Apprenticeship levy reform is like opening ‘Pandora’s box’, Labour warned

Labour’s pledge to let businesses spend “up to 50 per cent” of the apprenticeship levy on other types of training has been all but dropped as ministers battle with how to flex an already spent budget.

Multiple sources have told FE Week that the Department for Education has forecast an overspend of around £40 million for its ring-fenced apprenticeship budget in the 2024-25 financial year. 

Officials are working out how to plug this relatively small gap, which has been caused by the run rate of the programme with the growth of higher, more expensive apprenticeships as well as recent funding band increases for several popular standards.

Ministers are understood to be struggling with finding ways of opening the levy to fund non-apprenticeship training, with sources insisting that substantial flexibility will not be added anytime soon despite some employer expectations that change is imminent.

One source who worked on the levy for several years after its inception said: “Any administration is going to find that the levy is like a Pandora’s box. Once you open it, you don’t often like what’s inside because of the way it is constructed.”

The likelihood of significant extra funding is also low as the government tackles a £22 billion public finance black hole, with chancellor Rachel Reeves (pictured) reportedly telling the DfE to find £1 billion in savings ahead of next month’s Budget.

Low priority

In opposition, Labour vowed to reform the apprenticeship levy into a “growth and skills levy”. The original pledge said businesses would be allowed to spend up to half of their contributions on non-apprenticeship training. But this figure was notably dropped from their manifesto.

The new government has been tight-lipped on development of the reformed levy since coming into power. No timeline for implementation has been shared to date.

Insiders say that flexing the levy is not top of the priority list for ministers, who are set to hand responsibility for deciding what non-apprenticeship training can be eligible for levy funding to incoming new quango Skills England.

The government is aiming to get Skills England operational by April 1, 2025.

It is not clear whether ministers will also give the new quango the job of deciding what proportion of the levy can be spent on non-apprenticeship training.

Numbers don’t add up

The DfE’s ring-fenced budget to fund apprenticeships in England has been 98 and 99 per cent spent in each of the past two financial years respectively.

It will be stretched further this year due to funding band increases for some popular standards, including operations leader – moving from £7,000 to £9,000 – and team leader – from £4,500 to £5,000, which FE Weekunderstands will cost around £25 to £35 million alone.

Experts as well as the Conservatives have pointed out that any widening of the levy to fund other forms of training will mean apprenticeship numbers have to be reduced, unless there is a significant uplift in the DfE’s budget.

One former skills civil servant said: “They won’t get anywhere near 50 per cent flexibility.

“I don’t sense any enthusiasm for putting much more money in the budget, or certainly the amount of money that will be needed to make a substantive difference. This is potentially quite expensive, and you are better off not doing it than simply window dressing and diluting the apprenticeship programme.”

The Office for Budget Responsibilities (OBR) forecasts that £4 billion will be raised in apprenticeship levy receipts by UK companies in 2024-25.

Yet the DfE’s ring-fenced budget to fund apprenticeships in England is £2.729 billion, while the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive around £500 million between them.

It means there is a near-£800 million gap between what is raised by the levy and what is dished out by government.

Labour’s former council of skills advisors, led by Lord Blunkett, published a report in 2022 outlining how the party’s growth and skills levy should work.

One clear and critical requirement put forward was that the Treasury should cease top-slicing large portions of the levy to help fund the flexibility.

Blunkett told FE Week this week: “Investing the whole of the sums available and expanding the size of the levy could provide a significant sum of money to kickstart the vital initiative needed to meet the skills challenge of a rapidly changing workplace, and the large-scale economic inactivity of working-age adults.”

‘Completely unrealistic’

FE Week’s sources understand that Labour is trying to rush through some kind of levy progress in time for the Budget, but any flexibility will need to be consulted on.

One said: “The idea that these flexibilities would come in quickly is completely unrealistic. There will be consultations, there will be discussions about what courses are approved, how much can be spent and so on. 

“The reason that we have never yet had a clear tax break for training is that nobody can figure out how to do it in a way that doesn’t invite abuse.”

But there is still a positive, they added: “For a long time, the Treasury just would not engage on the design of the levy. They would say, ‘this is a tax, so go away’ to the rest of government. It feels as if that is perhaps less of a problem now under a new political party.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “We will work across government and with businesses to make sure there is the right eco-system for training and skills to deliver high-quality training opportunities and build a diverse and competent workforce that is fit for the future.”

SEND students now allowed to listen to music during exams

Students with additional needs will be able to listen to white noise or music during their exams this year after new rules were introduced following a post-Covid rise in requests.

Meanwhile, schools and colleges will also be able to use mental health support service referral letters to apply for extra support to ensure youngsters aren’t disadvantaged by long waiting lists.

The changes are included in updated guidance from the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) on adjustments that schools and colleges can request for pupils with disabilities and learning difficulties.  

Existing access arrangements and adjustments include things such as supervised rest breaks, extra time and a computer reader.  

But from this year, special educational needs co-ordinators can also apply for learners who are classed as having a “substantial impairment” to listen to music or white noise.  

This would apply to those with social, emotional and mental health needs (SEMH) or with a sensory impairment such as tinnitus, hearing noises usually a buzzing or ringing, and misophonia, an extreme reaction to certain sounds. 

“Since the pandemic we’ve found that there have been more requests from schools and colleges about pupils with disabilities … needing to have music or white noise playing in the background during an examination,” a JCQ spokesperson said.

It applies to GCSEs, A-levels, BTECs and T Levels.

Previous guidance on exam adjustments stated a candidate needing white noise through headphones might not be covered by the range of published arrangements as the list “is not exhaustive”.  

Schools and colleges were told to discuss these cases with exam boards before submitting an application for “other” arrangements. 

This year’s update puts listening to white noise or music as an official access arrangement category.

Providers must check playlists

However, schools and colleges must make sure the device cannot be connected to the internet. The playlist must also be checked to “ensure an advantage is not conferred to the candidate”.

Pepe Di’Iasio, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the move was “sensible” as it was “reasonable” to expect exam access arrangements to evolve alongside the understanding of SEND and mental health.  

“School and college leaders will always want to give their pupils every opportunity to succeed and access arrangements are a way of ensuring nobody is unfairly disadvantaged.”

However, he warned that the rising number of special arrangements for exams did create logistical and financial challenges for schools and colleges.  “Recruiting and training sufficient invigilators is often very difficult”. 

A survey last year by the National Association of Examination Officers found 75 per cent were concerned schools and colleges would not have enough fully trained invigilators for the 2023 exam series. 

Approved access arrangements rose 8.7 per cent in 2022-23 GCSE and A-level exams.  Ninety-four per cent of centres had approved arrangements, up from 92.9 per cent the year before.

Meanwhile, the number of students with SEMH needs has risen 46 per cent since 2018-19 to 316,327.  

Use CAMHS referral

Another notable change is that, in exceptional circumstances, SENCos can now use a CAMHS or NHS trust referral confirmation or acceptance letter to evidence substantial impairments. 

Previously, schools and colleges had to submit a letter from a medical professional confirming the candidate’s disability.  

However, the student should be on a list to be screened, and likely to receive a formal diagnosis.

JCQ said the move would “ensure no student is disadvantaged”. Demand for mental health services in some parts oof the country were “high and leads to long waiting lists”. 

Gary Aubin, a SEND consultant and former SENCo, said this was a “really good step for ensuring equity”.  

But he said there was a “wider point about the administrative paperwork burden on secondary staff, particularly SENCos in relation to access arrangements that also needs addressing, rather than just adding more types of arrangements and evidence.” 

Other updates include being able to apply for timetable variations in exceptional circumstances.  

A candidate must have a diagnosed medical condition, a physical disability, SEMH need or visual impairment that means they must sit an exam later or earlier on the same day of the exam.  

The JCQ did not respond to requests for comment on why these additions were made. 

UCU staff strike called off as talks continue

Mediation talks between a major education trade union and its employees are continuing after a history-making strike was called off at the last minute.

Indefinite action against the University and College Union (UCU) was agreed as a “last resort” for 200 staff who voted last month to escalate issues of workplace racism and alleged breaches of collective agreements.

But, days before industrial action by UCU employees was set to begin on September 9, the strike was called off.

A joint statement from UCU senior management and Unite representatives said the suspension was agreed while talks continue, with plans for a further ballot in November.

Both unions agreed they would not make any further public statements “other than jointly agreed” announcements, sparking accusations of hypocrisy at UCU, a union that, according to one college leader, usually “favours the glare of publicity for FE disputes”.

‘Media-shy’

UCU employees who are members of Unite originally planned to walk out from September 2 but pushed back the date to accommodate a further meeting with the conciliation service ACAS and their employer.

When the industrial action was announced, a UCU spokesperson criticised Unite for declaring a strike on Twitter before planned ACAS talks.

“UCU are stunned to find out via social media that Unite UCU plan to call what amounts to an all-out strike from September 2,” they said at the time.

“To put out a call and announce this action prior to even attending those negotiations demonstrates a lack of integrity and sincerity.”

Using the media to make statements about disputes between UCU members and their college employers while negotiations take place is a tactic commonly deployed by the union.

One principal, who wished to remain anonymous but runs a college that has been hit with several UCU strikes in the past, said: “It’s not at all surprising to see UCU, a union that favours the glare of publicity for FE disputes, suddenly become media-shy in relation to its own industrial action. 

“Perhaps UCU will now reflect this volte face in their approach to FE disputes – the media gaming and manipulation they have traditionally deployed does not actually serve the best interests of their members, other college staff or students.”

A blog has also been set up by Unite, which has posted testimonials from anonymous UCU employees. One employee said they were “furious at the hypocrisy” of the dispute.

“I’m witnessing the same callous behaviour from my employer as the ones this very union is calling out,” they added. “I am so furious at the hypocrisy, the disingenuity that our employer is displaying.

“I never expected to see such purposely obtuse conduct by a union employer.”

Strike ballot postponed

Unite members will now receive a ballot between November 12 and December 12 to vote on whether to go on strike. Negotiators have until October 9 if they want to extend the ballot mandate.

The statement made a commitment from both UCU and Unite to further the work of the race review and enact recommendations quickly.

Unite’s dispute officially started six months ago following complaints of “institutional failings” over UCU’s treatment of Black staff – that they are allegedly disproportionately penalised in internal procedures.

Staff walked out in May for the first time in the union’s 18-year history, causing chaos at UCU’s annual congress where FE sector conferences were cancelled in anticipation of the strike.

Following an ACAS meeting on September 4 and 5, representatives agreed to schedule fortnightly meetings to “rebuild industrial relations”.

They settled on resolving longstanding issues around hybrid working, gender identity policy and workplace safety-related concerns by December 4. 

Negotiators also agreed to seek help from ACAS “as soon as practicable” to conduct an independent review of UCU’s organisational culture.

Unite has however claimed that UCU staff are being subjected to a pay freeze until the dispute is over, alleging that UCU is refusing to respond to a staff pay claim from April even though the new pay year started on August 1.

UCU and Unite were contacted for comment.

AoC warns of 2% limit to college pay recommendation for 2024/25

The Association of Colleges has warned that it will be “very hard” to recommend colleges give their staff a pay rise of anything more than 2 per cent this year.

In a Budget submission to the Treasury, the membership body outlined how the government’s decision to snub colleges from public sector pay awards means it is highly unlikely there can be an above inflation salary bump in 2024/25.

The AoC said colleges would require a £250 million injection to afford a 5.5 per cent pay rise.

Over the summer the new Labour government announced it would hand schools a £1.2 billion pot to help fund a 5.5 per cent pay rise for teachers, as recommended by the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB), but refused to stump up anything for colleges.

The AoC makes a pay recommendation each year which colleges use as a benchmark in their negotiations with unions that represent their staff. The membership body has delayed making a pay recommendation for 2024/25 since May.

The AoC team will meet with the five trade unions representing FE workers early in October to negotiate the offer.

But college staff may remain in limbo as the AoC said it could wait for the outcome of the October 30 autumn Budget. It is hoping for the removal of the “iniquitous” VAT charge on colleges, savings of which could be directed towards a staff pay rise.

In his letter to the Treasury chief secretary, AoC chief executive David Hughes urged: “We recognise how tight this Budget will be and understand that there are unlikely to be large spending increases announced.

“That is why I would urge you as a top priority to use the imminent extension of VAT to private schools to put right the iniquitous anomaly of colleges having no VAT relief despite their strong social inclusion and service roles.” 

The Department for Education previously blamed the “very challenging fiscal context” and the fact that FE does not have its own pay review body for chancellor Rachel Reeve’s decision to find cash for school pay rises but not for colleges.

Hughes urged the Treasury to fix this exclusion.

He said: “The funding decisions communicated to colleges will make it very hard for AoC to recommend anything more than 2 per cent. It would cost government around £250 million to bridge the gap to 5.5 per cent.

“This is hampering colleges from delivering government priorities and employer needs.” 

Last year the AoC made a 6.5 per cent pay rise recommendation for college staff, but this was only after the previous government found extra funding for the sector.

Additional funding was handed to colleges based on their 16 to 19 student numbers. The total pot was £470 million and was to be distributed over the next two academic years: £185 million in 2023/24 and £285 million in 2024/25.

In March, FE’s five trade unions submitted a pay claim for the 2024/25 academic year, calling for a 10 per cent pay uplift, or a £3,000 salary increase, to keep in line with the rate of inflation.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said the AoC needs to recommend a “realistic” pay rise above 5.5 per cent or allow the well-publicised £9,000 pay gap between schoolteachers and FE staff to widen.

She told FE Week: “If college teachers are again left wanting, there is a genuine risk Labour’s flagship Skills England strategy could unravel. You cannot reskill the nation on the back of a severely underpaid workforce.

“The AoC needs to recommend a realistic pay rise that will stem the flood of college teachers deserting further education for greener pastures.

“Meanwhile, we need strategic investment from Labour alongside a workforce strategy and new national bargaining arrangements in FE.”

Reeves will deliver the 2024 autumn Budget on October 30, accompanied by a fiscal statement from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR). The government has already warned that it will have to make “difficult decisions” on fiscal spending after identifying a £22 billion black hole in public finances.

Last month, Reeves reportedly told government departments to find savings, including £1 billion from the Department for Education.

The benefits of rebranding – and how to maximise them for your college

As the new academic year starts, so does the new student recruitment cycle in the never-ending world of FE marketing and admissions. Before you know it you’ll be at that first open event and your marketing team will be knee-deep in roll-up banners.

Busy as the start of the academic year is, it’s also the perfect time to review how your college is seen and perceived externally through your name and brand identity – because if you decide it needs some work, now really is the time to start.

Brand development in FE, given the wide range of markets, can take a full academic year from start to rollout, and the only realistic time to launch a new brand is the start of a new academic year.

But how do you decide if you need to undertake a rebrand? Ofsted are not going to tell you, and even if they did I’m not sure they’re a good representation of your various target markets, to be honest.

It’s hard to be objective about this sometimes, so start by asking those around you: students, your marketing team, other staff, governors, friendly employers and a couple of external stakeholders.

Ask them what they think of your brand and what your brand identity says about your college and your place in the market. Encourage them to be honest, really listen and be prepared to not necessarily like the answers.

If after this you conclude you do need to take a fresh look at your branding, get going and fast. Decide if you’re going to need external support. I’d wholly encourage this for creative work, if not also the project management and engagement work.

I’ve led on rebrand exercises for a host of other not-for-profits and for four FE colleges, most recently at Brooklands Technical College. Based on that experience, here are three stages I’d recommend to get the best results and give your marketing team a fighting chance of hitting those challenging recruitment targets.

The Listen Phase

This is arguably the most important phase, because a new brand identity needs to truly represent your college and resonate with your audiences.

Coming up with an amazing-looking solution that has no connection or relevance just isn’t going to work, so you really need to undertake a comprehensive piece of engagement work with as many stakeholders as possible – students, staff, employers and community stakeholders.

Ask them what they think of the college, what your unique traits or selling points are and how they think you should be best represented visually.

Summarise the themes identified and agree a direction for the creative team to explore, not forgetting that you operate in multiple markets.

The Create Phase

Share with your creative team the themes identified in your Listen Phase and let them get to work. The best creative teams will come back with a whole host of ideas – some of which you (hopefully!) will have never considered before.

Market-test the various creative options on a small selection of key stakeholders. However, remember that too many cooks spoil the broth.

Finally, decide on a chosen route and let the creatives finalise the design process while your marketing team plan the rollout. Changes need to take place at the start of the recruitment year, else you risk having a very confused set of applicants mid-year.

The Rollout Phase

Don’t underestimate how detailed this part can be; this is where your marketing team will come into their own. Consider website changes, social channels, uniform, lanyards and ID cards, stationery, vehicle graphics, advertising templates, email signatures and much more.

Decide on a launch day. At Brooklands, we went for the first day of term and it worked really well thanks to the outstanding work of the creative agency and the in-house marketing team. New students felt privileged to be the first students under the new look and the new recruitment year has started with a bang.

A new brand identity can do so much more than refresh your marketing and how you’re seen. It’s a great way to bring your staff together and symbolise a new era or strategic direction.

It’s a big job, but don’t be afraid to consider it.

The Staffroom: Why you should mark World Afro Day – and how

There are so many different days to celebrate so many different things from pizza to hats that’s its hard to keep up. But some celebration days are worth acknowledging. World Afro Day is one of them – and integrating it into FE spaces offers profound benefits.

This fairly new celebration came into being as a direct reaction to a discriminatory law passed on 15 September 2016 in Alabama, which allowed companies to deny jobs to people with dreadlocks. A year later to the day, the United Nations endorsed the first ever World Afro Day, and the movement is rightly gaining traction globally.

According to founder Michelle De Leon, “Black women in particular have been victims of both invisibility and hypervisibility at the same time in the workplace”.

In response, this day encourages Black people all over the world to wear their natural hair with pride. This year’s theme is “Fix the law and not our hair”.

Afro hair carries deep cultural, historical and political significance for Black communities. For many students, including those from the African and Caribbean diaspora, Afro hair is more than just an aesthetic; it is tied to their identity.

World Afro Day can serve as an opportunity for these students to feel recognised, validated and empowered. It also encourages the wider student population to engage with the rich heritage and cultural practices surrounding Afro hair.

This matters a great deal, because biases against Afro hair persist in education, workplaces and broader society. Students are still penalised or ridiculed for wearing their natural hair in its traditional styles.

For example, a teacher recently said about my friend’s ten-year-old son that “he seems more disruptive when he wears his hair in that style” (Afro). I suspect it was more likely the reaction the student got from his peers rather than his behaviour.

I also regularly hear staff referring to ‘normal’ hair to mean European, or describing a Black colleague as “the one with the crazy hair”. We haven’t progressed all that much from when teachers and children at my primary wanted to touch my hair and said it felt like Brillo pad.

Afro hair carries deep cultural, historical and political significance

College is a pivotal period in a young person’s life, when identity is shaped. For Black students, societal pressures around hair can have a profound impact on their mental wellbeing. Studies have shown that hair discrimination can lead to lower self-esteem and confidence, affecting overall academic performance.

That’s why celebrating World Afro Day should not be a one-off event but a springboard for wider work: reviewing anti-discrimination policies, training staff on racial sensitivity and ensuring dress codes don’t disproportionately affect Black students.

In 2019, Stoke Newington School and Sixth Form became one of the first schools in the UK to officially celebrate World Afro Day. The feedback from students was telling, particularly from those of African and Caribbean descent. All expressed a newfound pride in their hair and culture, and one even said it was the first time they’d felt truly comfortable wearing their hair naturally in an academic setting.

The school’s decision to celebrate World Afro Day also inspired other institutions to do the same. If you haven’t joined in the celebrations yet, here are some hints and tips for getting the most out of it.

My first tip is: You don’t have to wait until the next World Afro Day!

If you have a hair and beauty department, teach your students about the different forms of textured hair, particularly if they are learning and potentially working in diverse communities. This makes good business sense for all your students.

Invite guest speakers who have expertise in this area to talk to your students and train your staff.

Ensure your dress code is not indirectly discriminating against Black students because of Eurocentric notions of what is professional, acceptable or ‘normal’.

When you see or interact with someone with Afro-textured hair, don’t stare and NEVER ask to touch it. This is “othering”, embarrassing and potential triggering and harmful.

And finally, inform yourself. The Story of Afro Hair by Kandace Chimbiri is an excellent place to start.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 471

Mark Fell

Executive Principal, Milton Keynes College Group

Start date: June 2024

Previous Job: Senior Leadership Consultant, Guernsey Institute

Interesting fact: Alongside 20 years in FE, Mark also coaches semi-professional football teams. Having previously managed Nelson, Ramsbottom and Lancaster City, he now leads
Workington AFC.

Simon Gummerson

Campus Principal, Scarborough TEC & East Riding College Bridlington

Start date: August 2024

Previous Job: Vice principal, Scarborough TEC & East Riding College Bridlington

Interesting fact: Simon rides a 1960 Norton motorcycle.

Embedding digital literacy in training is key to closing gender gaps

We’ve come a long way in terms of supporting women effectively in returning to work after maternity leave, caring responsibilities or a career break, but there is still a gap that needs addressing: digital literacy.  

We continue to think about digital skills as an added advantage, instead of recognising them as a basic need. For women who have been out of the workforce for some time, not having up-to-date digital skills is a significant barrier.  

For FE providers, that means digital literacy must be at the core of every skills training programme. Otherwise, the gender gap in employment will continue to widen. 

At Successful Mums, we work with women from all walks of life, from baristas to barristers. We support those who had corporate careers, those on career breaks and those who have been made redundant.  

What unites many of them is a lack of confidence. But there’s also a shared feeling that they are out of touch with the digital tools and platforms that are part and parcel of most jobs. 

It’s just not enough to know how to use a computer or basic software; it’s about understanding how digital tools can be used to boost productivity, improve communication or create new opportunities for an employer, for example. 

Take the level 2 qualifications in digital skills, and in digital and IT skills we offer in partnership with Gateway Qualifications.

They are practical and flexible. They let us customise units to meet the specific needs and aspirations of our learners.  We can shape them to include topics that are directly relevant to the jobs market.

Moreover, and key to ensuring our learners get the skills employers are actively looking for, they allow us to emphasise emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR).

Not so long ago, these technologies were still niche. Today, employers expect candidates to know about them. So, we make sure that our mums can talk confidently about them and that they understand their applications.

Digital literacy must be at the core of every training programme

For example, our learners will be able to differentiate between narrow and generative artificial intelligence (AI) and understand how VR can be used for training. They are cybersecurity aware too.

This means our mums are job-ready and competitive, but the importance of digital literacy goes beyond just getting a job.  

For many women, going back to work is about rebuilding their confidence and re-establishing their identity outside of home and family. Digital skills can play a huge role in this.  

When you are confident in the digital world, you feel more connected, more capable, and more in control. This confidence trickles into other areas of life, from managing the online bank account to supporting children with homework. 

Digital literacy is not a one-size-fits-all. The mums we work with have different levels of experience and confidence with technology, and it’s vital that training programmes recognise this.  

Some of our mums need to start with basics like email and cloud computing, while others are ready to learn about more advanced areas like digital marketing or data analysis. 

The only way to achieve this is by being flexible and responsive, both in our delivery and in the qualifications we offer. 

Of course, employers have a role to play in closing the gender employment gap too.  

The pace of digital change means that skills are quickly outdated, and professional development is becoming more important when it comes to keeping up with the digital world.

It should always be on offer, no matter the job role. And of course, colleges and training providers are not just educators; they are leading and trend-setting local employers too.

At Successful Mums, we want to ensure that every woman coming through our doors leaves us with the digital skills they need. 

But we can’t make change at scale on our own. It requires a collective effort from awarding organisations, other ITPs, employers and policymakers. We all need to make digital literacy more of a priority. 

For the women we support, our work is not just about them getting a job, it’s about helping them to take control of their futures, both in their careers and in their personal lives. 

A poundshop approach to qualifications is a false economy

Along with millions of Britons, I occasionally shop “like a billionaire” through the online, Chinese poundshop, Temu. I’ve had a drone with two HD cameras for three quid, a Nintendo controller for a tenner, and some telescopic feather dusters for pennies.

But it’s just a bit of fun. The app for the drone never really works, the controller broke during a vigorous session of Street Fighter 2, and the feather dusters were… smaller… than I’d expected. I wouldn’t buy something I actually relied on, like a phone or a set of pans.

I’m the same about qualifications. I’ve recently been micro-learning my way towards certification in various programming languages via an app. I am under no illusion that any achievements will have any currency, in contrast to my quarter-century-old and largely-forgotten A level in Computing, which would still be my passport to the field, according to degree-apprenticeship entry requirements.

This is why I abhor the perennial calls for economically-disadvantaged students, who are nineteen months behind by 16, to be fobbed off with a different qualification, whether that’s AQA’s “let them eat Duolingo” or MEI’s “almostaGCSE”.

For a start, there’s an  unpleasant prejudice behind such proposals. (Anyone seriously advocating separate-but-equal routes for subgroups needs to resit their history GCSE). And aside from that, there are very practical reasons why alternative English and maths quals will never work.

As someone who transitioned from secondary teaching to FE, I can tell you that having a common qualification between sectors was pivotal in that move, because I knew I wasn’t de-skilling myself from future opportunities in schools. The benefits of cross-pollination between 3,500 secondaries and 200 colleges shouldn’t be closed down for an insular approach.

New qualifications also require significant investment in training and familiarisation. Think about the £76 million the DfE awarded the Education and Training Foundation for T level CPD. How many 5.5-per cent FE teacher pay rises could that have funded?

Perhaps it’s no coincidence that some of those calling for new English and maths qualifications are also funded by the DfE to deliver CPD.

There’s an  unpleasant prejudice behind such proposals

Then there’s the impact on timetabling. Let’s assume some students will still want to sit a ‘real’ GCSE, like the tens of thousands who resit each year despite already having grade 4s, for progression.

Then you are immediately hit with the timetabling and class-size inefficiencies of deploying staff across two qualifications rather than one. And this is being suggested while colleges are struggling to recruit for these subjects.

None of this is hypothetical, because we already have alternative qualifications in the form of functional skills (FSQs). If I had a pound for every time I’ve been told that they are “not fit for purpose”, I wouldn’t need Temu to feel like a billionaire.

FSQs already cause all of the problems above: isolating teachers in a niche qualification, necessitating bespoke training and causing inefficient deployment.

On top of that, they are on-demand qualifications available every fortnight, at five different tiers, offered by more exam boards than GCSE, but entered by a relatively tiny number, bringing inevitable issues of quality and viability.

FSQs were reformed as recently as 2019, but the truth behind the dissatisfaction is that the reforms didn’t magic up a 100 per cent pass rate. For any alternatives to be seen as “fit for purpose”, they will need to be easier than GCSE, and therefore worthless.

I’m certainly not saying the current GCSE is perfect. Not the maths one anyway. How it came through the 2015 reforms with three papers and still tiered is beyond me.

The English GCSE, on the other hand, with no tiers, complete freedom of text choice and built around creative writing is about as chef’s-kiss-perfect as we could ask for.

But whatever we choose as our acknowledged ‘gold standard’ should be open to all, without gatekeepers preventing other people’s children from getting in.

Worse, while we are continually distracted by the red herring of talking about qualifications, we’re not talking about pedagogy, curriculum or students.

Young people from low-income backgrounds deserve better than to be railroaded into poundshop English and maths just because it’s easier to blame qualifications than it is to improve quality.