fully” with its “enforcement process”. It admitted breaching “its conditions of recognition – which all awarding organisations are legally required to follow for regulated qualifications”.
Pearson subsequently agreed “to pay a monetary penalty in the sum of £250,000”, along with the regulator’s “reasonable legal costs”.
A spokesperson for the exam board said as soon it “identified the potential conflicts of interest in 2023 we notified Ofqual, took swift corrective action and resolved the issue”.
A “detailed review”, conducted alongside the regulator, found “no evidence of any adverse impact on students or schools and colleges”.
“While these events took place following a period of unprecedented disruption due to the pandemic, we acknowledge that established processes were not followed,” they continued.
“We have updated our systems and continue to invest in enhancing and automating our processes to improve controls and reduce risk.”
Correction: This article was amended shortly after publication to say teachers ‘could have known’ which papers would be taken
As the prime minister highlighted in his speech last week, AI is already transforming our lives. The technology is unequivocally changing the way businesses operate across all sectors. Not ‘in the future’, but right now.
A definition of AI (by AI!) is: “The study of how computers may learn and behave intelligently, such as by solving problems and picking up new skills.”
There is clear alignment here with what we do, and deliver, in the FE sector. Colleges equip people with new skills, help them to solve problems and then apply this knowledge to the real world of work.
The fact FE appears to be ahead of the curve on AI is therefore no surprise. As this huge, technological juggernaut races towards us all, many colleges are embracing it, recognising its potential to improve provision and better prepare students for the future.
As Hull College demonstrated at its fantastic AI conference, this technology is shaping the future of teaching, learning and career preparation.
But managing and using these new technologies safely and ethically is a significant task – of which much responsibility is falling to governing boards. Governors need to be forward-thinking with a willingness to accept change. They need to recognise AI’s benefits to teaching staff in terms of reducing workload for example, yet have an acute awareness of the risks, such as data protection, cybersecurity and equality.
AI is enabling us to do things in a very different way right across the business. In terms of governance it is already helping us to streamline administrative tasks, such as generating meeting minutes and actions.
More widely, AI provides the capability to analyse huge rafts of data quickly. This can be incredibly helpful, helping colleges tailor provision and courses very specifically, which could help close achievement gaps.
However, this interaction between systems will create a complex web of data sharing, which will impact data protection and heighten cybersecurity risks.
And here is where AI ethics comes in, which for me is the most significant challenge for college governance – and indeed for leaders across all industries.
AI ethics issues range from data responsibility and privacy, to trust and inclusion. How will data be collected and used? And how can we ensure AI will support social mobility and not exacerbate inequalities through lack of access?
Accountability is also key. For example, if a college uses chatbots to speak to students and the wrong advice is provided, who is ultimately responsible?
There is also the potential for bias and/or discrimination. AI bias can occur due to human biases skewing an algorithm (or the original data) that an AI system uses to make decisions.
In an FE setting, this could lead to learners being inadvertently disadvantaged if the systems making ‘decisions’ about their progression pathways (for example) or forecasting their performance, have inbuilt bias.
Boards should consider the following:
Setting up an ethics committee to focus on the issues arising from AI rollouts. This could be an additional function of the audit and risk committee, or curriculum and standards committee. The checks and balances governors provide must extend to the use and implementation of AI – ensuring compliance within set frameworks, the monitoring of risks and fair access for all.
Understand, quantify and address risks around data protection and cybersecurity. Data privacy policies, access controls and data minimisation are all needed to protect people’s privacy and colleges’ digital infrastructure. Governors need to understand the risks and ensure safety measures are being taken.
Being aware of how AI is being used across areas of the business via reporting frameworks from college leadership teams. What tools are being introduced for staff/students, at what cost and with what support? Knowing this will enable governors to consider the impact of AI on the college community, in terms of wellbeing and efficiency. It will also provide the necessary level of accountability in all areas – whether that’s within finance, curriculum or communications.
The government has set a clear ambition for the UK to lead the AI revolution. Colleges can be at the forefront of this – but governing boards have a key role to play in ensuring ethical standards are upheld.
Draft legislation that brings the curtain down on IfATE is drawing closer with the draft bill emerging from the report stage in the House of Lords imminently.
I have yet to meet anyone who does not see benefit in creating an organisation that analyses and coalesces skills demand across the economy and aligns this with funding priorities.
IfATE was never designed to do this so Skills England could make a material difference if it gets the tools to do the job.
What IfATE does do, however, is generate and amend occupational standards, apprenticeships and end-point assessment plans, and approve technical qualifications and enact T Levels.
Moreover, these functions have an immediate impact on the fortunes of learners and apprentices – and therefore the skills agenda, the economy and the push for growth. It’s now that the nation needs the uplift.
The draft legislation returns the authority for the delivery, or delegation, of these operational functions to the education secretary, and creates latitude for them to determine what standards and assessment plans are prepared, and who prepares and reviews them.
Whilst we are yet to discover who will be the chair and chief executive of Skills England, there is little doubt it will be delivering IfATE’s current operational duties from April.
Other than this, however, we do not know much about what the future holds for IfATE’s critical operational delivery functions – the first Skills England report was silent on the subject.
A lot has been learnt during the last seven years of IfATE, including things to be improved upon. Skills England is the future and presents a rare opportunity for significant intervention at system-level.
It will be different from IfATE, so won’t run the same way in the longer term. Change is inevitable.
Seven opportunities that a system-level evolution might usefully deliver
Priority alignment across the DfE, Ofqual, Skills England, local skills improvement plans and devolved administrations.
Reduced time to generate an occupational standard, with improved collaborative working bringing together wider perspectives on what is needed.
A more manageable apprenticeship portfolio – over half of the apprenticeship standards available today for starts are in construction and the built environment, engineering and manufacturing, and health and science.
Accessing the professional knowledge of a broader range of stakeholders in apprenticeship and qualification design – including from the qualifications and assessment industry which has knowledge of best practice and value for money.
Speedier revisions that require less capacity – both full reviews and more minor adjustments ‘in flight’.
The accommodation of future skills in a meaningful and practical fashion, and the accommodation of localism.
Ensuring we use the best learning option, which in some cases will be a qualification and/or upskilling accredited modules rather than an apprenticeship, and that we simplify the current mandatory qualification policy.
The proposed additions to the education secretary’s powers provide the means of bypassing shortcomings that underlie these recommendations, but they do not amount to an all-encompassing fix.
Lots was learnt during IfATE, including things to be improved
And rushing to enact these changes for April 1 brings risk. Rapid change would be extremely difficult, if not unreasonable, for a sector still recovering from Covid, high interest rates and facing a hike in National Insurance costs.
Delivering system-level change gets more difficult as time goes on – it is tough to make changes when things are up and running.
It seems reasonable that the programme should get going early in Skills England’s tenure, be appropriately paced, and access the experience that abounds in the sector. The programme also needs to be resourced, including with time and focus from the leadership of Skills England.
Let’s not lose sight of the critical operational functions that IfATE delivers in our enthusiasm for greater clarity on demand.
We must also see the migration as a systems-level improvement opportunity before new ways of working ossify, but not rush it.
If a sensibly paced and resourced programme is announced sooner rather than later, it would build confidence that change will be genuinely progressive and collaborative.
The excitement is palpable as first-year level 3 esports students at NSCG’s Newcastle campus are told they’re about to spend today’s lesson playing their favourite shooter game, VALORANT.
The class of 16 and 17 year olds (three girls, 17 boys) are paired up and placed in deathmatch mode, with one student playing while the other stands behind them, counting up their hits, misses and headshots. They are surprised to see their lecturer, Connaire Delaney-Mcnulty, playing alongside them, but report a GG (esports slang for ‘good game’).
Some people are cynical about esports in further education. Are students just here to play video games? And is there really any prospect of a dream job at the end?
I want to find out if the doubters have grounds for concern.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, Delaney-Mcnulty says, game-playing is only permitted during about half a dozen of his esports sessions a year, with much of the course spent honing entrepreneurial, digital, marketing and video production skills.
His students’ cheers turn to groans as they now have to add their game data to Excel spreadsheets to calculate their kill-death ratios; demonstrating their maths and digital skills.
“We’ve taken an activity which they find fun and created meaningful analysis from it – the learning is then much more impactful,” says Delaney-Mcnulty.
Esports provision at Hull College
Numbers soar
There are 114 FE colleges offering esports provision. Given esports has only been recognised as a qualification since 2020, its growth is monumental – by 2023 more than 10,000 young people had completed courses.
Courses range from an online esports BTEC intended to engage home-schooled youngsters, to Pearson’sselection of level 5 higher national diplomas.
At its launch last September, Freya Thomas Monk, Pearson’s managing director of vocational qualifications and training, said “many people don’t realise” there is “a wealth of career opportunities around the esports sector, which calls upon a whole range of supporting roles and services”.
But others disagree.
The UK esports industry was valued at around £111.5 million in 2020. It is projected to reach £202 million this year and grow by 5 per cent a year to 2029. Three-quarters of its market is esports betting.
However, since the pandemic ended, many esports companies have axed staff.
British esports firm Vexed Gaming, known for its Apex Legends, Counter-Strike and VALORANT rosters, collapsed last year, and another, Into the Breach, announced on Monday it was winding down operations. UK-based Guild Esports was bought last year by a US company after experiencing financial difficulties.
Internationally, the popular live streaming platform Twitch (owned by Amazon) axed more than 500 jobs last year. Epic Games (owner of Fortnite) shed 800 jobs in 2023 and communications service Discord axed 170 staff last year. There are many more examples.
Grant Rousseau, global director of esports and operations for Team Falcons and winner of the inaugural Esports World Cup, finds it “scary” that around 600 to 700 young people a year are completing esports courses, but there are (he estimates) fewer than 40 people in the UK working full time on a reasonable salary in the industry itself.
He points out that much of the global esports growth is being driven by a “huge explosion” in China, Korea, other European countries and the Middle East. The inaugural Olympic Esports Games takes place this year in Saudi Arabia.
“Realistically, the UK esports industry is extremely behind the rest of the world when it comes to job opportunities, legitimacy and growth of the industry,” he says. “Our jobs are extremely minimal.”
FE Week found 1,801 jobs advertised on the world’s biggest gaming and esports jobs platform, Hitmarker, of which 52 were UK-based (and not remote) and eight were entry-level (all as interns). Elsewhere online, the only UK vacancies we could find were for a partnerships director (for Fnatic), esports tutors and as a volunteer content writer for British Esports.
Rousseau believes some universities and colleges are using esports courses as a “get rich quick” scheme and attract students by highlighting the potential for UK jobs in esports which do not exist.
“It’s a horrible situation,” he says.
Connaire Delaney-Mcnulty with a student
False marketing?
All the FE college websites offering esports that FE Week looked at highlighted the opportunity to work in the industry.
Burnley College’s website informed readers about the size of the growing global esports market, saying “you can be at the forefront of this exciting field with our comprehensive esports course”.
Loughborough College tells prospective students that “as esports has grown, so too have the career options available”.
Runshaw College says its esports courses “will give you a range of experience and skills to progress to university and gain employment in the rapidly growing esports industry”.
Rousseau says while the first few universities and colleges offering esports courses did so for “legitimate reasons” because “some jobs in the industry needed filling”, that is no longer the case with such an abundance of provision on offer.
None of England’s local skills improvement plans mention esports.
Many who study esports in FE progress to an esports degree. But Rousseau claims he would “never hire someone with an esports degree”, instead seeking someone with skills related to the job at hand – with a “marketing, graphic design or business degree”.
His advice to those seeking a career in esports is not to do an esports course, but to study something they are “good at and enjoy” instead, such as graphic design, marketing or sports psychology.
Esports provision at New Swindon College
Jobs of the future
But Debra Gray, principal of Hull College, points out that careers in esports are often “location independent” and that although the UK industry is currently “embryonic”, “as it grows it will eclipse actual sport” in size, with streaming and content creation being “jobs of the future”.
“Fifty years ago, there were no social media marketers,” she says. “Now, you can’t recruit one for love nor money. You’ve got to be really switched onto those jobs of the future and start training for them early. And gaming is a multi-billion pound industry. We would be crackers not to help students find their place in it.”
Last year, Michael, 26, took out an advanced learner loan to enrol in Hull’s level three esports course, hoping to become a content creator.
He said he finds the course “engaging” and “business heavy”, as it is “very much about the industry of esports – coaching, entrepreneurship, making teams, how games work, strategies, and content creation. It’s a wild thing, all in one package”.
Michael knows it will take “a bit of luck” for him to achieve his dream, but adds: “I feel like with this course, I can build myself with those skill sets – and for other avenues in the esports industry.”
Christopher Baxter, New Swindon College
Engaging the disengaged
Rousseau often visits colleges and universities to help esports students find opportunities, and despite his concerns about esports as a full-time course, he acknowledges it “can absolutely be a tool to help keep students engaged with their work, to foster teamwork, discipline, nutrition and positive behaviour”.
Similarly, New Swindon College esports lecturer Chris Baxter says esports has “proven to be a powerful tool for engaging learners. By studying a subject they are passionate about, students feel motivated to attend college and succeed”.
Rob Forrester and Ben Lomas, co-programme leads for UAL level 3 Esports: Content Creation and Production course at Bournemouth & Poole College, admit they were “sceptical” when their college introduced esports provision in 2021. But they “quickly realised its potential as an educational platform”.
They add: “By connecting with students’ passion for gaming we’ve been able to teach them practical, transferable skills with impressive results.”
The programme’s “unique facilities” and the “engaging atmosphere” in esports classrooms generates “significant interest at open events”.
Delaney-Mcnulty acknowledges that jobs in the UK esports sector (which he previously worked in himself) “are not always long term”. But he sees esports courses as a “catalyst” to engage disengaged young people.
“Esports is their passion, and our role being the educators is making sure we’re turning that passion into something useful,” he says.
“It’s those who might not have engaged with a traditional school education who are excelling.”
Esports players playing competitive MOBA PvP top down view computer game
Transferrable skills
Delaney-Mcnulty teaches a level 3 module on shout casting (commentating on games). Although jobs in shout casting are hard to come by, Delaney-Mcnulty sees it as “helping them in public speaking, pronunciation and expressing themselves, all skills that you need in all kinds of work situations”.
Meanwhile, Nathan Horton, an esports lecturer at Shipley College, believes though the number of UK jobs in esports is “not massive”, the BTEC he teaches gives students “broad skills” that “can lead into jobs within the [broader] digital industry”.
NSCG esports student at this year’s Bett edtech conference in London
Esports culture
Like many colleges, New Swindon College has seen its esports course enrolments rise successively each year, prompting the launch of an HND course this September.
Baxter puts the courses’ popularity down to students’ desire to compete in the British Esports Student Champs (BESC), a PC-based video game competition between around 200 schools and colleges, involving 600 students.
Martin Birch-Foster, who teaches IT and esports at St Vincent College, believes the competitions are of particular benefit to the college’s SEND learners, who “didn’t always get the chance to compete in more traditional sports”.
SEND learners were better able to “regulate their emotions” when they lost a game than with traditional sports, he says.
“It’s a very inclusive environment. Anyone can play, it doesn’t matter your gender, ethnicity, or disabilities.”
Many of those who teach and support esports provision are passionate gamers themselves. They include Hull principal Gray, who sometimes has Twitch open on one of her screens to watch her esports students “play in real-time while I’m working”.
Horton was a professional FIFA esports player (ranked in the top 100 globally) before joining Shipley.He uses the stories from his gaming career to motivate his learners and tells me: “Students find that cool and it brings it to life a bit more.”
Esports students playing competitively at Bett edtech conference 2025
Hardware costs
While some colleges fork out up to £230,000 for esports gaming lounges, Delaney-Mcnulty says “fancy classrooms” are “good marketing tools” but are not really needed to teach the courses.
“For a very small centre, a few mid-level gaming PCs is all you really need. Once you’ve got those facilities in place, it can provide a safe environment for students who might not have been interested in a traditional course.”
Shipley College has the latest consoles, recently bought 15 to 20 new gaming PCs for around £2,000 each and is looking to buy an F1 gaming rig.
St Vincent College was initially gifted laptops with the hardware required to run games at high graphics settings which standard classroom computers lack, estimated to cost around £500 each.
But not everyone in education is a fan of esports classroom set-ups.
Scott Hayden, head of digital at learning at Basingstoke College of Technology (which has chosen not to offer esports), recalls being put off after observing an esports class where students in “leather-bound gaming chairs” were facing screens, rather than their teacher.
“ I just felt I couldn’t stand by it, with our message on digital wellbeing. That’s my bias… I’m very open to being convinced, but it doesn’t feel like it’s there yet,” he adds.
Similarly, Harlow College principal Karen Spencer decided not to run the provision, after “quite a moral social discussion about it”.
She says: “It’s a bit like horse racing or motor racing. I’m not convinced by the careers in it. I think students are better doing games design, which we do offer, because then you get programming, coding and design skills.”
Esports at New Swindon College
Advance of AI
Another challenge facing those teaching esports is keeping up with the pace of technological change. Delaney-Mcnulty says that “even without AI, the esports curriculum was out of date the moment it was written”.
Plus, some of the skills esports teaches can now be done by AI, such as video production.
Students value the exam-free, assignment-based structure of courses. But this makes it tempting for them to turn to AI tools. For that reason, Delaney-Mcnulty says he “strays away from purely written assessments… because they’re very easy to throw into an AI generator”.
Defying stereotypes
Lomas and Forrester’s students find the toughest part of the course is “breaking the stigma that esports is just playing games”.
One student, Kabe Brickhill, commented in a college YouTube video that “people think we’re just messing about in a classroom”.
In fact, lecturers say that esports courses involve significant amounts of work compared to other courses. Michael finds the workload “overwhelming” at times.
Approved esports centres across the UK (Source: British Esports Association)
Baxter says students “find the workload challenging, particularly managing multiple assignments and meeting high standards which often involve extensive writing”.
However, “they value how the coursework connects to real-world applications, such as designing jerseys and hoodies”.
Delaney-Mcnulty believes esports learners are less prone to gaming addiction because they are taught the risks and how to control their screen time, though he has had to identify gamers who “shouldn’t be on the course”.
After students join he says they are “monitored” and “sometimes, tough conversations” are had.
Similarly, Birch-Foster says initially his college “struggled a little” with having young people taking the course “because they just wanted to play games”.
“Unfortunately, not everyone knew what esports was”, he explains. The following year, the college spent more time initially “talking with parents” about what the course entailed.
Michael admits that his screen time has to be “managed from time to time”.
“I’m trying to space it out so I’m not glued to the screen constantly, and I’m keeping aware of my wellbeing.”
The number of panellists who investigate teacher misconduct will double ahead of legislation extending banning powers to further education.
The Teacher Regulation Agency (TRA) has launched an advert for 150 volunteers who will decide the fate of teachers accused of serious misconduct, including imposing lifetime bans.
There are currently 157 panellists, who are unpaid and must have worked as a teacher in the past five years, on the TRA roster.
FE Week understands the hiring spree will replace only a small number of current members who are coming to the end of their standard five-year term – meaning there could be around 300 panellists at the Department for Education’s disposal.
Meanwhile, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, proposes to expand the scope of the TRA to teachers employed within FE, independent training providers (ITPs) and online education providers.
Policy notes for the bill published this week said the process in which the TRA operates will continue “in the same way” but it is “important the teacher misconduct regime keeps in step with current policy and practice in the different ways that young people are now being educated”.
It added: “Bringing more settings within scope of the regime would enable the secretary of state to consider misconduct across the broad range of education settings.”
The TRA expansion is expected to come into force in September 2026.
Expanded function and budget?
The TRA has faced criticism for letting its caseload pile high, causing teachers facing allegations to wait up to eight years for a hearing.
FE leaders have expressed concern over the TRA’s capacity to handle additional cases coming from colleges and training providers following the expansion of its powers.
The TRA’s latest accounts show staff costs have swelled since the agency’s inception in 2018, largely due to increased staff capacity to “manage” its misconduct caseload.
In 2023-24, £4.8 million was spent on staff due to higher average staff numbers. It had an average of 96 workers last year, nearly a fifth more than the previous year and 39 per cent higher than in 2019-20.
Departmental spending for the TRA will be set out this summer when the multi-year spending review concludes, setting out budgets up to the 2028-29 financial year.
FE panellists needed
Once an initial investigation deems misconduct allegations against a teacher are serious enough, the three-person TRA panel attend in-person hearings. They then make a recommendation to the education secretary about whether a prohibition order is required, which bans the accused from teaching.
The TRA panellist advert states: “Would you like to help protect pupils and uphold confidence in teachers?
“Having enough panellists with education sector experience and the right skills is essential for the TRA to effectively regulate the teaching profession.”
The TRA is looking for two types of people to join its three-member professional conduct panels: teacher panellists are required to have experience in a school, sixth-form college, children’s home or 16 to 19 academy in England.
Meanwhile, for lay panellists, the TRA is looking to recruit people with experience working in FE, ITPs, and accredited online education providers.
The third panel member could either be a teacher or a lay panellist.
The position is voluntary and will require successful panellists to commit between 12 to 20 days per year to attend in-person hearings at TRA’s head office in Coventry.
The TRA currently pays schools up to £250 per day for the “difficulties and impact” of releasing a teacher. The DfE did not confirm whether the TRA will reimburse FE providers too.
Panellists will serve no more than two terms, with each term lasting between three and five years and no more than 10 years in total.
