Complete the picture: Remove the eight-week time limit on apprenticeship English and maths flexibilities

There are some very welcome proposed changes to the apprenticeship funding rules for 2024/25, including some significant moves to remove barriers that those with learning difficulties can experience in accessing the support that they need.

The ability to conduct learning support assessments at any time during the apprenticeship makes perfect sense and is long overdue.

Similarly, the rollout of the SEND flexibilities pilot allowing those without education and health care plans (EHCPs) to access learning support funding is very welcome. 

But there remains an arbitrary and unjustifiable eight-week time limit to file an English and maths flexibility for apprentices with disabilities, special educational needs or learning difficulties.

The EHCP system, whilst well-intentioned, is cumbersome, and lengthy, and the criteria that local authorities use to formulate them vary so widely that their use as a common framework for access to national funding has not been fit for purpose for some time.

In 2016 I was privileged to have been part of the Maynard taskforce that recommended flexing minimum English and maths requirements to entry level 3 for apprentices with learning difficulties, a recommendation the government accepted in full and implemented. 

But between 2017 and 2023, only around 1400 learners have been able to use this flexibility, which (given there were about 2.1m total starts over this period) is appalling – that’s 0.06 per cent of starts when other data indicates that over 7 per cent of apprentices have cognitive learning needs that should qualify.

The requirement for an EHCP to identify such learning difficulties has been a major reason, so dropping this requirement is a big plus. 

But it’s frustrating that there is one further logical move that could and should have been made to complete this picture that inexplicably has been missed.

Under these draft proposals, to flex minimum English and maths requirements to entry level 3, the assessment has to be completed within the first eight weeks of the apprenticeship. 

This makes no sense when only a few paragraphs prior, the rules accept that to qualify for support funding, a learning difficulty may be assessed at any time within the apprenticeship. 

If such an assessment found, several months into an apprenticeship, that the reason the learner has been struggling with maths and English was because of a previously unrecognised learning difficulty, why is it on one hand too late to be properly addressed, even though the provider can claim extra funding to address it? 

It would be more cost-effective for the training provider to acknowledge and work with the apprentice at an appropriate level than throw taxpayer’s money at trying to get them to pass at a level that they will at best have extreme difficulty in succeeding at. 

This just risks their completion altogether, whatever the level of vocational and technical skill they can otherwise display in their profession.

I don’t want to be overly negative because the moves that are proposed are the right ones to make. 

However, while we have the chance, let’s complete the picture by ensuring that a properly evidenced identification of a learning difficulty at any time in an apprenticeship can also mean the flexibility to change the minimum English and maths requirement – not just an assessment in the first eight weeks.

Surely we all want to make sure that those with learning difficulties in maths and English can still have the chance to demonstrate their technical and vocational skills on a par with everyone else.

New FAB boss suddenly resigns

The new chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies has suddenly resigned with immediate effect, FE Week has learned, after just two months in post.

Kion Ahadi was appointed in November and officially led the awarding membership body from February.

Staff and members of the federation were told this afternoon that Ahadi had stood down for personal reasons.

A statement from the FAB board said: “Due to personal reasons, Kion Ahadi has made the decision to stand down from his position as chief executive at the Federation of Awarding Bodies. Kion has enjoyed his short time at FAB and recognised the fantastic contribution of its members.”

FAB is the membership body for more than 120 awarding organisations.

John McNamara, who has previously led FAB on an interim basis twice, will step back in once more as interim chief executive until a permanent replacement is found.

McNamara is the non-executive chair of Innovate Awarding. FAB’s new chair Charlotte Bosworth is managing director of Innovate Awarding.

The FAB and Innovate boards have agreed extra governance arrangements to mitigate any conflicts of interest. A full board meeting was held this afternoon to approve McNamara’s appointment as interim CEO.

At the time of his appointment, Ahadi said he accepted the CEO gig at FAB due to its “vision to improve the quality of technical, professional, and vocational education to support social mobility, and change lives”.

Ahadi was appointed following the resignation of Tom Bewick in May 2023.

AoC calls for new skills body and awarding powers for colleges

A new national body should be set up to help deliver a more “coherent” post-16 education system, the Association of Colleges (AoC) has said.

The call for a “social partnership body” comes in a new report that builds on the AoC’s call for a single tertiary education system for post-16 students, which would also see colleges accrediting their own apprenticeship assessments and higher-level qualifications.

Although it has not detailed the exact make-up of the national body, the association says the body’s role should be to set national priorities for skills through a “partnership approach”.

This would fill a space left by a lack of ownership over England’s national strategy on skills, the AoC’s chief executive David Hughes told FE Week.

He added: “The starting point is we have no post-16 education and skills strategy. It doesn’t sit anywhere and there’s nobody tasked with owning that – that is a problem.”

In its report “100% opportunity: the case for a tertiary education system” the AoC says the body could support strategies such as the NHS workforce plan, analyse workforce needs, work with mayoral combined authorities and intervene where there is market failure.

The AoC calls the current system “siloed and fragmented”, with disproportionate funding going “a small number” of people in the higher education sector while the number of apprenticeship starts has fallen by a third in the last decade and the number of people not in education, employment or training (NEET) is on the rise.

A new national body could also help to coordinate England’s 38 local skills improvement plans and its increasingly devolved control over regional skills spending.

The AoC’s proposal appears to echo Labour’s pledge to set up Skills England, a “taskforce” which would work with the government and devolved authorities to “develop outcome agreements” to ensure accountability for skills spending.

Like Labour, the association wouldn’t say whether its proposed new body would replace any of the existing organisations funding and regulating tertiary education, like IfATE, the OfS and the ESFA.

Hughes told FE Week: “The new body should make it clear who’s responsible for what and who’s accountable for what, so it’s a more coherent system. 

“It’s ensuring that the key partners have a say in where we want the system to go, and what the long-term challenges are.

“Currently, that just doesn’t happen in a systematic or consistent way – the messages are not being joined up.”

The body should not add “new layers” of complexity, he added.

However, although it describes the body as a “social partnership” that could include education providers, unions and others, it stops short of political choices such as how much power it would have.

It could be advisory or have more formal powers like the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, which analyses and scrutinises the UK’s public finances.

Other countries such as Norway, Australia and Ireland have already set up skills bodies which bring together groups such as education providers and businesses to advise on priority needs.

Ben Rowland, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said his membership body agrees with the need for an “effective, efficient and fair further education system”.

However, he added: “It is also worth pointing out that conspicuous by its absence in the report is any talk of the role of independent training providers (ITPs).

“ITPs deliver the majority of apprenticeships and 89 per cent of Skills Bootcamps. As a result, they are a core part of any FE system and are as much anchor institutions as colleges.”

Colleges should be trusted

AoC wants a future government to “place more trust in colleges” to deliver priority skills needs, to fund every 16 to 18-year-old, including apprentices, through the same budget and “demand-led” funding for more adult learners.

Several proposals are made to build on colleges as “anchor institutions” including giving them powers to award their own higher-level qualifications and apprenticeship end point assessments.

Colleges should be able to set 30 per cent of the content of qualifications to meet local employers’ skills needs, the report states.

The AoC calls for “mission clarity” that schools, colleges and universities are signed up to, ensuring every 16-year-old has a complete education offer.

16 to 18-year-olds should be offered “more hours” of teaching from a broader curriculum and the government’s current English and maths GCSE resit policy should also be “urgently” reconsidered.

Funding should be set out for three years rather than one and should be based on outcomes instead of individual learner numbers.

The pay gap with schoolteachers should also be addressed, while lecturers in key sectors should see their pay lifted to “reflect the market rate”. However, the report does not set out how these proposals would be funded.

‘Inadequate’ provider slammed for ‘poorly planned’ training

A care work training provider that delivered “ad hoc and poorly planned” learning to apprentices has been judged ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted.

Excell for Training, an apprenticeship training provider in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, received the grade following an inspection in early February this year. A spokesperson said the provider lodged a complaint against the report but declined to provide details.

Inspectors from the education watchdog found that most apprentices learn “very little” from a maximum of one hour of online training once or twice a month.

A team led by His Majesty’s Inspector Vicki Locke said these online training sessions were “ad hoc and poorly planned” with apprentices rarely undertaking workplace training due to a lack of liaison with their employers.

The provider was rated ‘requires improvement’ for behaviour and attitudes and personal development, but ‘inadequate’ for the quality of education, leadership and management and apprenticeships.

Off-the-job activities were also “not carefully planned” and focused on apprentices complying with assessment objectives over “meaningful activity”.

A spokesperson for Excell for Training said: “All Excell for Training have to say in relation to the Ofsted report; is that we appealed the grading / report finding’s [sic] and we also put in a formal complaint.

“We would like to make no other comment.”

The spokesperson did not respond when FE Week asked whether the appeal and complaint had concluded, or whether their contract with the Education and Skills Funding Agency has been terminated.

At the time of going to press, the provider is still listed on the apprenticeship provider and assessment register. 

Excell for Training was founded by owner Stephen Boyd in 2010 and has about 125 apprentices in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands, mainly training in residential childcare and adult care.

Boyd also owns Excell Home Care, a Sheffield-based agency that provides care to older people and disabled adults.

But inspectors said “too many” apprentices leave their course early, with many failing to achieve their qualifications on time.

The report added: “However, very few achieve high grades. Of those apprentices who complete their course, just over two-thirds remain in paid employment at the end of their studies.”

Ofsted has ordered Excell for Training to undertake an urgent review of the planning and effectiveness of its apprentices’ off-the-job training.

The watchdog has also ordered “immediate action” to improve current teaching standards after finding apprentices failed to gain a sound understanding of key topics.

A key concern for inspectors was trainers’ focus on “assessment criteria” over teaching content that would help apprentices learn.

In sessions looking at laws around medication, tutors read out “a list of relevant acts” for apprentices to research themselves.

In another session, inspectors said tutors supported their verbal explanations with written resources that “merely contain information copied directly from course assessment requirements”.

They called apprentices’ written work “too basic and generic”.

Leaders did not ensure the quality of teaching was good enough, with teaching observation notes failing to identify “significant weaknesses”.

However, inspectors also found that safeguarding arrangements were “effective” and tutors had “positive relationships” with apprentices.

A recently appointed board of trustees was “appropriate”, but too new to have any impact on the standards of training, they said.

Ofsted found it was making “reasonable progress” during a monitoring visit on the provider in September 2022. Its report was largely positive, praising the “well-planned curriculum” and the range of methods used to ensure apprentices understand what they were taught.

Lecturer wins £44k payout after five-year safety row with college group

Capital City College Group has been ordered to pay over £44,000 to an art and design lecturer after it failed to act on classroom safety complaints, including regular flooding, causing him to resign.

An employment tribunal judge found the college group had constructively dismissed Kevin Hope, a former art and design lecturer at City and Islington College in London, when it failed to address flooding concerns raised by Hope over the years and failed to deal with a grievance with a lab technician.

The judge acknowledged that the college made “strenuous and repeated efforts” to stop the leaks but had failed for “many years” to consider applying for capital funding for renovations.

He also said that only a “major” renovation of the “old and dilapidated” Centre for Business, Arts and Technology building could permanently stop the flooding.

“[The college] strove to work within its limited budget as a public sector organisation and it was only after many years of failed attempts that it could justify a capital bid for over £2 million (the funds necessary to renovate),” the judge said.

The college group has been awarded £2.4 million of capital funding to completely renovate the CBAT building including the provision of a new roof. The project is currently at tender stage awaiting quotes from contractors.

The former lecturer won his complaint of constructive dismissal – whereby he resigned because of his employer’s inaction around the flooding and his working relationship with the lab technician.

For a constructive dismissal case to succeed, there must be a “breach by the employer of an essential term, such as the implied term of trust and confidence, and the employee must resign in response to that breach,” according to the tribunal.

The college was ordered to pay £44,068.33 to Hope as a compensatory award including loss of earnings and a 15 per cent ACAS uplift.

‘Last straw’

The flooding in the CBAT building at the college’s Camden Road campus began in 2017.

The court heard the flooding was caused by problems with the roof, windows and gutters as well as a Japanese Knotweed from the next-door building, which had damaged the foundations causing water to come up through the floor.

From then on, Hope reported the leaks as well as various problems in one of his workshops to a lab technician, such as the lack of resources and personal protective equipment (PPE).

But in September 2020, Hope addressed the failure to procure the protective equipment face-to-face with the technician, and three days later, the technician lodged a formal grievance against Hope.

Hope then lodged his own complaint against the technician and continued to email HR for the next 10 months about the lack of progress with the complaints.

The court heard that a further episode of flooding in August 2021 was Hope’s last straw, causing him to resign just a few days later.

The judge ruled that the both the flooding and the relationship with the lab tech were each an effective cause of his resignation.

“It follows that the grievance failure, being so concerned with these, was an effective cause of his resignation,” the judge ruled.

“In this context, it is plausible that a further episode of flooding on 8/9 August 2021 could have confirmed to the claimant that nothing was ever going to improve, thus acting as the last straw,” they added.

A Capital City College Group spokesperson said: “It is unfortunate that while Mr Hope’s claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed, the judge did award some costs linked to constructive dismissal. The amount to be paid is yet to be confirmed.

“We regret that attempts to prevent this building flooding, caused by Japanese knotweed, were not successful until the college was able to secure a significant capital grant from the government to make the substantial investment required. We are pleased to say these capital works are now underway and will futureproof the building for all staff and students.”

Kevin Hope was contacted for comment.

Former Ofsted chief to lead watchdog’s independent review

Ofsted has named a former chief inspector to lead the independent inquiry into its response to Ruth Perry’s death. 

Dame Christine Gilbert, who served as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector from 2006 until 2011 and now chairs the Education Endowment Foundation, will lead the learning review.

A coroner ruled in December the Caversham Primary School headteacher’s death by suicide was contributed to by an Ofsted inspection. 

In her prevention of future deaths report issued in the wake of Perry’s inquest, coroner Heidi Connor noted that “no learning review was conducted by Ofsted” into its handling of her death and that there was “no policy requiring this to be done”.

Ofsted pledged to appoint a “recognised expert from the education sector” to lead the review. 

Review will not reexamine Caversham inspection

The review, to start this month, will consider the actions Ofsted took in response to hearing about the death of Perry.

This will include Ofsted’s communications, its engagement with stakeholders and information-sharing regarding the incident, the support Ofsted offered internally to staff, including inspectors, and how its approach was informed by clearly defined policies.

Gilbert will have “access to relevant internal records and be able to speak with any member of Ofsted staff she chooses”, the watchdog said. Staff can speak anonymously and will not be named in the report.

She will also have the opportunity to meet Perry’s family for the review and will be assisted by Ofsted in “obtaining any specialist advice she requires, such as in the areas of mental health and well-being”.

But the review will not examine the inspection of Caversham primary, in November 2022, or the judgements it made.

‘Concern about former HMCI leading review’

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said Gilbert has the “insight and determination to carry out a comprehensive review”.

But he added it was “important to confront head-on the concern that some might express about a former chief inspector reviewing the work of Ofsted”.

“It is therefore crucial that the review demonstrates a robust level of independence and impartiality.”

Gilbert said she “intends to take a very detailed and thorough look at all areas of Ofsted’s work – from the moment the Caversham inspection ended, through to the conclusion of the Coroner’s inquest”.

She added Perry’s death was “a deeply sad and shocking event” that Ofsted has “accepted that it is vitally important for it to learn from”.

Ofsted will publish a written report on Gilbert’s findings and its response as part of its wider ‘Big Listen’ consultation response in Autumn.

Recommendations will focus on “future actions” the watchdog can take to “improve our policies and processes for responding to incidents”.

Ofsted’s chief inspector Sir Martyn Olliver added Gilbert has a “wealth of experience in schools, in inspection, and in undertaking a range of reviews”. 

Her work will “help us build an Ofsted that is trusted by the professionals we inspect and regulate, as well as the children, parents and carers we are here to serve”, he added.

Who is Dame Christine Gilbert?

Gilbert had an 18-year teaching career, including a stint as a secondary headteacher, before becoming chief executive of Tower Hamlets council.

During her tenure as Ofsted chief inspector from 2006 to 2011, she oversaw the watchdog’s expansion to include wider social care and adult learning responsibilities. She also launched a “crackdown” on ‘boring’ teaching.

Gilbert now chairs the Education Endowment Foundation and schools partnership Camden for Learning, and has led several other education reviews, including the academies commission ‘Unleashing Greatness’ report in 2013. 

She was also part of the review team that supported Baroness Casey in her probe into the Metropolitan Police. The damning report concluded the force is institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic. 

Gilbert received a damehood in 2022.

Not all inspectors have done mental health training yet

The inspectorate also previously pledged that all its inspectors would complete new mental health awareness training by the end of March. 

Last week, the watchdog said that all inspectors currently conducting inspections have completed the training.

A spokesperson said that in total, 3,318 out of 3,414 inspectors, 97 per cent,  completed the course by March 31. 

Of the 96 who did not, they said 31 are employees who have been absent from work due to illness or parental leave, they will be required to complete the training when they return to work and before returning to inspection. 

The other 65 are contractors who will either complete the training before they return to inspection, or will stop working for Ofsted, they added. 

Ofsted rolls out key complaints process changes

Two key changes to Ofsted’s updated complaints procedure come into force today, following a consultation last year. 

The watchdog has also added detail to its policy on pausing inspections in exceptional circumstances and widened it to apply across all childcare, education and social care inspections and regulatory visits, whereas before it just applied to schools.

New complaints rules kick in

New arrangements for considering formal challenges to Ofsted inspections apply from today.

Schools and FE providers can now seek a review of their inspection, including inspector conduct and the judgements made, by submitting a formal complaint when they receive their draft report.

Providers concerned their complaint did not correctly follow the right process can also now to go directly to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, after its internal review process was axed.

The inspectorate committed to making the changes in November following a consultation which received more than 1,500 responses from providers in all sectors it inspects.

More details of pausing inspections

In January, Ofsted said school inspections could be paused for up to five days. 

Today’s updated guidance details how long the others organisations it inspects can pause for before an inspection would automatically become incomplete.

For instance, for inspections of initial teacher training, the early career framework and national professional qualifications, further education and skills or area SEND, a pause can last up to 15 days. 

It has also combined its deferring, pausing and gathering additional evidence policies into a single policy.

Ofsted has also listed “considerations” for pausing inspections across its different remits. For instance, for ITT “where the event is a multi-phase inspection of provision, it may be appropriate to only pause one phase of the inspection”.

Sir Martyn Oliver, Ofsted’s chief inspector, said the changes “offer a further opportunity to resolve complaints, should it be required.

“I want to assure providers that we will acknowledge any mistakes made and take steps to put them right. I’m determined that we will learn from complaints to improve the way Ofsted works.”

Ofsted’s updated complaints process applies to inspections and regulatory activity carried out across all education and care provider it inspects from today onwards.

Changes to provide “enhanced” on-site “professional dialogue during inspections to help address issues” and to allow providers to contact Ofsted the day after an inspection to raise concerns were introduced in January.

Keegan refuses to retract remarks about punching Ofsted inspectors

The education secretary has said her comments about punching Ofsted inspectors were “off-the-cuff remarks made in a light-hearted manner”, as she swerved a trade union’s call to publicly retract the statement.

Gillian Keegan said she would have “probably punched” disrespectful Ofsted inspectors, during a question-and-answer session at the Association of School and College Leaders conference in Liverpool last month. 

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union, which represents inspectors, wrote to Keegan on March 11, urging her to retract the “inflammatory language”, which he called “unacceptable in any context, let alone coming from the secretary of state”.

But, in a response sent on Tuesday, seen by FE Week, Keegan said: “As I think you know, the comments you refer to were off-the-cuff remarks, made in a light-hearted manner in a very particular context, and in the spirit of expressing support for headteachers and teachers in the audience.

“Clearly, I would not be punching anyone, or advocating anyone else do so, and to imply otherwise would be completely wrong.”

Keegan goes on to state she is a “strong advocate and staunch defender of Ofsted, and the important work it does”.

“It is precisely because Ofsted and its inspectors play such an essential role that we must strive to ensure that all inspections are conducted to the highest possible standard. The vast majority are, but not all.”

At the ASCL conference, Keegan recalled feeling “shocked” after hearing from a school leader about the conduct of inspectors during an inspection.

She told the audience: “I heard recently actually from a fantastic school I went into, [and] they told me how their Ofsted experience had gone.

“I was shocked, I was actually shocked. I thought, ‘God, if I’d met these people, I’d have probably punched them.’ They were really rude.”

Sir Martyn Oliver, Ofsted’s chief inspector, was asked about her comments at the time and said he thought “people should act with professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect on both sides”.

Sir Martin Oliver Ofsted chief inspector

In her letter, Keegan echoed Oliver’s remarks, saying she “strongly” supports “his mission to make sure that Ofsted’s culture and practice always has professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect at its centre”. 

But Penman rebuked Keegan for her response and said she “could have gone further to rebuild trust with inspectors”

“It’s disappointing that the secretary of state has not publicly retracted her comments, as we urged her to do in writing last month,” he said. 


“We welcome her acknowledgement that Ofsted inspectors play an essential role and I know our members share her belief that we must strive to ensure that all inspections are conducted to the highest possible standards.

“However, it’s clear she could have gone further to rebuild trust with inspectors, so that crucial work to improve inspection arrangements could be carried out in a collaborative approach, based on mutual respect.”

FE Week’s sister publication Schools Week previously revealed Ofsted data on complaints relating to inspector conduct.

In the 2020-2021 financial year, 39 complaints from 2,585 inspections related to concerns over the conduct of inspections (1.5 per cent). The number of inspections this year was lower than normal amid Covid.

In the 2022-2023 financial year, Ofsted received 171 complaints raising conduct concerns out of a total of 7,615 inspections (2.24 per cent).

What Ofsted will hear when it listens to training providers

The breadth of experiences relating to Ofsted inspections are vast. No two providers share the same experience other than the passion! For some, the passion relates to extreme elation and delight about every aspect and for others frustration, relief, exhaustion or devastation.

Since Ofsted launched its Big Listen, members of the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) from across the sector have been feeding in proposals for reform. Starting with the dreaded phone call that an inspection is imminent, nominees are adamant that five days’ notice should be given to providers of all sizes.

This is particularly important for work-based learning where the provider has to liaise quickly with employers and apprentices. They also want an end to Friday notification calls from Ofsted because this will avoid the need to contact employers and learners over the weekend.

Providers believe that inspection reports are sanitised and lack either the detail about strengths or insufficient information to expand on the areas for improvement. Where ‘Requires Improvement’ (RI) has been the overall judgement, the outcome could be in sharp contrast to the learner and employer feedback in Ofsted’s surveys, which are not published. This leaves providers feeling very unfairly represented.

FIN members have suggested one of two ways forward: that Ofsted produces two reports, including a private one for the provider (and the funder) with more specific details, strengths, areas for improvement and most importantly recommendations to improve, or alternatively that Ofsted publishes a richer, more meaningful report that shows survey outcomes and other elements of provision.

For providers awarded RI or ‘Inadequate’, improvement recommendations are essential, especially for independent learning providers who will need to show how they can meet them to keep trading.

Over half of the respondents to FIN’s Big Listen survey felt that the size of their inspection team was not appropriate for their provision. For some larger providers, the team’s size limited the learner sample size and therefore some of the negative findings were disproportionate. On the other hand, one provider was allocated a team of six inspectors to look at just 116 learners.

Emotions run high and the sense of urgency is overwhelming

Ofsted should therefore provide clarity on the rationale for the number of inspectors or learner sample sizes, for instance by stipulating the number of learners and employers or a percentage that constitutes a sample to help providers with their preparation process.

Even if these issues are addressed, we still need to tackle the poor alignment of the provider contract for delivery and the inspection framework (EIF). Ofsted is generally valued by the sector for its professionalism and ability to make fair judgments, but inspectors are limited to only judging against the framework.

FIN looks at reports by provider type and the number of sixth form colleges achieving ‘Outstanding’ is extremely high and disproportionate to all other types of provider. Our research of ‘Outstanding’ outcomes shows a clear correlation with the requirements of the EIF:  a fixed term time and a full-time education programme which includes a pastoral curriculum,  selective entry and a well-established exam system. By contrast, adult education short courses, apprenticeships and bootcamps are being shoehorned into the EIF.

We are not trying to devalue the richness of provision that Ofsted reports on, but as the grades are business-critical for so many contracts, there needs to be a different approach. The EIF should be streamlined to reflect different types of provision. Reform should follow the principle that if it’s paid for, it should be graded; if it is not in the contract and therefore not funded, don’t grade.

A highly technical apprenticeship provider should not be prevented from achieving ‘Outstanding’ because they do not spend precious off-the-job hours promoting healthy eating or personal fitness. The judgement should be primarily focused on the technical training, potentially fantastic career progression and valued output into the employer’s business.

As FIN continues to gather nominees’ feedback and form judgements for submission into Ofsted’s consultation, emotions run high and the sense of urgency is overwhelming. Change is needed fast.