Great Gatsby: Creating the conditions for apprentices’ professional growth

Anyone working in further education will know that careers advice and guidance is a hot topic in recent Ofsted reports. Off the back of Wigan & Leigh’s ‘good’ rating for its apprenticeship provision in 2022, we decided it was time to pour some much-needed investment into our careers sector.

For too long, the fall in apprenticeship starts has been overshadowed by a celebration of the increased uptake of higher education courses. But the two are not locked in a zero-sum game. It’s time we start looking at apprenticeships as a career stepping stone with genuine value, rather than the poor relation to a degree.

Earlier last year, we received funding from the Department of Education via the Apprenticeship Workforce Development fund for an individual project to implement action research. The six-month career-driven project, which ran from March to September 2023, focused on improving and enhancing the provision of advice and guidance within the apprenticeship journey. The long-term aims were increased achievement, better retention and improved learner destinations into employment or higher education.

During the project, we identified 450 full-time students wanting to go into either an apprenticeship or employment. With the help of ten sector-specific career talks and events, we managed to get 101 of those students onto their chosen career path.

In addition, I received an overwhelming response from other colleges and training providers during a speech I did at a careers talk last October to disseminate the project and to outline the need for more funding and better education around career potential.

It’s vital to increase the knowledge and confidence of staff

One thing that was vital to this project was increasing the knowledge and confidence of staff around providing career advice and guidance to apprentices. Utilising the Education and Training Foundation’s work, which recognises that staff working with apprentices should adopt less of a tick-box approach and more of a motivational coaching approach, we set up to create a continuing professional development training package. This was designed to develop staff’s confidence by improving their knowledge of local market information and, most importantly, their understanding of how to use that information as part of their conversations around careers advice and guidance.

Our other overarching objective was to produce current full-time students with the resources they need to get into an apprenticeship. In pursuing that goal, we also noticed how significant it was to bridge the gap between employers and the college. Not only does this ensure a professional working relationship that will ultimately benefit the apprentice, it also has the potential to promote growth and career development within the business they’re in.

As a result of these efforts, we progressed on four out of the eight Gatsby benchmarks, used to identify improvement in our career provision, and will be continuing these actions in this academic year. We’re already ahead of the curve on the national achievement rate for apprenticeships (currently 64 per cent), but this year we are aiming for 70 per cent of our apprentices to complete and achieve.

Moving forward, we’ll be continuing with the employer events and progression panels, with a particular focus on improving accessibility and increasing networking opportunities. We’ll also be doing another action research project around what role parents can play in terms of advice and guidance for 16-18-year-old apprentices.

We believe that young people need a focus on their professional growth in the same way that all working people do, to inspire, motivate, and gain key skills around their objectives and their development. If we can provide a platform for apprentices to take some time for themselves and their careers, to hone in on their aspirations while receiving effective support from their employers, then we can create a stepping stone on a genuine journey of lifelong learning.

The Staffroom. Feel the fear and gather student feedback anyway

I entered education in the secondary sector, working on a supply basis in schools around Wolverhampton. That was a formative experience; both because I saw a bigger picture of social circumstances and behaviours than working in a single institution would have shown me, and because there isn’t time to build relationships.

With that work pattern, when you’re not seeing learners enough to properly get to know and form relationships with them, it can be easy to make assumptions about individuals based on your experiences of others with seemingly familiar patterns of behaviour.

Doing so is, of course, a mistake, as my personal, atypical journey underlines. I wasn’t particularly academic at school, but discovered a passion for business when I started studying it in year 10. I became the first person from my family to go to university, and then I worked in discount retail.

Those experiences inform my approach. They underline the importance of empathy and the way it underpins longer-term relationships with students. They remind me that not every student is on that same neat, linear journey to their destination. Recognising that is important, particularly in FE where many students are facing GCSE re-sits and haven’t had overly-positive experiences of school.

Embracing those realisations has been a significant driver in reflecting on my teaching and the ways I work with students, listen to them and adapting my delivery and approach to their needs. It also drove my decision to place personal development at the heart of the project work I undertook when I attained Advanced Teacher Status (ATS).

Central to that work was the roll-out of 360-degree feedback, not just among colleagues but students as well. It’s fair to say that some colleagues had mixed feelings about this, and I understand why. There’s an element of needing to trust both that you are good at your job and that students will be constructive in their responses. It’s also important to think about how their responses will be evaluated and how they can be used to benefit development.

My advice is to begin small; ask about a single lesson

We gathered the feedback through a questionnaire, something that can be done over a time period that suits the process. It could be a short questionnaire after a session topic, or a longer termly or even annual one. You could select one group to give feedback or you could give the questionnaire to all of your groups. It all depends on the level of depth you want to go into.

The kind of questions that can be useful to ask are:

  • How helpful were the feedback and assessments I provided for gauging your progress and understanding?
  • Is there any way I could improve the way I provide feedback to you?
  • How clear and organised were the learning materials?
  • How can I make my lessons more engaging for you?

It’s also important to think about how their responses are considered; they are food for thought to be reflected on as a mechanism for improving your own teaching and learning practice. You are treating your learners as customers, and customers don’t always appreciate the challenges a business faces.

For anyone who hasn’t done this before, my advice is to begin small; ask about a single lesson. Ask whether it could have been delivered differently, whether it felt relevant and whether different activities might have worked better.

You’ll find out things you won’t if you don’t ask. In my activity, one class said they would like more quizzes; something I hadn’t done very much of but they found helpful.

Then, having asked about a particular lesson you can scale up the process to ask for wider feedback. Not only can it be useful for professional development, but it also builds positive rapport between staff and students when the latter feel respected and heard.

For me, teaching in further education is about much more than the skills and knowledge we develop in the classroom; it’s about engaging a diverse group of learners, unlocking their potential and equipping them to thrive in a dynamic world. Ensuring the individuals in that group are heard, considered and valued, plays a significant part in achieving that.

Will the UK Shared Prosperity Fund go over the cliff edge in 2025?

As a general election looms ever closer, one thing all political parties have in common is their silence on what will happen to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) beyond March 2025.  The UKSPF is a central pillar of the UK Government’s ‘Levelling Up’ agenda. The fund replaced European funding following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and is providing £2.6 billion of new funding for local investment by March 2025.

Brexit failed to deliver for the employability and skills sector.  €16.4 billion (around £15.4 billion at July 2020 exchange rates) was received by the UK during 2014 to 2020 through European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds.  In contrast, a mere £2.6 billion of UKSPF funding over a 3-year period was made available by the UK Government. This was never going to have the impact nor fill the void left behind by European funding. 

As was widely predicted and as I set out in my June 2022 article in these pages, a large chunk of this funding was swallowed up by local authorities after years of austerity. Very little money actually made it out of town halls to sustain organisations who were struggling to survive after European funding came to an end.

Whitehead-Ross Education has been very fortunate to secure £2.4 million of UKSPF contracts across nine local authorities in South Wales and South West England. Despite very tight implementation timescales and many local authorities lacking concise guidance from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), the funding is enabling us to support almost 1,900 participants. This includes providing support to disengaged young people to re-enter education and employment, delivering Multiply numeracy provision and providing digital upskilling for economically inactive individuals among other activities.

All of this work is delivered in economically disadvantaged communities across the UK and targeted at supporting the hardest to reach. And all of this work is at risk beyond March 2025 as all political parties fail to commit to further funding for the UKSPF. It was bad enough that the UK lost £15.4 billion of European funding. Now, we are on track for seeing the UKSPF go over the cliff edge come March next year.

Without it, there is no plan to support people back into work

I have heard rumours in Wales that plans are being drafted by DLUHC for UKSPF 2.  However, a decision needs to be made fast otherwise local authorities will have little time to plan and finalise their procurement processes ahead of March 2025.  Once a general election is called and we enter purdah, government decision making will grind to a halt. We therefore need all political parties to commit now to sustaining the UKSPF to enable proper planning and sustainability of valuable projects.

Economic inactivity – the proportion of people who are neither working nor looking for work – has risen since the pandemic. In 2022, 22 per cent of working-age people in England, Scotland and Wales were economically inactive – some 2.5 million individuals – in spite of workforce shortages in key economic sectors.

The European Social Fund and now the UKSPF have enabled projects to provide tailored and specialist support to target priority groups such as those suffering from ill health, the over-50s, young people and single parents.

Just this week, shadow work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall announced that ‘a life on benefits’ will not be an option under a Labour government. If the phrase ‘a life on benefits’ seems familiar, it might be because it appeared in chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Conservative conference speech last November. Clearly, the major parties agree that unemployment is a scourge and major economic headwind.

Without a shared prosperity fund, there is no plan and no money to support the groups who are most at risk of enforced worklessness back into the workplace. The predictable consequence will be rising inequality and a failure to move the dial on the number of benefit claimants.

For all these reasons, Westminster must offer clarity and certainty about the future of this vital funding without delay.

Debating one-word judgments shouldn’t overshadow Ofsted’s Big Listen

Ofsted launched their ‘Big Listen’ exercise last Friday as part of their commitment to consider any changes needed following the tragic death of Ruth Perry. We had the pleasure of meeting Sir Martyn Oliver, the new Chief Inspector, soon after his appointment. His candid, impactful words at last month’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference echoed our discussions about the need for the chief inspector to be in “listening mode” and address the challenges faced by FE and skills as well as schools.

The debate on the appropriateness of single-word judgments has been highly emotive. Calls from some quarters to abolish Ofsted have largely diminished, but there is still significant airtime given to the debate on single-word judgments. Interestingly, at our recent conferences in London and Manchester, the audience’s views differed on their use. While the majority in London preferred Ofsted to continue using them, the majority in Manchester wanted a change.

We suggest that we should not get too distracted by this debate or an alternative scorecard approach, which is ultimately a DfE decision. Instead, we should look more broadly and discuss some alternative challenges and suggestions that need more focus and debate through the Big Listen.

Some AELP members have shared their thoughts on the current grading scale, which only has four grades. They believe that the range between ‘good’ and ‘requires improvement’ is too wide. The Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) previously had a seven-grade scale, but we are not proposing a return to that. Instead, we suggest having five grades to better recognise a wider range of provision.

Additionally, some new providers feel that the three judgments on their progress during monitoring visits are too narrow. They propose that Ofsted considers a broader range of monitoring outcomes, along with full inspection grades.

This is ultimately a DfE decision. We should look more broadly

Lastly, some providers suggested to us the need to review the terminology of grades and judgments. While poor provision cannot be dressed up, there is a valid question of whether ‘inadequate’ is still the appropriate description for this grade.

One of the themes in the Big Listen survey is impact and to me this is the really critical one, the ‘so what’ aspect. Independent Training Providers (ITPs) are in a uniquely difficult situation based on the consequences of an inadequate inspection outcome. In the vast majority of cases, a grade 4 outcome means that the DfE will terminate their funding agreement.

This means a forced market exit and ultimately significant disruption for employers and learners at the same time. Unlike other institutions, there is no intervention support or a second chance. Although we would never advocate supporting poor provision, there are times when a provider makes a genuine mistake or simply misunderstands requirements.

The FE and skills system has never been so complex. On this basis, AELP is advocating for Ofsted to bring back the “capacity to improve” judgment. We would also like the DfE to rethink their policy on near-automatic termination where providers are not currently meeting the standard but Ofsted has confidence that they can improve and quickly get better.

Finally, AELP believes that Ofsted has an important role to play in the skills landscape of the future. They can ensure the quality of education and hold providers accountable for their actions when necessary.

However, AELP has already communicated to the chief inspector that Ofsted needs to focus on improving the consistency of inspection, both during the inspection itself and in the outcomes that providers achieve.

Although inspectors are not robots and have a tough job, AELP has heard from its members that some inspectors can still on occasion become too focused on data and not the quality of teaching and training.

Furthermore, some inspectors may not have a background in the types of providers they are inspecting, leading to a lack of recognition of nuanced differences between classroom-based and work-based provision.

The Big Listen is a great opportunity to influence change positively, and AELP looks forward to contributing to that change.

Ticket to ride: Further education gets its chance to trial maths mastery

A decade back I sat opposite a very little boy and his mum on the train to Sheffield. I wanted to do some work, but the little boy was absolutely determined to talk to me, although conversation with a boy who wants to say “red” earnestly and repeatedly isn’t the most scintillating. His mum was trying to study, and kept apologising to me. I gave up trying to work and talked to the little boy, much to his mother’s delight.

After a while, and grateful that I had kept her little one entertained, we struck up a conversation. She had left school at 16, with good GCSEs, including some A*s – and a U in maths. She was pregnant by 17 and a mother a few months later. She worked – from memory – in the local Premier Inn, where someone had spotted that she was clever. They wanted to put her on a management course – but she had to pass maths GCSE first. Hence she was studying maths, by herself, from textbooks. 

I asked, cautiously, how she got a U. She told me that it was genetic. Her father had failed maths and told her she too would be bad at it. As Larkin remarked, “They fuck you up, your mum and dad”, although in this case there is no evidence to convict her mother.

I said this was nonsense, and that I reckoned she had skipped loads of lessons and never done her homework. She was amazed at my perspicacity – “How did you know?” – adding that obviously she had played truant because there is no point going to lessons if you are genetically bad at maths.

I told her, as the Department for Education chief analyst, that it is impossible to be A* in most subjects and fail maths. As Professor Rob Coe has remarked many times, all core subjects are expressions of a single unidimensional trait, “general academic ability”. If you are that clever, then unless you have extreme dyscalculia or the like, you can get a decent grade in maths. 

At this point the fourth person around the train table – a university student – took out his ear buds and said: “He is right. I am Chinese. We all do well in maths. That is because we are taught well and work hard. You will be fine”. He then went back to work. 

She told us that we were the first people to have faith in her ability to do well in maths. 

Teaching maths to people who think they can’t do it can be a hard, hard grind

Maths is a cruel subject. You literally and obviously get things wrong. A history essay can be weak, but at least it is an essay. Sometimes in maths you do not know where to begin, and nothing is harder on self-esteem than handing in a blank sheet of paper. 

Since I met that lady, thousands upon thousands of people have had to resit maths GCSE in further education colleges, having failed maths in school. Some have passed, but the majority have not. This is a tragic failure for them, and for us as a nation. Maths is important, and we know – as the Chinese student remarked – there are societies that show that pretty much everyone can get to a decent standard. 

That is why I am so pleased that the EEF has stumped up £600,000 for an RCT for maths mastery in further education colleges. There is good evidence that this approach works, but – given covid and everything else – not enough to be certain that it should be the norm. 

Maths mastery costs £50 per student per year. As far as we can tell, students make a month’s more progress, and students from poorer backgrounds make double that. Two month’s progress for £50 is a bargain. Now Tim Leunig’s rule of thumb is that RCTs can and do overstate the final benefit by two to one – because in an RCT everyone concentrates hard, and it is all shiny and new – but even if it is only half as effective once rolled out, this approach would still be worth every penny.

The EEF are recruiting colleges for this trial now. We all know that teaching maths to people who think they can’t do it can be a hard, hard grind, painful for teacher and student alike. If we can build up their confidence, make them realise the truth which for many of them is that they are perfectly competent, they can and will learn enough maths to pass. And then, like this young lady, more doors will open for them. 

So do sign up, get trained, and let’s change some lives. 

What I won by taking part in WorldSkills UK competitions

I owe a huge amount to Will, my college tutor at City of Portsmouth College and Val, my lecturer and Training Manager at the University of Portsmouth. Standing in front of a packed exhibition hall in South Korea in 2022 as the results of the WorldSkills web technologies competition were read out, I knew that if it hadn’t been for their support (not to mention their encouragement to enter) I wouldn’t have been named one of the best young web developers in the world.

My BTEC level 3 extended diploma in IT opened so many doors for me professionally and personally. Significantly, it saw me compete in my first regional WorldSkills UK competition. With the registration period now open for this year, I wanted to share my experiences in the hope that more young people can benefit from taking part in WorldSkills UK Competitions.

Confidence will come

First, when looking at who to enter into skills competitions or other extra-curricular activities it can be easy to overlook the less outgoing students. I struggled with low self-esteem and would never have put myself forward for a competition like this. In fact, when my tutor first mentioned WorldSkills UK I thought it wasn’t for me. 

But we started with competition-based activity in the classroom and through this I began to build my confidence and resilience, two key skills that have helped me land my dream job as a web developer. 

The first time I competed was the first time I pushed myself beyond what I thought I was capable of, and the hard work paid off hugely. I didn’t even think I would do well enough to qualify, so to walk away with the gold medal at the WorldSkills UK national final later that year was truly amazing.

Relatable role models work

My tutor arranged for past students who had been involved in our competitions to share their experiences with us. Hearing how Dan Levings, who just a few years before was in my class, had gone onto train with WorldSkills UK and represent the UK in web development at the ‘skills olympics’ in São Paulo, Brazil was the motivation I needed to push myself. 

Once I began training to compete internationally, he also offered his time and support. I am immensely grateful to him and other alumni and made myself a promise that once my competing journey came to an end I would continue to volunteer with WorldSkills UK. 

Most recently, I supported with the training for EuroSkills Gdańsk 2023. Interaction with past students can be such a powerful tool for those who are currently studying, helping them relate what they are learning in the classroom to the world of work.

More than technical skills            

Taking part in competitions is so much more than just learning higher-level technical skills.   The focus on teamwork, communication skills and how to perform under pressure was just as important for me. 

While training with WorldSkills UK I learned how to look after myself mentally and physically and I received coaching sessions on how to present myself in professional situations. I used this experience when I competed in South Korea, and it has never stopped being useful in my workplace since. 

If you had asked me as a teenager whether I could ever stand up in the houses of parliament to share my experiences of representing my country with MPs, I would have said no. There was no way in my mind I would ever go as far as being selected to be part of a team. 

Since taking part in WorldSkills UK competitions, I’ve been able to believe in myself more and not be afraid to try new things, even when they are outside my comfort zone. It has given me the edge I needed to go the extra mile in my career.

I want all young people in FE to have the opportunities I had. That is why I am urging all tutors to get their students involved. Not all will be selected, but just having the opportunity to get involved at any level is just the motivation they might need to excel in their training and career.        

WorldSkills UK competitions are open for entry until 28 March 2024. Click here

Holiday pay guidance reviewed amid fears colleges could be left out of pocket

The government is reviewing guidance on holiday pay for term-time-only workers after law firms warned a mistake could leave colleges out of pocket.

The non-statutory advice, which comes into effect in April, follows a court ruling in 2022 which means holiday pay for term-time-only workers must be calculated based on the hours they work in a normal week, not pro-rated based on the weeks worked in a year.

An employment appeal tribunal ruled in 2018 that Bedford Girls School music teacher Lesley Brazel was underpaid because of the way her holiday pay was calculated.

Four years later, the Supreme Court quashed an appeal by the school’s parent charity, the Harper Trust.

Previously, Brazel’s holiday pay was based on what she would earn in an average week, multiplied by 5.6, the statutory number of weeks of leave in England.

But the trust changed its approach to pay in 2011, calculating the total number of hours she worked each term, and paid per for 12.07 per cent of that figure.

Confusion over ‘part-year workers’ definition

Government guidance, published in January, focuses on two types of worker affected by the change. Irregular hours workers are those whose paid hours are “wholly or mostly variable”.

Part-year workers, according to the guidance, are those for whom there are periods of at least a week “which they are not required to work and for which they are not paid”.

It gives an example of a worker who is paid “an annualised (flat) salary over 12 months but has periods of time that last more than one week where he is not working”.

He “would not qualify as part-year worker if his contract reflects that there are weeks where he is not working and there are no weeks where he does not receive pay”.

It is this section of the guidance that has caused confusion, law firms said, because it appears to suggest term-time only workers who are paid in 12 instalments throughout the year do not count as part-year workers.

In guidance published on its website, Browne Jacobson said: “Put simply, we think the non-statutory guidance has got this wrong.” 

Colleges could end up paying more

Sarah Linden, senior associate at Browne Jacobson, told FE Week the confusion “could result in education employers providing, and paying, term-time-only [workers] for more statutory holiday than they otherwise need”.

“The non-statutory guidance suggests employers must continue to provide these workers with 5.6 weeks of statutory holiday, rather than being able to make use of the new statutory holiday entitlement calculation that would otherwise effectively pro-rate these workers’ entitlement based on the amount they work.”

But she added that “in practice, it’s a technical issue” and “likely to be of limited impact” for employers that follow the National Joint Council process for support staff pay and conditions.

“This is because TTOs are entitled to a pro-rated share of the full-time contractual holiday entitlement set out in the green book proportionate to their working time.”

The firm said it recommended schools and colleges “consider amending their TTO contracts to make the position clear”.

Government reviewing guidance

Approached with the concerns, a Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said they were “currently reviewing the guidance and will provide an update in due course”.

“Whilst the legislation defining a part-year worker applies to all sectors, we recognise this has a unique impact on those working in education.

Guidance issued by Stone King, another law firm that specialises in education, states that “unhelpfully, [the guidance] gives an example which could be interpreted to indicate that because term-time-only staff are paid in 12-monthly instalments, they would not be considered part-year workers”.

They said the guidance was “wrong”, and that changes to the law “take primacy over the non-statutory guidance”.

They said they were “in contact with the Department for Business and Trade to seek a revision and clarification to the non-statutory guidance”.

But they added that while the guidance left a “small amount of doubt as to calculations for TTO staff… we do not think this should necessitate any action from schools or colleges”.

Term-time-only workers are “likely to fall within the definition of a part-year worker as they tend to have periods of at least a week which they are not required to work and for which they are not paid”.

College lecturer wrongfully sacked over ‘vengeful’ misconduct claims

A former college lecturer has won damages after an employment tribunal ruled he was wrongfully dismissed over “fabricated” allegations of misconduct made by a student seeking “revenge”.

Kirk Wood, a former esports teacher at Halesowen College, has been awarded £3,431.31 after a judge found the college did not fully investigate accusations of inappropriate behaviour and deemed his immediate sacking was unfair.

Wood was fired last March for gross misconduct after a student claimed he breached professional boundaries by asking her out for a drink and “consistently” bringing up his sex life during lessons, amongst other “career-ending” allegations.

Employment judge Robert Childe found that the student raised allegations against the teacher as “revenge” after he reported safeguarding concerns about her being previously sexually assaulted, an incident she didn’t want to get back to her family.

The “contradictory” allegations were brought by the student and her boyfriend, and his two friends, who claimed that Wood disclosed information about his romantic life, that he had been using dating apps Grinder [sic] and Tinder, and was both a 30-year-old virgin and engaged in group sex.

“It is likely [she] was a student who would raise the allegations falsely as revenge for what she perceived to be the claimant interfering in her home life,” the judge said.

The judge ruled that Halesowen College principal Jacqueline Carmen, who was interim deputy principal at the time of the incident, “behaved unreasonably” for taking the claims at “face value” and for not interviewing four staff members who could corroborate Wood’s professional behaviour.

“Jacquie Carmen then took the unilateral decision to dismiss the claimant without conducting a further investigation,” the judge ruled.

College bosses told FE Week they “thoroughly” investigated the student complaint and fired Wood over gross misconduct.

“We have of course noted the judge’s decision,” a statement from the college said.

“Going forward, our priority remains the safety and wellbeing of all students and staff.”

The history

Wood was employed from August 2022 to March 2023 at Halesowen College. He told the college before starting that he had been accused of what he believed to be false allegations at a previous employer, Colmers School & Sixth Form College.

Halesowen College subsequently obtained a reference from the school, which said Wood had faced allegations of safeguarding breaches of gross misconduct.

Wood brought a tribunal case against Colmers school in 2020 over wrongful and constructive dismissal after students alleged to another teacher that he mentioned the dating app Tinder in class, touched the face of a female student, and held a chair over a student’s head.

He resigned before a disciplinary hearing took place at the school. The tribunal case was dismissed in August 2021. The college subsequently employed him as an esports lecturer.

The judge found that Carmen “relied” on the Colmers reference as a reason for firing him.

“[Halesowen College] did not follow a fair process prior to the dismissing [Wood],” the ruling said.

“Similarly, a decision was taken by three of the [college’s] employees tasked with managing the [Wood’s] disciplinary process, on multiple occasions, not to obtain information that he requested which would support his case.”

A spokesperson for Halesowen College said: “Safeguarding is a moral and statutory responsibility which is taken very seriously at Halesowen College. Student and staff concerns are listened to and followed up, in accordance with established college procedures. The welfare of everyone involved is paramount throughout the process.

“In this case, a student made a complaint about the behaviour of a member of staff, which was investigated thoroughly. A disciplinary hearing was convened in accordance with our college procedures and found the staff members’ behaviour did constitute gross misconduct, and the member of staff was dismissed. This employee exercised the right of appeal and an appeal hearing upheld the decision. We have of course noted the judge’s decision.

“Going forward, our priority remains the safety and wellbeing of all students and staff. Everyone needs to know that the college is a safe space to raise concerns and be confident that they will be listened to. We will continue to ensure our safeguarding and disciplinary procedures reflect that.”

Kirk Wood was contacted for comment.

Education sector sounds the alarm over transgender guidance

Sector bodies have sounded the alarm in their responses to a consultation on the government’s controversial transgender guidance, which closed this week.

Concerns included that guidance breaks the law, does not align with safeguarding duties, unhelpfully conflates schools and colleges, conflicts with the responsibility on leaders to act in a student’s best interests and does not help staff deal with practical issues.

Here’s our round up of everything you need to know.

Colleges need legal backing

As revealed by FE Week’s sister title Schools Week, the government’s own lawyers said schools and colleges faced a “high risk” of successful legal challenges if they followed several elements of the guidance.

The NASUWT teachers’ union, in its submission, said trust in the “legality of the draft guidance will remain low” until ministers can “provide more convincing evidence that it reflects the best possible understanding of the legal position”.

As the proposed guidance is non-statutory, NASUWT added it “does not provide protection” from legal cases against those “who believe that their statutory or regulatory rights have been breached”.

NASUWT, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and the school leaders’ union NAHT, also said the guidance does not fully align with equalities legislation and the Keeping Children Safe in Education safeguarding duties that schools and colleges must follow.

Julie McCulloch, ASCL’s director of policy, said if government “cannot provide assurance that schools and colleges will not be leaving themselves open to legal challenge by following this guidance, then the government itself must commit to taking on any legal challenges that arise against schools and colleges.”

Conflation of schools and colleges flawed

The guidance applies to students aged under 18 in further education and sixth-form colleges, as well as schools. However, confusingly, the guidance interchangeably described gender-questioning students in colleges as “students,” “pupils,” and “children”.

It does not apply to independent training providers, even those delivering apprenticeships or study programmes to under-18s.

The University and College Union said the consistent conflation of schools and colleges fails to “take account of the nature of relationship between young person, lecturer and further education college”. 

For example, there is focus on trying to ensure community cohesion throughout the document, including a section on engaging parents. But from an FE college perspective there is a “big difference between school children and young people at college”, UCU warned.

“For a considerable number of reasons the primary relationship at college is between the young person and the people they deal with whilst there, whereas at school there is considerably more interface with parents. The lack of any focus on the experience of young people at college within the document produces a flaw throughout.”

The Association of Colleges agreed. Its submission said: “The structure of the guidance groups schools and colleges together. This is not age appropriate and does not align with the way colleges engage with families, nor with other rights and competencies that 16 to 17-year-olds have in law.

“Some students arrive at college with an established view of their experienced gender identity, so it is inaccurate to frame the guidance as referring to ‘gender questioning children’.”

AoC added that it is “not obvious” why the age of 18 is considered the threshold below which this guidance applies.

In student’s best interests?

Leora Cruddas, chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, said the guidance covered a “sensitive area, and it is important that we get it right so that our young people are safe and well-supported”.

But the body is in talks with the Department for Education about “the relationship of this draft guidance with statutory guidance, most crucially on safeguarding.

“We feel it is important that a child-centred approach based on individual circumstances is put at the centre of decision-making.”

NASUWT added the need for schools and colleges to act in the best interest of young people “underpins some of the most important legal obligations place on them, particularly those related to child protection and safeguarding” – but said the guidance conflicts with those.

The NAHT, which published a summary of its response, added it was a “significant oversight for consideration of the mental health and well-being of children and young people, not to be one of the overarching principles”.

ASCL, in its submission, also highlighted “confusion and concern” around how the guidance applies to youngsters of different ages.

For instance, the union pointed out guidance said requests to transition from primary school pupils “should be treated with greater caution”, but then adds such children “should not have different pronouns” used – which implies “this key aspect of social transitioning should never be permitted”.

AoC added that at times the guidance seems to apply only to schools, but at times to colleges also. The question about uniform in “schools and colleges” is “particularly unclear”, the membership body said.

“The guidance does not recognise the different needs of college students or the different purposes of colleges as institutions – specifically the purpose of preparing students for adult life and working life.”

Doesn’t help with practical issues

Dr Patrick Roach, general secretary of NASUWT, added the guidance “fails to provide effective support on practical issues that schools and colleges may face, including on working with children who have already transitioned with the support of their families”.

Both ASCL and NASUWT highlighted that the guidance does not provide support for children who have already transitioned.Concerns were also raised about the proposed notion of “watchful waiting” in cases where schools and colleges may wish to accommodate “degrees of social transition”.

NASUWT said this would “appear to be of little practical assistance in supporting decision-making”. 

“Specifically, the guidance does not set out what schools and colleges should watch for, nor does it help them to determine a reasonable duration within which they should watch and wait in particular cases.”

ASCL also highlighted the expectation put on schools and colleges to “make decisions before a pupil is permitted to socially transition which, in our view, require clinical expertise”.

Meanwhile on parents, NASUWT added: “The guidance is silent on the most effective ways of working with parents who are supportive of their child’s decisions.”

So what should happen now?

Unions agreed that having guidance was a helpful step.

But the NAHT said it was “essential” government “release any legal review they receive on the final guidance, and be explicit throughout the guidance, any areas which may, despite best efforts for clarity, remain legally ambiguous, and which may pose a legal risk to schools and colleges, in order that they can obtain their own legal advice”.

Roach said he wanted the draft guidance withdrawn and replaced with guidance that allowed schools and colleges to “act with confidence in what is a complex and sensitive aspect of their work”. Any revisions should be made after “full consultation” with the sector.

The NAHT added the final guidance must be “focused solely on clarifying operational and practical issues, such as access to single-sex spaces and admissions registers”, which is at the minute lacking.

Guidance should also be accompanied by training, support and resources for schools and colleges.

ASCL acknowledged the guidance was an “important and necessary piece of work on a sensitive, complex and contentious issue”. 

But the union flagged “increasing concern” on a wider issue of “government by expectation”.

“Across a wide range of issues, the government now sets expectations for action by schools and colleges through non-statutory guidance, rather than clarifying and codifying the changes they wish to see in legislation.

“This is creating significant confusion, unhelpfully blurring the lines between what schools and colleges are legally required to do, and what the government of the day would simply like them to do… More clarity on this is required.”