Diversity initiatives are happening across the FE sector, reflecting the need – as highlighted in this article by JTL’s Clair Bradley – to address gender imbalances, particularly in the trades.

But my doctoral research into why young women choose engineering and trades routes shows that raising the visibility of male-dominated careers to girls and young women should not be the destination, but the starting point.

Showing girls a pink hard hat or a welding torch won’t shift entrenched participation patterns unless we also build plausible and viable spaces for them to belong, succeed, and be recognised on their own terms.

In interviews I conducted with young women at a large FE college, one consistent insight emerged: careers become thinkable and doable through layered social experiences at home, school and college, not through one-off interventions.

In my thesis I frame choice-making through three lenses: visible, plausible, and viable. Visibility is about bringing options into view; plausibility is about aligning those options with a young woman’s sense of self, values and identity; viability is about connecting skills, pathways and capital (social, cultural and institutional) so progress is attainable and recognised.

When FE providers fixate on visibility alone, they inadvertently treat girls as observers in a world designed for someone else. Our project in FE then is to invite participation, legitimise presence, and empower young women in male-dominated contexts.

This means reframing how we talk about trades and engineering qualifications.

Several participants I interviewed articulated their motivations in unexpected ways. Brickwork was a “creative craft” and plumbing was a “caring, socially useful vocation”. These are not soft glosses on tough jobs; they are legitimate dimensions of labour that many young women found compelling.

They offer broader narratives that reflect the full reality of the work: creativity, community impact, problem-solving, and systems thinking alongside technical skill. Doing this gives girls more ways to imagine themselves in a role without having to deny femininity or adopt a “tomboy” identity to justify being there.

Tokenistic gestures like a ‘Women in Trades/Engineering’ day can backfire. They risk communicating that women are an exception, or worse, a diversity goal to be met. What works instead is small, sustained practice:

• Marketing that names values, not just tools. Highlight creativity, care, social contribution and problem-solving alongside technical competence.
• Open events that widen the scope. Stop targeting only “girls who are good at maths” and start engaging those who enjoy design, making, fixing and finding creative solutions.
• Train all FE staff in gender-aware practice, challenging gender-blind approaches and everyday sexism.
• Group female learners where possible and create peer/mentor support networks.
•  Audit workshop and classroom cultures, ensuring fair task allocation, inclusive language and clear reporting routes for issues.

Most critically, FE must shift from gender-blind to gender-aware practice. In my research, some trades and engineering tutors took pride in claiming “all learners are the same.” In reality, this can lead to young women encountering lower expectations, and everyday sexism disguised as banter.

Gender-neutral rhetoric can mask gendered cultures. Gender-aware inductions, staff training and mentoring are practical tools to tackle the hidden curriculum, which includes language in workshops, allocation of tasks, assumptions about physical strength and who gets stretched versus who gets sidelined.

Pairing women where possible, facilitating cross-programme tutorials and establishing peer and alumni networks are inexpensive, high-impact steps that address belonging.

We should also not underestimate parents’ roles, as many girls’ choices were anchored in home practices such as exposure to tools. Colleges should deliberately involve parents in open events and guidance, as co-constructors of plausibility. If home life remains firmly bounded by traditional gender expectations, then non-traditional pathways rarely feel plausible.

None of this avoids the harder issue: misogyny and sexism exist in classrooms and workshops. FE leaders can and should equip tutors and support teams with tools and expectations. Challenge sexist banter, set equal tasks, use inclusive language, recognise gendered microaggressions and maintain safe learning spaces.

If we want diversity across male-dominated qualifications and careers, we must move beyond visibility and build spaces that make women’s presence plausible and their progress viable.

Diversity won’t arrive through banners; it will be built in the workshop, in the timetable and in the language we use.

Parliament is debating the merits of introducing a statutory duty of care for higher education providers. The dicussion has been prompted by years of pressure from families and student campaigners, including ForThe100, and is being amplified by groups organising around sexual violence and institutional accountability.

It is tempting in FE and skills to see this as an HE issue. But that would be a mistake. Even if any new legal duty is initially framed around HE, the expectations that sit behind it will travel quickly through the rest of the system, including FE colleges without HE provision and independent training providers.

Under the proposal, a statutory duty of care would place a legal obligation on institutions to take reasonable steps to protect students from harm, including harassment, sexual violence and serious welfare risks.

The trigger would not have to be a formal complaint, but whether the institution knew, or ought to have known, that a learner was at risk.

This goes further than current regulatory requirements. HE providers are already subject to Office for Students conditions on complaints handling and harassment and sexual misconduct.

Those requirements focus on having effective processes in place. Duty of care would test whether an institution’s actions meet a legal standard of reasonableness in preventing and responding to harm. That distinction matters, and recent events outside education underline why.

Allegations of widespread sexual harassment at McDonald’s UK, involving large numbers of young workers and apprentices, have prompted legal action, union intervention and government-facilitated mediation.

The central question being tested there is not whether policies existed, but whether the organisation took reasonable steps to prevent harm and respond consistently when risks were known. That is precisely the territory a statutory duty of care in education seeks to occupy.

That same question is now being asked, in a different form, of education providers responsible for both young and adult learners.

Many FE colleges delivering HE are registered with the OfS. Others deliver HE through franchise or validation arrangements. In both cases, partner universities will expect equivalent standards of learner protection across the whole delivery chain. Once universities face heightened accountability for student safety, weaker practice in partner colleges becomes a reputational and contractual risk.

But the impact will not stop with HE provision.

FE colleges already carry statutory safeguarding duties for under-18 learners, and Ofsted tests safeguarding culture, leadership oversight and how providers identify and respond to risk.

As national debate sharpens expectations around adult learner safety, it will become increasingly difficult to justify weaker arrangements for adult FE learners. The expectation may not be written in the same legislation, but it will surface through inspection, governance scrutiny and public perception.

ITPs should also assume they will be drawn into the spotlight. Many deliver apprenticeships where learners spend most of their time in workplaces. That creates distinctive risk.

Harassment or abuse may occur off-site, disclosures may happen outside the classroom, and responsibility can appear blurred between employer and provider. In a climate where Parliament is debating institutional responsibility for learner safety, a provider will still be expected to demonstrate what action it took when concerns were raised.

So what does preparedness look like?

First, clear and accessible reporting routes for learners and staff. If someone feels unsafe, they should not have to navigate informal networks or guess who to contact.

Second, consistent case handling. Long and fragmented email chains and ad hoc notekeeping make it difficult to prove reasonable steps were taken. Structured recording, defined responsibilities and documented follow-up provide confidence for learners and evidence for leaders.

Third, leadership oversight. Governors and senior leadership teams need visibility of welfare trends, not just isolated incidents. Without reliable data, providers cannot identify patterns or intervene early.

None of this depends on waiting for legislation. New legislation around duty of care is unlikely to arrive overnight. It will probably emerge through OfS conditions, Ofsted expectations and contractual demands from partners. The effect is already being felt, and providers are being watched more closely on how they protect learners.

Duty of care may begin in HE but its influence will reach across FE and skills. Providers that recognise that early will be better prepared for future regulation, stronger partnerships and, most importantly, safer learning environments.