Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

AI’s threat to the essence of learning is far bigger than we realise

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.

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

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”.

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.”

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

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.”

Flipping Women! Telling a new story about female FE leaders

In the corridors of further education institutions, where enlightenment and progress are revered, a beacon of inclusivity shines brightly. Women have ascended to leadership positions with remarkable stride, comprising a formidable 55.6 per cent.

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.

WorldSkills UK honours 2024 equity, diversity and inclusion heroes

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.

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.”

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.”

See the full list of winners below:

Budget 2024: AEB deals for 3 county councils

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.”

Budget 2024: Business leaders call for LSIP funding extension

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.

LSIPS: a chance to change, or a chance missed?

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.”

Five ways to support students to engage in elections

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.

Further Education Zone

To support colleges to engage their students in the election, we have created a new Further Education Zone on the Democracy Classroom platform. Developed by The Politics Project, sponsored by National Association of Managers in Student Services (NAMSS) and supported by the Association of Colleges (AoC), the toolkit pulls together content from organisations across the education and democracy sectors. It contains a range of non-partisan resources and guidance on how to organise election hustings, run voter registration drives, promote discussion and bring democracy to life.

We know that supporting young people to engage in elections can be a daunting task, especially with all the other pressures on time and resources.

Below are five activities you can do that make a huge difference to support your students to engage in the election.

Share information

Use template emails to support students to register to vote, learn about the election and signpost to out-of-college opportunities.

Raise awareness

Use a range of posters, flyers and digital displays to support students to learn about the election as they walk around college.

Run a voter registration drive

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.

Integrate the election into teaching and learning

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.

Treasury announces £3k top-up for 13 ‘growth sector’ apprenticeships

Thirteen specially selected apprenticeships will receive a £3,000 per-apprentice funding boost from April, the Treasury has announced.

This is part of a two-year £50 million pilot for certain apprenticeships in what Treasury ministers deem are “growth sectors” and will mean some apprenticeships will attract up to £30,000 per apprentice.

The chosen standards include laboratory technician, science manufacturing technician and machining technician. See the table below for the full list.

The extra cash will come on top of usual funding bands but training providers will need to deliver a minimum of 15 starts to access it.

Using apprenticeship starts numbers from 2022/23, the top-ups would cost at least £6.7 million per year from the growth fund pilot. It’s not yet been announced what the remaining pilot funding will be spent on.

It means some apprenticeships, such as pipe welder, electrical power networks engineer and machining technician could attract up to £30,000 per apprentice from April including the £3,000 growth pilot top-up.

The Treasury has said it expects the boost will fund capital investments in these sectors, which are typically not eligible for government funding.

Further guidance is expected later this month.

‘Not just colleges’

Gareth Davies, exchequer secretary to the Treasury, said in a written statement to Parliament today: “The pilot will boost funding for eligible providers delivering 13 high-value advanced manufacturing and engineering, green and life sciences apprenticeship standards.”

This comes ahead of this Wednesday’s spring budget as part of a package of measures announced this morning for the manufacturing industry.

Simon Ashworth, director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) said: “Although the pilot of 13 initial standards in phase one is quite narrow, what is encouraging is that capital investment is being supported as part of this pilot funding – and is open to all provider types and not just colleges.

“This is something AELP have been calling for and we are pleased this has been recognised by DfE and HMT. ITPs deliver the majority of apprenticeships, so we welcome this agnostic approach to extra funding to support growing additional capacity in the apprenticeship programmes.”

Announcing the growth pilot in the autumn statement, chancellor Jeremy Hunt said the pilot was to test “ways to increase the number of apprentices in engineering and other key growth areas where there are shortages.”

The Treasury said the £3,000 payments are intended for course equipment, machinery and other capital expenses.

Further eligibility criteria for training providers is expected later this month.

Five north east colleges set to strike this month

Staff at five colleges in the north east will strike later this month over a pay dispute with college group Education Training Collective (ETC).

Staff at Bede Sixth Form College, NETA Training Group, Stockton Riverside College, The Skills Academy and Redcar and Cleveland College voted to take to the picket lines on March 20 and 21 after rejecting their employer’s pay offer for 2022/23.

The dispute is over the 22/23 pay award of 3 per cent, with an additional 1 per cent from May 2023.

Members rejected the offer after union officials declared it did not include any improvement on pay and was limited to an extra two “wellbeing days” and additional points on the lecturer and course leader pay scales starting on August 1, 2024.

The ETC said the group’s financial position “does not allow” for a higher pay offer and that the award is higher than the Association of Colleges 2022/23 recommendation of 2.5 per cent. It has though offered a 6.5 per cent pay award for 2023/24 in line with the AoC recommendation.

The University and College Union (UCU) said it will open a new strike ballot this week (March 6) if the ETC does not settle the dispute. If the ballot succeeds, staff will continue industrial action for a further six months.

Workers at Stockton Riverside College will picket on the morning of March 20 and Redcar and Cleveland College will strike the morning of March 21.

The strikes come after 79 per cent of UCU members voted for the strikes in two weeks’ time. Turnout was 64 per cent.

UCU regional support official Chris Robinson said: ‘Since we won our original strike ballot last September management has not put one extra penny on the table to resolve this dispute. If ETC is really serious about ending this dispute, it will get back around the table and put up a serious offer. If it fails to do so the college group will face further disruption.’

Almost 50 jobs at risk as college seeks £1m savings

A spokesperson for the Education Training Collective said: “We are disappointed to learn that the University and College Union members have voted to strike relating to this ongoing dispute. There is a continuing desire to bring this dispute to a resolution, however the group’s financial position – as shared in committee meetings with trade unions – does not allow for further percentage increases to consolidated pay.

“Unfortunately, to date, we have not been able to find a mutually agreeable solution on our pay offer of 3 per cent from 1st August 2022, which was then increased by an additional 1 per cent from May 2023. This was higher than the Association of Colleges’ recommendation.

“For 2023/24, we have already tabled a further offer, which, in line with Association of Colleges guidance, passes on, in full, the additional funding outlined by the Department for Education to our staff members. That offer is a 6.5 per cent across the board pay increase, and this was implemented, in the interim, for all staff from 1st October 2023. We have since strengthened this offer with additional benefits such as the two consolidated well-being days and improvements to lecturer and course leader pay scales from August 2024.

“In effect, this means, that between August 2022 and October 2023, ETC pay scales have been uplifted by 10.5 percentage points. Our pay rates compare favourably to other local colleges.”

DfE rapped by watchdog as 1 in 4 FOI responses late

The Department for Education has been ordered to respond more quickly to freedom of information (FOI) requests or face enforcement action, after admitting to missing the deadline in up to a quarter of cases.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has rapped the department for a “declining level of performance overall in terms of the timeliness of its responses to requests for information” since 2019.

National statistics show the DfE responded to less than 80 per cent of requests within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days in 2020, 2021 and 2022.

In November last year, the DfE told the ICO that it was responding to “just 75 per cent of requests within the required time limit”. One response “was reported as being more than 12 months overdue at January 2024”.

The department has until the end of May to comply with recommendations from the ICO. Failure to do so could result in an enforcement notice.

It is not the first time the DfE has been reprimanded by the ICO. In 2020, the watchdog found the department broke data protection laws in the way it handles pupil data, following an investigation that revealed widespread failures.

And in 2022, it was reprimanded over a “serious breach” of data protection law which allowed a firm providing age verification for gambling companies access to the personal information of millions of young people.

DfE ‘taking action’

The ICO acknowledged the DfE is “taking action” to improve the speed of FOI responses, and reported that senior level interest in FOIA “has had a positive impact on its performance recently”.

The department now offers new training on the freedom of information act for staff.

The age profile of requests where responses are overdue “isn’t high overall, although one response was reported as being more than 12 months overdue at January 2024”.

ICO staff have engaged with DfE officials about the “underlying reasons for its failure to lift its overall response rate to an acceptable and sustained level of compliance”.

“Improvements have been made as outlined above and early data from 2024 has seen performance creep up to 81 per cent.

“Given the timeliness issues DfE has experienced over what is now a prolonged period, however, it’s clear that DfE’s request handling practices does not consistently conform to [the government’s code of practice].”

Warren Seddon, ICO director of freedom of information and transparency, said transparency was “fundamental to our democracy. Information delayed is information denied, and people have the legal right to promptly receive information they’re entitled to”.

“The commissioner has been clear that public sector leaders should take transparency seriously. Where organisations fail to do this we will take enforcement action so people’s information rights are upheld.”