Broadening the curriculum and bridging the divide between academic and technical qualifications are welcome ambitions within the Advanced British Standard (ABS). Research is clear that broader curriculums benefit students in numerous ways, and a high-quality skills system relies on establishing greater parity between academic and technical routes into employment. Colleges clearly could be well placed to deliver such a framework, with many already offering a high-quality mixture of academic and technical subjects.
However, it’s clear that such ambitious reform will require equally ambitious investment and planning. Given estimates suggest college spending per student in 2024-25 will be about 10 per cent below 2010–11 levels, further funding will be needed to help colleges make the ABS a success. Luminate Education Group is one of the country’s largest groups of colleges and while we’re broadly supportive of the vision behind the ABS, there are challenges that we’re eager to work with policymakers to solve.
Putting what is a predominantly positive vision for 16-19 education aside, it’s important to recognise that the proposals are largely unachievable within current conditions. Simply put, there aren’t sufficient teachers or capacity within our education settings to deliver the increase in teaching hours and assessments that form part of this broader curriculum.
Attracting additional teachers
The long-standing and well-reported challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers cannot be ignored. Last year’s inaugural release of the Department for Education’s annual statistics on the further education (FE) workforce revealed an average of 5.5 per cent of all teaching positions to be vacant across FE providers. Shortages are particularly felt within subjects like maths, physics, construction and engineering. The far higher pay of competitor occupations within these areas makes attracting teachers tremendously difficult.
As evident through the welcome introduction of £6,000 per year incentive payments for teachers of shortage subjects in their first five years, meeting even current demand presents an uphill battle. The ABS only increases this demand. Whether it be facilitating higher numbers of students opting to take a technical qualification or accounting for vast amounts more maths teaching, remedying recruitment and retention shortfalls will be vital.
Provided workforce demands can be met, ensuring some study of maths and English to age 18 has real promise. However, given core maths is complex to teach, upskilling current maths teachers would be needed to meet expected demand. Alongside maths and English, there must also be a focus on embedding digital skills throughout the broader curriculum.
Creating space to learn
At Leeds City College, we host over 20,000 learners and already operate at maximum capacity. Given projections for 200,000 additional 16-18 students by 2030, colleges will require more space. This is particularly acute in cities like Leeds, where there are already higher than average numbers of NEET young people. Investment will be needed to grow capacity, so colleges can offer the space more teaching time across a greater number of subjects requires.
Similarly, a broader curriculum naturally necessitates more assessments. Exam arrangements already pose a significant challenge for the sector. Alongside increasing capacity, there should also be a review of how to enable coordinated approaches within certain geographical areas so resources and space can be used efficiently.
The strong preference for summative, end-point-assessments within the ABS should also be avoided. Continuous forms of assessment could present a solution to assessment-based space constraints as well as a more effective means to judge learner ability, at least in technical subjects.
Unforgotten opportunities
In the early 2000s, the Tomlinson Report sought to move us away from exam-centric assessment. While the ABS proposals acknowledge the importance of practical skills, their emphasis on exam-based assessment undermines the value and practicality offered through a more holistic approach to assessment.
It’s also worth remembering that Tomlinson’s proposals focused on learners aged 14-19. To create greater parity between academic and technical forms of education, there might also be merit in exploring how best to introduce technical options of study from age 14 onwards.
The current ABS proposals are highly ambitious. Melding academic and technical qualifications into a single, broader framework would provide a serious upgrade to our post-16 landscape. To do so, it will need to be implemented correctly – and colleges can play a central role in ensuring its success.
It was fantastic to see employers of all sizes and politicians of all parties come together to celebrate the huge achievements of apprentices and the power of applied learning to transform during the recent National Apprenticeships Week. However, our system is at risk of wasting some of the important gains it has made and falling back again.
Apprenticeships are a huge asset to Britain. But as the digital economy and new technologies such as artificial intelligence transform the world of work, there is today a significant risk that apprenticeship opportunities may be unable to keep pace.
Almost two years ago, in May 2021, the Department for Education (DfE) took the decision to close the Apprenticeships Provider and Assessment Register (APAR) – the list of organisations able to deliver these vital apprenticeship opportunities. It has been effectively frozen in time ever since.
The implications of this decision are profound and far-reaching, particularly for apprenticeships in digital skills: by definition a fast-moving sector where agility and adaptability are not just advantageous but essential. In an age where technology evolves at breakneck speed and the frontiers of AI expand by the day, the rigidity of the current system has come to stand as a stark anachronism, a relic at odds with the dynamism of the digital age.
As a training provider which has helped thousands of learners gain the skills they need to thrive in the digital economy through coding bootcamps, we see first-hand how this damaging decision is constraining the quality and quantity of provision in the UK. And particularly so for the new and emerging skills needs crucial to fuel the growth of the tech sector, as those CoGrammar caters for.
More than 2,500 students have graduated from the government-funded bootcamps and short courses we’ve run in the past year, and we’re also partnering directly with Russell Group universities and employers. But, as things stand, learners going through the apprenticeship route are missing out on these life-enhancing opportunities. As long as the APAR keeps gathering dust, this will continue to be the case.
The rigidity of our system stands as a stark anachronism
Just last week, the government published data showing that graduates of these programmes have the potential to earn 55 per cent more than the national average, with average salaries in technology roles exceeding £70,000. Empowering learners of all ages and career stages with the ability to code professionally opens the door to new job opportunities, whether transitioning to an entirely new career path or advancing to a more senior role.
The current APAR system acts more like an exclusive club than a gateway to opportunity, stifling new, innovative provisions from entering the fray. This exclusivity not only limits diversity but also dampens the spirit of competition necessary for elevating standards and aligning them with the evolving needs of employers and the workforce.
The government is absolutely right to keep a laser focus on quality in provision, but there are also straightforward solutions which could ensure the quality guarantee of an apprenticeship is maintained whilst also allowing for competition and innovation.
One route is to remove any existing provider deemed ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted, or those not actively delivering apprenticeships, as well as enforcing higher standards and vetting processes for providers on APAR.
At the same time, ministers could choose to focus on new providers in priority skills areas so that provision keeps pace with technological change. To keep apprenticeship opportunities aligned with evolving labour market demands, DfE could publish an up-to-date list of priority sectors and, where possible, provide a ‘fast track’ route for new providers in these sectors – particularly where providers have a proven track record of capacity to deliver at scale, meet benchmarks on completion rates and quality of delivery, or are existing suppliers to DfE for other programmes.
The question is not whether the apprenticeship system can afford to change, but whether it can afford not to. As the digital revolution marches on, the need for a more flexible, responsive, and forward-looking apprenticeship framework has never been more urgent. The future beckons—a future where apprenticeships are not just pathways to employment but conduits to innovation and engines of economic dynamism.
To deliver this more inclusive, competitive, and dynamic apprenticeship ecosystem, DfE should first revisit its stance.
The spring budget may have been the last substantial fiscal policy event this side of the upcoming general election. Sadly, further education was alarmingly absent from the policy changes on offer. Some 200 new apprenticeship places a year for British film and a £50 million pilot for apprenticeships in the advanced manufacturing, green and life sciences sectors are far from the fundamental reform we need.
In a budget designed to help win the next election, further education has been considered a distraction from the issues the public cares about. This is despite Public First surveys indicating that increased funding for apprenticeship programmes isn’t just supported by voters but is in fact preferred over twice as much as additional childcare support within educational spending, for example.
The value of apprenticeships as an affordable educational route is clear. Those starting a university degree in the past financial year are expected to graduate with a staggering £45,600 of student debt.
And yet apprenticeships have declined dramatically since the levy was introduced. The number of starts has fallen by 157,800, including a near halving of the number of people starting apprenticeships in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the four years since its implementation.
Change is now down to the next government. Whatever party forms that government, unlocking skills through apprenticeship reform must be a priority. With estimates that more than 30 million workers, over 90 per cent of the workforce, will need reskilling by 2030, increasing the uptake of apprenticeships and less formal skills development is necessary for a dynamic, innovative economy to continue growing and for raising stagnant levels of productivity.
A key move towards achieving this objective is removing the five per cent co-funding obligation for SMEs. Government must finance the entire cost to encourage more SMEs to participate in apprenticeship programmes. Easing the financial burden and streamlining the process by reducing the administrative burden associated with complex co-funding rules will make the system more user-friendly and minimise the hurdles SMEs face.
Further education has been considered a distraction
Additionally, offering levy-contributing businesses a financial incentive of £1,000 per employee for training could promote continued professional growth and development. This approach would make it easier for companies to engage with the apprenticeship system, potentially leading to formal apprenticeship agreements or, at a minimum, encouraging more staff training.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has reported a 19 per cent decrease in employer training and development investment over the past 13 years, with per-employee investment now half the average of the European Union. Reversing this decline and driving up investment in employee training is essential to improving productivity and growth.
These changes should not depend on harsh cuts in funding to other parts of the apprenticeship system but could be financed by fully allocating apprenticeship levy funds to apprenticeship programmes, as originally intended. Research by FE Week indicates that last year, the levy generated around £415 million more than was spent. From May 2019 to June 2022, more than £3.3 billion in revenue was returned to the Treasury because of strict rules on using unspent levy funds.
Beyond the kind of budgetary interventions that went begging this week, there is a lot more a serious potential government should offer. For example, the one-year minimum-length requirement does not guarantee quality, but it does hamper adaptability and frequently falls short of addressing the varied demands of both learners and employers.
Instead, a flexible model that modifies the minimum duration on a sliding scale according to level, from six and rising to 24 months, would enable greater accessibility. It would also suit the distinct needs of various industries and roles more effectively and see apprentices climb the ladder of opportunity more efficiently.
Rigid, inflexible rules are holding further education and skills development back. A government that was serious about growth and productivity would have begun to change those this week.
FE Week has uncovered significant evidence of the harm that generative AI is doing to the integrity of assessment, as educators and regulators are left struggling to catch up with the rapid pace of technological change
Students are now armed with the means to ‘cheat’ their way through almost any non-exam assignment by putting questions to a large language model (LLM) of generative AI such as ChatGPT, Snapchat’s My AI, and a multitude of new AI ‘study aid’ platforms.
They’re also being exposed to growing numbers of online influencers endorsing these new tools on social media.
But, the AI detection tools that educators are being told by the Joint Council for Qualifications to use to detect AI plagiarism are themselves unreliable, giving rise to false accusations and a breakdown of trust between educators and students.
Some educators are now questioning whether non-exam assessments are fit for purpose, with this summer’s exams series being seen as the first real test of the system against AI.
Social media AI minefield
Toby Rezio, an American Tiktoker with 92.5 million video likes
There are numerous videos on TikTok of young people endorsing AI tools, sometimes purportedly as a study aid but often more blatantly for cheating. Most of these tools are third-party apps using ChatGPT’s language model. Most of their endorsers are attractive young females.
But students can also cheat using the social media platforms they’re already socialising on.
Toby Rezio, an American Tiktoker with 92.5 million video likes, admitted to cheating using Snapchat’s My AI (see pic on next page).
Snapchat – used by 90 per cent of 13- to 24-year-olds – unleashed its ‘my AI’ chatbot powered by Open AI’s ChatGPT language model on all its users in April 2023. They customise their avatar with human features and it tells them to “ask [me] questions about anything”.
While increasing numbers of young people are being exposed to new methods of cheating, they’re not all receiving guidance from their colleges about what they can and cannot use AI for.
A poll of 18 FE representatives at a recent meeting organised by the digital agency Jisc’s National Centre for AI found that a third were part of institutions which had produced AI guidance for learners, a third had not, with a third in the process of doing so.
The centre said its members had “noted that as AI becomes increasingly integrated into everyday tools, learners may encounter challenges in identifying what constitutes as AI”. It was also mentioned that “students may be aware of certain tools that staff are not”.
AI arms race
Snapchat’s My AI’s intro screen
As chatbots become more sophisticated, new and updated detection tools are being flogged to educators to get the upper hand. Last month, The Joint Council for Qualifications refreshed its AI use in assessments guidance to include an expanded list of detection tools, including Turnitin AI, Copyleaks and Sapling.
These tools are engaged in a war against platforms such as SteathGPT, whose website brashly advertises how it “not only eludes the discerning eyes of Turnitin but also enhances the writer’s voice, ensuring that the work reflects their unique style and intellect”.
But detection tools merely provide a rough probability of whether a learner has relied on AI. FE Week analysis found by that most of the “potential indicators of AI misuse” cited by the JCQ, such as default use of American spelling and a lack of direct quotations, can easily be overcome by using further chatbot prompts to write in specific styles.
Michael Webb, technology director at JISC, says he “managed to beat every AI detector” by telling the chatbot he was using to “use the word ‘and’ less”.
A recent international study of 14 widely used AI detection tools (including Turnitin AI) found them to be “not accurate or reliable enough to use in practice”. Around 20 per cent of AI-generated texts would “likely be misattributed to humans”, rising to half of the AI-generated texts that “undergo some obfuscation”.
It found that some AI detection tools, such as Writer are “clearly aimed to be used to hide AI-written text, providing suggestions to users such as ‘you should edit your text until there’s less detectable AI content’”.
Daisy Christodoulou, director of education for No More Marking believes that AI is being used for cheating far more than most educators realise. Christodoulou warns teachers that “if you spot one AI-generated essay, there’s probably another ten you haven’t spotted. You just haven’t spotted the students using AI well.”
Educators describe feeling like they’re engaged in an arms race when it comes to AI tools. Harald Koch, the author of a book about AI cheating, believes that “the development of AI is progressing far too quickly” for the detection tools to be relied upon.
“Before an AI checker has been rolled out in a meaningful way, the next level … of AI has already been released”.
Chatbot artificial intelligence
False accusations
The JCQ explicitly states that those accused of submitting AI-generated assignments “may attract severe sanctions”, including disqualification and being barred from exams. And if teachers with “doubts” about authenticity do not “investigate and take appropriate action”, this “can attract sanctions”.
The JCQ advises educators to use more than one detection tool and to consider “all available information”. Yet a growing number of students are now being falsely accused of AI cheating.
Daniel Sokol, lead barrister at Alpha Academic Appeals, says he now “deal[s] with AI-cheating cases regularly”.
In New Zealand last year, AI plagiarism detectors are believed to have falsely accused two high school students of cheating, with one parent describing the use of AI detection tools as playing “Russian roulette”.
An American study published in September 2023, which analysed 49 Reddit posts from college students accused of using ChatGPT, found 38 protesting their innocence. Another found seven AI detectors had wrongly flagged writing by non-native speakers as AI-generated 61 per cent of the time, compared to 20 per cent of human-written essays overall.
Webb admits the detectors are “particularly prone to false positives when English isn’t your first language, because perhaps you’ve got a more formal style”.
Caught in the act
A TikTok post from a student claiming they had been falsely accused by AI detection tools
As ChatGPT was released in November 2022, last summer was the first set of exams in which it was possible to cheat using generative AI. Cases of exam malpractice resulting in penalties rose from 4,105 in 2022 and 4,895 in 2023, although the proportion relating to tech devices remained the same (44.5 per cent).
The JCQ highlighted examples of students caught misusing AI on their coursework, including two AQA A-level history students, one of whom was disqualified, and two students on the OCR’s Cambridge nationals enterprise and marketing qualification who confessed to cheating and received zero marks.
One candidate claimed in their defence to believe that using ChatGPT was “no different to asking a teacher for advice”.
The JCQ last year advised educators to make students do some coursework “in class under direct supervision” to prevent AI misuse. But Christodoulou is calling for them to go further and “pause” all assessed coursework.
“The really high false accusation rate of AI detection tools can be corrosive for classroom relationships,” she warns. “And if a student knows that their friend is using AI and getting away with it, that’s destructive for the values you want to nurture. We must be really careful with these things.”
Scott Hayden, Basingstoke College of Technology’s head of digital, believes the sector needs “a moment to reflect” on AI’s impact. Assessments “need to change”, with essays replaced with “blogs, podcasts, and creative ways we can assess”.
Claire Whiting, initial teacher education lead at Wiltshire College, posted online that she uses Vivas “with no notice” to assess whether a student has “depth of understanding”.
“AI is here to stay, and is evolving too fast for staff training … essays are, quite frankly, useless to awarding organisations now.”
But a new tool being marketed on TikTok, Ecoute, provides real-time AI-generated responses to “hack job interviews” and could potentially be used for any oral assignments. “Invisible” Bluetooth earbuds available to buy on Amazon would make it difficult for teachers to spot such activity.
The regulatory gap
Ecoute, which advertises itself as being able to help with job interviews
DfE’s deputy director for digital, Bridie Tooher, admits that when it comes to AI, “things are moving so fast that … the tech will always overtake the regulations”.
AI governance expert Kay Firth-Butterfield points out that in the US – the birthplace of most AI companies – there are “lots of ongoing court cases around LLMs using other people’s data without paying for it” which educators “need to bear in mind”.
“Google, OpenAI and Microsoft are underwriting court cases which may arise from misuse of their tools,” she added.
Edtech investor Richard Taylor says because “the only real players” when it comes to AI edtech are based in America and China, this makes it more challenging to regulate the industry in the UK. “If you can’t control fundamentally the companies that are doing it, it puts us in a weak position.”
Educators raised concerns to DfE in its AI consultation that their students’ identity, grades or behaviour data may be input into Generative AI tools, with developers being “often opaque” about their use of such data.
Thea Wiltshire, the Department for Business and Trade’s edtech specialist, says “we have to be very careful” in inputting students’ work into LLMs because “allowing generative AI to learn from it is an abuse of their intellectual property.”
Another key concern is around colleges and young people not adhering to the age restrictions of AI platforms. An Ofcom survey last year found that 74 per cent per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds in the UK have used a GenAI tool. For 13- to 18-year-olds, parental consent is required for ChatGPT.
Webb says some educators see this as “just a US legal requirement” which is a “very risky strategy”.
Firth-Butterfield warns that in the business world, “the early adopters of AI are having to claw back what they’ve been doing because they didn’t put a good governance structure around AI in at the beginning”. She advises education leaders not to make the same mistake.
AI inequalities
Chatbots have the potential to level the academic playing field by giving more students access to personalised systems of learning, previously only available to those who could afford private tutoring. However, the digital divide could grow because of the rising cost of AI tools and access to online technology.
A recent Internet Matters poll found in households where income is less than £10,000 per year, only 11 per cent of children have used ChatGPT, rising to 45 per cent where income is £80,000.
And the most effective AI tools are the pricier ones: GPT-4, OpenAI’s premium LLM, costs £16 a month.
Webb estimates it costs a student around £80 a month for all the AI tools required to do well academically, giving those students “a significant advantage”. He admits “there’s no easy answer to that.”
Meanwhile, there is “inequality through variations of approach” within the FE sector.
While some colleges have banned generative AI, others are encouraging students to embrace it and are using it to generate lesson plans, crunch data, and help mark assignments.
Webb believes that new AI tools can be used by teachers to work “more efficiently and effectively”, allowing them to “spend more time building relationships with the learners, and help them develop soft skills”.
However, a teacher over-reliant on AI to do all their prep for them could create more “disengaged learners”. “It’s “how we implement these tools, not just the tool itself.”
The age restrictions of generative AI
What are colleges doing?
In a packed session at the Association of Colleges conference last year hosted by Milton Keynes College, around half its attendees said they had either “never used or heard of ChatGPT”, and “two or three said they were experts”, said Alex Warner, principal of its South Central Institute of Technology who led the session.
The college is choosing to embrace the AI revolution and gave every learner who joined last term an AI induction.
Basingstoke College of Technology is also making strides in engaging students around appropriate use of AI.
After a student survey revealed to Hayden that some of Basingstoke’s students were “hopelessly addicted to their devices and wanted help but were too embarrassed to admit it”, the college created a module on digital wellbeing, now delivered to all new learners.
But having spent the last seven years “encouraging the use of Snapchat and live streaming in the classroom”, Hayden admits he now feels “at a real crossroads” over “doing myself out of work” with AI. “I’m shaking my fist at those Google-Microsoft gods”.
A lack of official guidance around AI use from DfE is leaving many colleges unsure how to proceed. One teacher on Facebook recently described feeling “completely overwhelmed” and “unequipped” by the pace of change.
Webb suggests that teachers “discuss with students how to use AI to create assessments that are authentic and getting them ready for work”. He admits this is “not easy” and that the problem is “compounded by the complexity around advice” from awarding bodies, which “differs enormously” between them.
“Collectively, we need to get to a shared understanding.”
Making stuff up
My AI being used for homework
In the meantime, colleges shouldn’t rely on LLMs too much, because they really can’t be trusted. The JCQ warns that chatbots “often produce answers which may seem convincing but contain incorrect or biased information”.
“Some AI chatbots have been identified as providing dangerous and harmful answers to questions and some can also produce fake references to books or articles by real or fake people.”
Warner has concerns about “ethics, bias and transparency”.
“The most frightening is where it makes up references by making assumptions. It’s riddled with flaws. But that’s why it’s not going to replace our jobs.”
There are also deeper philosophical considerations about the impact of AI on young people’s faith in democratic systems, and how AI will influence their curiosity for learning.
Firth-Butterfield claims in the US, AI is “helping students to come up from D and C to B [grades]. But it’s not helping to create excellence”.
She believes the tools can really help teach young people who had dropped out of school, been in jail or pregnant and missed large chunks of education to catch up”.
“But it’s questionable whether these tools will help the people already doing well academically to develop innovation. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to become average? As humans, we need original thought to advance society.”
She’s particularly concerned about the impact of AI that interacts with young people in human-like ways, because “if it can understand how you feel, there’s the potential for it to manipulate”.
Webb says Jisc was in the process of drawing up guidance around AI when ChatGPT was unleashed, and has been in “reactive” mode ever since. But a “common roadmap” for the FE sector is in the pipeline.
“We just need to adapt and centre on what keeps us human. I’m hoping that AI will actually make us more human, because we’ve lost that as a society.”
Yet, amid this promising landscape, a critical gap persists—a gap not of representation but of perception. It’s time to transcend mere statistics and delve into the deeper narrative, to challenge the glass ceiling metaphor that still casts shadows over women in leadership. In an era where progress should be measured not just in numbers but in lived experience and stories told, the need to re-narrativise women in leadership echoes louder than ever.
As a doctoral student, I delved into the literature on senior leadership in further education, and encountered a surprising shortage of research, particularly concerning women leaders. The language used in many journal article titles suggested that women were perceived as the minority or disadvantaged group in FE leadership.
Titles such as ‘Managing Further Education: Is it Still Men’s Work?’, ‘Distorted views through the glass ceiling’ and ‘Educational Leadership: Where Are the Women?’ painted a narrative of struggle and under-representation for women in senior positions within FE institutions. Research even as recently as this decade evidences a social construct of further education senior leaders as “white, middle-class and male”.
However, my own experiences and the life histories of my research participants contradicted this narrative. The women leaders I interviewed didn’t see their gender as a barrier to their career progression. Rather, they perceived themselves as senior leaders, navigating their roles with confidence and efficacy.
The data from the Department for Education’s (DfE) workforce survey published in August 2023 painted a more positive picture, showing a significant shift in the gender composition of college senior leaders. The survey revealed that 55 per cent of leaders are now female—a testament to the progress made in achieving greater gender equality within the sector.
While the glass ceiling may no longer be a tangible barrier, perceptions and biases linger
Despite the positive strides, challenges persist. I noted a reluctance of women leaders in my research to share their “whole selves”. For example, while women leaders refrained from emphasising their roles as mothers or referencing their families in relation to their professional commitments, men embraced transparency about their familial responsibilities and were proud to talk about the impact of fatherhood on their leadership.
Indeed, I have reflected on my own reluctance to openly discuss my family commitments in professional settings in the past for fear of being perceived negatively. This highlights the lingering effects of gender stereotypes and biases in the workplace, which may influence how individuals present themselves professionally.
We should be proud of who we are; both our personal and professional identities inform our leadership. I know that being a mother of four daughters has shaped my leadership and my professional identity quite profoundly.
In light of these findings, I advocate for a re-narrativisation of women’s leadership experiences in further education. Amplifying success stories and sharing lived experiences of women leaders – of which there are plenty – can help align perceptions with reality and empower women to be more open about their identities and experiences.
Additionally, there’s a pressing need for updated research to offer a contemporary understanding of women’s leadership in further education, inspiring aspiring leaders to pursue such roles. This is a challenge I personally commit to undertaking, and I urge others to join in.
While my focus here has been on women in acknowledgement of International Women’s Day, it’s crucial to extend our efforts to promote diversity in leadership, including ethnic diversity, individuals who identify outside the gender binary, and those with disabilities or learning differences.
We need to recognise and celebrate the unique perspectives and contributions that individuals of all backgrounds bring to leadership roles. While the glass ceiling may no longer be a tangible barrier for women in further education leadership, perceptions and biases still linger.
By reshaping the narrative surrounding women leaders and fostering a culture of authenticity and inclusivity, we can continue to break down barriers and pave the way for a more equitable future in further education leadership.
FE colleges and staff who have advocated for more inclusive curriculums, more ethnically diverse college leadership and better employability for SEND learners have received prestigious awards.
WorldSkills UK has unveiled the winners of its equity, diversity and inclusion heroes awards 2024, at a reception hosted at the Houses of Parliament today.
The awards celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of a select few individuals and organisations who have reduced the stigmas around young people with disabilities and neurodivergence.
The accolades were supported by sponsors such as by the Skills and Education Group, UVAC, and FE Week.
One of the winners was North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College, which won the skills competition advocate for developing a supported internship programme for SEND learners. The initiative has enabled 65 per cent of 20 interns to obtain part-time or full-time work in the last two years.
Arvind Kaushal, MK Group
Meanwhile, Louise Gaskin (pictured above) from North East Surrey College of Technology (NESCOT) took home the gong for inclusive skills development. This was due to her pivotal role in guiding students participating in the WorldSkills UK digital media production competition and her advocacy for a more inclusive curriculum in FE.
Milton Keynes College Group head of people development & EDI Arvind Kaushal won the pioneer award at the ceremony for his work as programme lead for the DfE-funded equality & diversity programme #BAMEintoLeadership. Judges found he was also instrumental in delivering professional development to thousands of educators in over 85 countries through the #LDeduchat series.
“We are not in these jobs to win awards, but it is fantastic to have people recognise the work that we at MK Group are undertaking, it shows the importance of these programmes in helping all young people to succeed,” said Kaushal.
Haris Jarvid, a degree apprentice with Lloyds Banking Group, who won the Rising Star award said: “Today has been amazing, I didn’t expect to win at all. Lloyds Bank has been so supportive of not only my apprenticeship journey, but the wider diversity agenda. I hope events like this show that organisations really need to start including diversity as a key factor in business planning, it delivers value for all, staff, customers and the wider community.”
Haris Jarvid from Lloyds Banking Group
Ben Blackledge, chief executive of WorldSkills UK, congratulated the winners.
He said: “Your achievements in driving change to ensure all the young people you work with have the opportunity to succeed through apprenticeships and technical education is truly inspiring.
“At WorldSkills UK, we are proud to provide a platform for celebrating those making a significant difference. By working together, we can advocate for real change across the sector, creating inclusive opportunities that give all young people the chance for success in work and life.”
Charlotte Nichols MP, who sponsored the event at the Houses of Parliament, said: “Congratulations to this year’s winners of the WorldSkills UK EDI Heroes Awards. It was fantastic to support these awards and come together to celebrate the finalists and winners for the first time at the Houses of Parliament.”
Three more areas of England are to gain control of their adult education budgets in devolution deals announced in the chancellor’s budget – but there was no new investment for FE.
Jeremy Hunt’s budget was heavy on tax cuts – except for VAT for colleges – but light on public spending, with no further revenue funding to help colleges and providers deal with rising pressures.
He also announced a “public sector productivity plan” aimed at making public services including education more efficient, but did not detail how this would affect schools and colleges.
Hunt did however confirm that three county councils Surrey, Warwickshire and Buckinghamshire will gain control of their adult education budgets under level two devolution deals.
Further details were also published about North East Combined Mayoral Authority (NEMCA)’s level four deal, which will join the West Midlands and Greater Manchester as a “trailblazer” devolved authority with an estimated adult education budget of about £60 million per year.
Level two deals are offered to county councils or combined authorities that do not have a directly elected mayor.
Cornwall and Lancashire have already agreed level two deals which are due to go live in 2025.
The deals will offer control over adult education, the UK shared prosperity fund, and require the councils to use “local labour market intelligence” to support local skills improvement plans alongside local employers.
It takes the number of areas with actual devolution or with deals to 22, of which 10 are established and two have mayoral elections in May 2024 – East Midlands and York North Yorkshire.
Association of Colleges deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt said devolution covers 41 per cent of the English population and 62 per cent of the adult skills budget.
‘Own goal’ on VAT college exemption
Aside from the devolution deals there were no new announcements for FE and skills despite the chancellor repeating the government’s pledge to build a “high-skill economy”.
Chief executive of the AoC David Hughes said Hunt “missed another opportunity”.
He added: “There is a simple reality, that the prime minister’s economic priorities cannot be achieved without a boost in investment in skills.”
Colleges have repeatedly called for the government to scrap “unfair” tax rules requiring colleges to pay VAT. But Hunt chose to ignore the pleas yet again.
Hughes said: “College budgets and staff will benefit a little from the national insurance cut, but in a tax-cutting budget, the chancellor has missed the opportunity to scrap the unfair VAT rules imposed on colleges. That simple and fair move would have injected £210 million into colleges to help meet students’ needs.”
Julie McCulloch, director of policy at the Association of School and College Leaders, said the budget “failed to support” schools, colleges and those they serve.
She added: “The chancellor has instead focused on a desperate attempt to secure short-term political gain by cutting taxes as a pre-election sweetener.”
Public spending plans could lead to £380m adult skills cut
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that government spending plans, which include cutting the employee national insurance rate from eight per cent to six per cent from April 2024, are likely to mean 2.3 per cent a year cuts to non-protected budgets.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, estimates that the government’s spending plans could therefore mean a “further £380 million cut” to adult skills in England.
He said: “Taxes should always be as low as possible, but high-quality public services are essential for growth too. The government’s public spending plans could mean a further £380 million cut to adult skills in England – already £1 billion lower than in 2010 – and cutting off an engine of growth.”
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has urged the government to commit to fund business-led local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) to “at least” 2028.
The appeal forms part of the chambers’ submission to today’s spring budget, which comes alongside a report evaluating the success and teething issues of chamber-led LSIPs.
The BCC says it is seeking an extension of the funding, which expires in 2025, to provide English businesses with more long-term certainty about skills training in their area and to keep LSIPs business led.
“We need the LSIPs to stay business-led, and to remain a key part of the government’s long-term skills strategy,” said Jane Gratton, BCC deputy director of public policy.
“Without that commitment – the hard work already achieved risks being undermined.”
A small business owner in BCC’s evaluation report added: “For businesses seeking long-term certainty and planning, the March 2025 deadline of LSIP funding falls short. We should think beyond short-term solutions.”
First proposed in the FE white paper in January 2021, LSIPs aim to make colleges and training providers align the courses they offer to local employers’ needs.
Last summer, three-year LSIPs were published for all 38 areas of England. Funding worth £20.9 million was made available to employer representative bodies – £550,000 each – to develop, implement and review the plans.
In November, the Department for Education also doled out £165 million from the local skills improvement fund (LSIF) to colleges, supported in most cases by a chamber of commerce. The chambers of commerce are the designated employer representative body leading 32 out of the 38 LSIPs across England.
The LSIF fund was split across two financial years; £80 million was made available for the 2023/24 financial year, split equally between revenue and capital. In 2024-25, £85 million is for capital only.
The BCC published a report last week evaluating evidence from 21 of the 32 chamber-led local skills improvement plans, which identified concerns from participants over “short-term funding” and the bureaucracy involved in drawing up LSIPs.
“Participants across chambers, industries, and local agencies expressed worry that short-term funding and policies, particularly related to business engagement, hampered efforts to improve local skills,” the report said.
It also found “frustration” from stakeholders that funding was “mostly” linked to larger, nationally accredited qualifications despite many LSIPs identifying a need for flexible, bespoke training.
“The research found some frustrations with the limited scope of the plans themselves,” it added. “As the plans were intended by the Department of Education to focus on specific technical skills, at a local level, many chambers found themselves in receipt of employer feedback that they could not act upon.”
Some organisations found barriers around “bureaucratic complexities and overlapping jurisdictions with other agencies and institutions”.
“Differing priorities among chambers, local authorities, and local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) sometimes resulted in varied approaches to skills development, hindering cohesive planning,” the report said.
Gratton added: “There is now a real sense among businesses that they play their part in the skill system.
“This is about a partnership approach and hopefully LSIPs have enabled training providers to hear from and engage with more businesses to help them shape their provision.
“We absolutely need an industrial strategy that underpinned by a skill strategy and LSIPs can be feeding in all of this real granular data around skills needs.”
Voter Registration Week has arrived and we’re encouraging colleges from across the further education sector to support their students to register to vote.
2024 is going to be an important year for students to use their voice, with local, regional and national elections all taking place in the next few months. Currently, only 16 per cent of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 are registered to vote, and colleges are key to helping young people get onto the electoral register.
This year, students will face some unique challenges around election time that, as educators, you can support them to navigate. For many, they will need the media literacy skills to follow fast-moving current affairs on social media, with the increasing prevalence of AI-generated disinformation. They will also need the skills to engage in critical discussion and debate as the election period gets into full swing.
Many will be voting for the first time, and we have a great opportunity to support them to be informed and equipped to cast their first vote, setting them on the path to be lifelong voters.
Supporting elections is a crucial role for colleges, ensuring young people are kept well informed and are prepared to be active citizens both within their college community and beyond.
Support all of your students to get on to the electoral register (young people can register from 16 in England and Northern Ireland and from 14 in Scotland and Wales). You could do this through auto enrolment which integrates registration into a student’s enrolment process when they join college. We are also able to offer in-person support to run a registration drive through our Exploring Elections Programme. Not sure where to start? You can book a free training session here.
Use a variety of resources designed for colleges to support your students to learn about politics, democracy and elections.
Run or direct students to a local hustings event
Support your students to meet and learn about their local candidates. Our hustings map will be coming out soon!
If you are looking for training, support and resources please don’t hesitate to book a quick call with The Politics Project team and we will be happy to direct you to the support you need.
