FE Student support champion Polly Harrow

Polly Harrow sees her new role as the country’s first FE student support champion as being the “most perfect challenge”.

After spending 25 years in FE, including ten as chair of the National Association for Managers of Student Services (NAMSS), few others understand the difficulties of providing support to college students amid the spiralling mental health and cost-of-living crises more than Harrow.

As well as being assistant principal for student experience at Kirklees College, she is senior safeguarding lead, a national practitioner in trauma-informed mental health, a restorative practitioner and senior mental health lead.

She is also “determined” in her belief in social justice and carries a deep understanding of the needs of vulnerable young people, having been through “a lot of trauma” in her own life.

Polly Harrow and her husband, Steve Wright of Routes Puppets

Passion for restorative justice

The work she does nationally to encourage restorative justice approaches in education was inspired by having gone through such a process herself.

Her brother-in-law was murdered by a 17-year-old in a drug-induced, unprovoked attack. When the attacker left prison aged 24, Harrow and her husband met him during a restorative justice meeting, accompanied by probation and social workers. It was a “painful but ultimately transformative experience” that “made a huge difference in our lives, and the lives of our bereaved nephews”.

“I realised how beneficial it is to young people to have trauma-aware and restorative practitioners in dealing with what students might present. Instead of only judging the person, we should always be curious about the need that lies behind their behaviour.”

DfE behaviour tzar Tom Bennett

Exclusions

As we meet over coffee at the Association of Colleges’ annual conference the day after her new DfE role was announced, Harrow has “yet to nail” exactly what it will involve. Student support is, after all, “so vast, deep, wide and complex”.

Harrow does “not want to be controversial” in this interview and offend her new bosses. However, there is one issue she feels strongly about which might ruffle some feathers there – the impact of rising school exclusions on young people entering colleges.

She’s just spent a year researching youth violence, tracking 16–17-year-old college students all the way back to year six and identifying “missed opportunities” to help them. In “all cases” where the college students exhibited “significant behavioural needs”, they had previously been excluded from school. The boy who killed Harrow’s brother-in-law had also been permanently excluded.

Harrow believes “there’s a direct correlation that we cannot continue to ignore.”

“The impact on a child of exclusion or suspension can be devastating. Yet we still do it.”

She hesitates before saying: “If you want something controversial … I’m really hoping that the government looks at exactly where the oversight of academy trusts is, to protect children as a priority from the number of exclusions we’re seeing.”

DfE’s behaviour tzar Tom Bennett appears to take a different stance. He told sister publication Schools Week’s recent investigation on rising exclusions that “schools that exclude legally should be supported, not censured, for performing their duty to the children and staff in their communities.”

He has also criticised trauma-informed practice, telling educators to “be very cautious” about implementing it.

Having only stepped down as NAMSS chair this year, Harrow believes that most other student services leads share her “concern” about “home educating, off rolling and the number of exclusions” in schools. But she’s not taking anything for granted.

She plans to spend the coming weeks going “out into the sector” in her new role “to ask them what they would like” her to tell her new bosses.

Polly Harrow

‘FE on the map’

FE is used to being treated as an afterthought to higher education.

The announcement of Harrow’s role, although welcomed, came 18 months after the Department for Education appointed a student support champion for higher education – Nottingham Trent University vice chancellor Edward Peck.

Similarly, the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for students agreed to a report on the impact of the rising cost of living on FE students (published in July) only after it had already published an initial report in March focused on HE. But Harrow sees her appointment as a sign that her sector is now “fully on the map” when it comes to government policy.

“We were going to be taken off the table it seemed some years ago, we were fearful of the future of our sector. And here we are back on the table in so many ways … and really focusing on the mental health of our staff and students.” But “there’s a lot to do”, she added.

Student services ‘more valued’ by colleges

The APPG report, based on evidence from nearly 80 college staff and 700 students through an AoC survey, found almost three-quarters (72 per cent) faced costs that were putting them in financial difficulty. 

Student bursaries have become “essential for family budgets”, with some students walking long distances to college to save on public transport.

The 16 to 19 bursary fund which replaced the education maintenance allowance (EMA) in 2011 is less than a third of its size and targets a lot fewer learners. And colleges face “problems” because minimum wage apprentices – currently earning £5.28 an hour – are not eligible for bursaries.

Colleges are stepping up to do what they can. A survey undertaken for FE Week by NAMSS members from 18 colleges showed over a third hosting food banks, and almost half providing a warm after-hours space.

Harrow believes student support services are now more valued by colleges than they were a decade ago when some colleges were “cutting back” on pastoral and counselling services.

“Colleges really recognise the significance of those services now, because they have to. That’s what my post is all about. If students and staff feel emotionally and psychologically safe in their study and workplace, we will have better attendance, retention, achievement and progression.”

Robert Halfon

Becoming a safeguarding champion

Being a trauma-aware, restorative and anti-racist organisation is a key strategic priority for Kirklees College, and an area which Harrow leads on. Its reputation even extends to Sweden: a delegation from the country, arranged through DfE, recently visited the college twice wanting to replicate their model.

Harrow believes working at “such an inclusive college” puts her in “good stead” for her new role, which is a two-year appointment taking up around 25 days per year.

She will “act as a channel between the sector and the government, driving a strategic approach to informing and improving the experience of students at colleges”, skills minister Robert Halfon said when he announced her appointment.

Harrow believes she understands the “profound barrier” that not having “emotional, physical or psychological safety at home” has on learning, because she did not have that sense of safety growing up.

Her career path began in marketing, in a role “raising the profile of child protection” in schools for The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

It sparked her interest in safeguarding, although it was not until around a decade later that she moved into her first pastoral role. In between, she completed a degree in English from the University of Huddersfield followed by a PGCE and a stint teaching English A level among other things at Dewsbury College (now part of Kirklees College).

Harrow spent the next seven years from 2005 at Barnsley College running student support, enrichment and safeguarding.

It was while there that she spotted puppeteer, Steve Wright on the BBC show Dragon’s Den, explaining how he uses streetwise puppets to teach social issues to young people. Although the Dragons didn’t back him, Harrow did: she called him up asking him to work on a youth engagement project at her college, and they’ve been together ever since. Wright now holds puppetry workshops in colleges and schools across the country.

Steve Wright and his puppets

Shifting priorities

Harrow’s former employer Dewsbury College morphed with Huddersfield Technical College to become Kirklees College, which Harrow joined in 2012.

The focus of student support has changed considerably since then. In 2014, The Prevent duty and Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance changed safeguarding “beyond recognition”, with the violence against women and girls agenda now being “very important” to colleges.

Harrow is disappointed that the focus for Ofsted’s 2021 review into sexual abuse, sparked by the Everyone’s Invited movement, was schools. The review revealed the scale at which young people consider harmful sexual behaviours “normal”.

Of 32 two-day visits undertaken by the watchdog for their research, only two were to FE colleges.

Harrow believes “very little evidence” has been gathered to show the situation in colleges. “But there’s an enormous amount of activity around addressing sexual harm in colleges. Everyone in the FE sector takes this stuff really seriously.”

Polly Harrow on a volunteering trip in Kenya

Radicalisation

Harrow believes extremism on campuses has declined in recent years, but she has been personally involved in some cases of it which she wrote a blog about for the Education Training Foundation.

In one, a female student raised concern about a fellow student’s Facebook post stating he “cannot wait to go jihad”. Harrow and a Prevent team colleague met several times with the boy, engaging in “really thoughtful dialogue” with him.

A few months later two of his friends went to Syria, one becoming the ‘UK’s youngest ever suicide bomber’. But he did not join them.

In another incident, a personal tutor raised concerns after her 17-year-old business studies student became “sullen”, shaved his head and doodled a swastika and an arrow with the word ‘kill’ to where a classmate had been seated.

This was before the Prevent Duty came into force, but Harrow reported those concerns to police. The boy was subsequently found in a car with four adult males with weapons, and a “plan to cause violent harm to some targeted Asian males”.

Harrow wrote that “without the staff training and good communication with the police team, that intended violent crime would not have been disrupted.”

Drivers of mental health challenges

Harrow believes that aside from community and home issues, “eco-anxiety” is also driving poor mental health, with a “real fear about what’s happening to the planet” which “young people are talking about”.

Then there’s the online world. “You can make yourself look however you would wish to behind a screen, which might be quite at odds with the reality”. Kirklees College has had cases of young people “finding it very difficult to come to college, because they were worried about being seen physically”.

Harrow believes young people are now living in a very different world to the one she once knew.

“This is their world. It’s got a lot of positives and joy, but also a lot of things they’re anxious about. We really do have to have empathy with our young people. They need to be seen, heard and valued by all educators.”

Students force college to ‘suspend’ ties with Israel-linked aerospace firm

A college in Luton has “suspended” all activities with a defence firm over its involvement in the Israel and Palestine conflict following pressure from students.

Luton Sixth Form College (LSFC), which teaches over 3,000 16 to 18-year-olds, released a statement this week announcing it would cut ties with Leonardo, an Italian engineering firm that manufactures aircraft parts with a global presence in 26 countries.

The move is thought to be the first of its kind by a college in England in response to the humanitarian crisis in the occupied territory of Gaza.

The college said the “extent of its relationship” with Leonardo extends to the company’s attendance at careers and jobs fairs and providing work experience for STEM students.

“We are currently reviewing our position with it in conjunction with Luton Borough Council and other schools and colleges,” the statement said. “All further activities with Leonardo will be suspended until further notice.”

Numerous protests at Leonardo factories have taken place over the years across the UK, most recently at its sites in Edinburgh and Southampton over the company’s links to the Israeli military.

A college student group accused the college of providing a “limited account” of Leonardo’s involvement with LSFC students.

“Many students have [been] sent to engage with Leonardo through the ‘Industrial Cadets Gold Project’, as well as the ‘Robot Wars’ and ‘Rampaging Chariots’ initiative,” the student group said responding to the college statement on Wednesday.

Leonardo has had a presence in Luton since 2003 and employs around 1,000 people. The company has been a big proponent of skills education. According to its early career opportunities brochure, it has a “strategic partnership” with colleges and universities for work and summer placements and hires engineering apprentices, with off-the-job training provided by local colleges.

Leonardo also hosts a STEM-based ‘Rampaging Chariots’ tournament in the
area. Luton Sixth Form College students have participated in the competition since at least 2012. LSFC students have also previously been mentored by Leonardo engineers, according to local reports.

The move by the college follows calls from the student body there, who led a protest drawing hundreds of students on November 17, the same day that school pupils across the country walked out to protest the bombing of Gaza.

Last week, the student council sent an open letter to the college leadership team demanding it cut its partnership with Leonardo “immediately” and allow students to fundraise humanitarian aid for Gazans.

The college responded that it has organised fundraising events, including hosting a charity event on December 15, collaborating with local organisations such as Luton Foodbank, Discover Islam, and Human Appeal.

“As a college community, our hearts are heavy as we witness the suffering of innocent people and we stand together, united in our commitment to peace, compassion, and understanding.

“With that in mind, we have planned a number of initiatives including a Fundraising Week and Luton Peace Celebration Day in December which has been communicated to all students and staff.”

Luton Sixth Form College and Leonardo did not respond to FE Week’s request for comment.

Gateway is a ‘no man’s land’ that leaves apprentices vulnerable

Completing an apprenticeship is a significant achievement, marking the end of formal training and the beginning of a new journey – recognition, promotion or new career.  However, what follows this milestone is a phase that has been relatively under-explored and is often overlooked: the waiting period before the end-point assessment (EPA). This phase, which we might aptly call a ‘no man’s land’, poses challenges for both apprentices and training providers, revealing a gap in the system that needs attention and reform.

Apprentices who have successfully completed their training can find themselves in limbo during the waiting period for their EPA, formally known as Gateway. This period can vary in length; it could be a matter of weeks or, in some cases, significantly longer.

The uncertainty of this phase can have an impact, and for some it is a disheartening experience, especially for those who feel unprepared or unsupported. This critical phase can lead to various outcomes, such as failing an assessment and needing a retake, losing faith in the apprenticeship process or even losing confidence to the point where they no longer wish to be assessed and leave the programme.

According to the ESFA funding rules, apprentices remain the responsibility of the training provider during gateway. This is even though the training is complete. However, no additional funding is allocated to provide support during this time. This places training providers in a challenging situation. They are responsible for apprentices’ progress, but they often lack the necessary resources to offer support beyond the formal training period.

Increased safeguarding risk

There are other considerations during the ‘no man’s land’ period, not least safeguarding. As a crucial aspect of the training programme designed to protect learners from harm and ensure their wellbeing, safeguarding can’t just stop in gateway. During the waiting period for EPA, apprentices are not exempt from potential safeguarding risks.

In fact, the vulnerability they may face during this phase can be significant. While waiting for EPA, apprentices might experience feelings of isolation. This isolation can expose them to risks such as mental health challenges including anxiety and depression. For those who fail and need to retake, the risk of learners leaving prior to completion is much higher.

It is important for providers to ensure that the same safeguards, identification, reporting and resolving of safeguarding issues are in place for those in gateway as those on programme. For example, are their apprentices less likely to report safeguarding concerns during the waiting period, fearing that it could negatively affect their EPA or job prospects?

Providers should perhaps establish a system of regular check-ins with apprentices during the waiting period similar to the support provided during the active training programme. They can offer access to support services such as financial counselling to address specific vulnerabilities.

Impact on employers

Employers can also be affected. For example, in the event of a failed EPA some employers may be reluctant to pay for a retake, especially if they feel that the training provider did not adequately prepare the apprentice. This reluctance can strain the relationship between employers and apprentices, creating a less-than-ideal environment for skills development and progression.

Ofsted inspects ‘the whole of the apprenticeship training’ but not the EPA. The role of the inspectorate is a grey area during gateway and while we don’t want to see more burdens placed on providers, it is reasonable to ask whether some form of evaluation of the apprentice’s experience should take place.

With a national membership of providers of all types, the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees can see a concerning picture emerging over the level of support for apprentices during gateway. Therefore we call on the DfE and other stakeholders to take a closer look at this no man’s land issue now to build in more accountability, funding and regulation.

Ofsted surrenders in secret legal battle over ‘fatally flawed’ inspection

A major manufacturing body has overturned an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgment following a year-long legal battle that the inspectorate was forced to back down from, FE Week can reveal.

Make UK is now set to be judged as ‘good’ following a reinspection just months after it was told it would be handed the lowest possible judgment, which would have closed its training division and led to around 120 job losses.

The firm suppressed the grade four after forking out over half a million pounds defending itself through the courts. It argued that the inspection, which made allegedly unsubstantiated claims of “misogynistic” behaviour, was “fatally flawed”.

FE Week understands that Ofsted pulled out of a judicial review hearing scheduled for last month at the eleventh hour, and at least one inspector has been suspended.

This is the second time in the space of a year that Ofsted has rowed back on an ‘inadequate’ judgment for a private training provider only to reinspect the company and upgrade it to ‘good’.

Make UK has called for “urgent reform” to Ofsted’s inspection model in light of the saga.

A spokesperson for the company said: “We have had no choice but to robustly challenge the outcome of a sub-standard Ofsted assessment that was fundamentally inaccurate and based on a fatally flawed inspection.

“Our experiences suggest that the Ofsted model for assessing private training providers is not fit for purpose and requires urgent reform. Our challenge to that report appears close to a successful conclusion and we look forward to saying more shortly.”

Ofsted declined to comment.

Make UK, formerly known as the Engineering Employers’ Federation, is an influential organisation that represents manufacturers across the country. It is chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness and was name-checked twice in last week’s autumn statement speech by chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

The company trains around 1,200 engineering and manufacturing apprentices at any one time. Its last published Ofsted inspection result was a ‘good’ in 2016.

Ofsted went back into the provider in January this year and dealt ‘inadequate’ ratings across the board a month later. The provider was accused of delaying student progress due to a lack of qualified staff, poorly run courses such as failing to provide relevant materials for welding students, and failing to offer a programme that was tailored to students’ existing abilities.

The most significant allegation made by the inspection team was around safeguarding, namely that there was “misogynistic behaviour”. Make UK refuted this in the strongest possible terms and said the highly damaging claim was “unsupported by any evidence”.

A judgment to this effect would have likely led to the Education and Skills Funding Agency terminating Make UK’s contract to deliver apprenticeship training.

The company quickly launched legal action and was successful in securing a judicial review that prevented Ofsted from publishing the report, having argued that Ofsted’s criticisms were irrational, unevidenced, and based on insufficient sample sizes.

Make UK was also granted an anonymity order whereby its identity could not initially be revealed during the proceedings.

While the company geared up for a showdown in the High Court, Ofsted conducted a follow-up mandatory monitoring visit in August and identified positive provision.

The watchdog then decided, off its own back, to conduct a full reinspection in October ahead of the court hearing with a completely different inspection team to the January visit.

FE Week understands new but yet undisclosed evidence came to light around this period that made it clear to the inspectorate it would not win the case in court. The reinspection resulted in an overall ‘good’ grade and none of the issues identified in the January inspection were found.

The report is expected to be published in December.

DfE’s spending on T Level public awareness efforts revealed

The Department for Education has spent less than 1 per cent of its T Levels budget on publicity efforts, FE Week can reveal amid mounting concerns over a lack of awareness of the flagship qualifications.

A Freedom of Information request shows that £11.7 million has been used for PR and communications campaigns since 2018.

The DfE will have pumped £1.75 billion into the rollout of T Levels by the end of the 2024-25 financial year, with funding available for 100,000 starts by that point.

However, between 2020/21 and 2022/23 just 16,400 students were recruited onto a T Level. It means a marketing cost per T Level student of around £650.

Various reports have raised concerns about continuing low levels of awareness of the new technical courses among young people, parents, employers and even schools.

Most colleges have missed their enrolment targets since T Levels launched in 2020, and several have even scrapped some T Level courses due to low demand.

Ofqual reported in August 2023 that up to 43 per cent of students had no understanding of the qualifications. And over the summer a highly critical Ofsted review slammed promotion efforts after finding that a portion of T Level students who were recruited felt “misled”. 

The watchdog’s deputy director for FE and skills, Paul Joyce, told FE Week he was struck by the lack of public awareness of what a T Level is and what the course involves at this point in the rollout.

Sector leaders told FE Week that the government has “significantly underestimated” the difficulty of launching an entirely new and complex qualification in a landscape where well-established qualifications already exist.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “Despite the millions spent on raising awareness of T Levels, it is worrying that providers are concerned the T Level ‘brand’ is not well known and that the qualifications are not understood by parents or school staff.”

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, added: “In their current guise, T Levels are a high quality but minority product. Attempting to promote them as a mass-market product was therefore always going to be an uphill struggle.”

The marketing figures shared with FE Week showed that for the first three financial years from 2018, over £7 million was spent on specific T Level advertising by DfE.

But from January 2022, the department ditched the individual marketing campaigns in favour of a more joined-up approach, spending approximately £4.5 million on the promotion of all technical education options.

These include the Get the Jump campaign, which sought to raise awareness of all education and training pathways and the Join the Skills Revolution campaign, which aims for more employer involvement in programmes such as apprenticeships, Multiply numeracy courses and T Levels.

The campaigns are handled by agencies contracted by DfE. Last October, M&C Saatchi was handed an up to £9.5 million contract to handle the government’s Skills for Life campaign, receiving over £1.5 million per year for four years from 2022/23.

The DfE also works with the Gatsby Foundation, which was set up by Lord David Sainsbury who also led the government’s technical education review in 2016, which paved the way for T Levels. His foundation launched a campaign in 2022 led by The Apprentice star Tim Campbell to target parents, carers and guardians of 11 to 16-year-olds.

ABS announcement ‘undercuts’ T Levels investment

Experts told FE Week that the government could have spent more funding on promoting T Levels instead of choosing to replace the qualification with the Advanced British Standard (ABS), as proposed by prime minister Rishi Sunak in October.

Ben Verinder, marketing expert and managing director of Chalkstream, told FE Week: “Launching a new national flagship qualification like T Levels requires considerable investment in order to raise awareness among the target market because – as we saw with Diplomas – they need a critical mass to succeed.

“So, spending millions to introduce T Levels to young people and their families is, on the face of it, a wise and necessary investment. What is not so wise is undercutting that investment by announcing the future demise of the qualification to national media.”

Verinder added: “We carry qualifications with us throughout our lives. If we are told that at some point they will be devalued, we won’t invest in them, no matter how big the marketing budget.”

Barton said the move by Number 10 to announce the ABS just three years after T Levels launched was “completely incoherent”.

“It will further confuse students and parents and teachers, making it more difficult to recruit students to these courses, and undermining the marketing work that has taken place,” he added.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We have invested over £11 million in national communications and marketing campaigns promoting T Levels, and these will be continued into at least 2025. 

“This academic year we also provided all T Level providers with up to £10,000 to invest in extra careers guidance. Our network of over 400 T Level ambassadors are also helping to boost awareness among employers, parents and students. 

“These efforts have resulted in a 36 percentage points increase in T Level awareness among students in years 9 to 11 in the last two years, with nearly 70 per cent of year 11 pupils also now aware.”

Halfon ‘encouraged’ by apprenticeship trends since the levy 

The skills minister has said he is “encouraged” by the growing take-up of higher and degree apprenticeships, as new data shows their share of the market has almost tripled since the launch of the levy.

Robert Halfon is also “pleased” that two-thirds of apprenticeship starts are now at levels 2 and 3 – though this is now the lowest proportion on record.

Final full-year apprenticeship figures have now been published, and confirmed a 3.5 per cent drop in overall starts from 2021/22 to 2022/23, as reported by FE Week last month.

The data release also included a section showing the trends in apprenticeship take-up since the launch of the levy in 2017. Overall, starts across all levels fell by 10 per cent between 2017/18 and 2022/23, moving from 375,760 to 337,140.

In 2017/18, the proportion of level 2 apprenticeship starts sat at 43 per cent, while level 3 was 44 per cent, and higher levels had just 13 per cent.

By 2022/23, however, soaring higher level starts accounted for 33 per cent of all apprenticeship starts, whereas level 2 starts shrunk to 23 per cent. The proportion of level 3 starts remained unchanged at 44 per cent.

The numbers of higher-level apprenticeship starts (112,930) are now at the highest on record and level 2 starts (76,280) the lowest.

Shift driven mainly by level 6 and 7s

The rise in degree-level apprenticeships is the main driver for the trend.

Level 6 apprenticeships have quadrupled from 6,370 in 2017/18 to 25,030 in 2022/23.

And starts at level 7 have risen by five-fold, from 4,500 to 21,760 over that period.

FE Week understands discussions are ongoing between Number 10, the Treasury and the Department for Education about potentially restricting the amount of levy funds that can be spent on degree-level apprenticeships amid affordability concerns.

Young people squeezed out even further

Starts for young people have also continued to decline since the launch of the levy.

In 2017/18, those aged 16 to 18 accounted for 28 per cent of all starts. This fell to 23 per cent in 2022/23.

Meanwhile, starts for those aged 25 and over made up 41 per cent of starts in 2017/18, which grew to 48 per cent in 2022/23.

The proportion of starts aged 19 to 24 has stayed stable over that time, shifting only slightly from 30 per cent to 29 per cent.

Figures ‘please’ minister

Responding to the data, Robert Halfon, the DfE’s minister for skills, apprenticeships and higher education, said: “I’m pleased that these figures show that under 25s continue to make up over half of all apprenticeship starts, and two-thirds of starts are also at Level 2 and 3.

“I’m also encouraged that take up of higher and degree apprenticeships has grown, demonstrating the demand for these opportunities is high. 

“Degree apprenticeships are a brilliant alternative to doing a traditional three-year degree and support employers to tap into the higher-level skills they need. We are investing £40 million over the next two years so we can provide even more degree level opportunities.

“We are continuing to promote apprenticeships to young people through our Apprenticeships Support and Knowledge programme, backed by £3.2 million a year. You can now also search for apprenticeships on the UCAS Hub and from 2024, students will then be able to apply for apprenticeships through UCAS alongside an undergraduate degree application.”

You’re never too young (or too old) for honest self-appraisal

When I was asked to attend a ‘strengths’ course as part of my participation in the Skills and Education Group’s emerging leaders programme, I have to admit I was more than a little sceptical. At the age of 32, I felt sure I knew my strengths and weaknesses and that no amount of additional probing or analysis was necessary. How wrong I was.

The course was devised and run by Hannah Miller from coaching company, Sidekick. Using the world-renowned CliftonStrengths assessment, it was focused on personality and preferences. We were taught how to really get to know ourselves: what we do best, and how and why we contribute and show up in the way we do. The theory is that the more we understand these aspects of ourselves, the better equipped we are to make the right professional decisions and to build a career that really works for us.

It made me realise that I’m at my best when I’m working directly with students; listening, engaging, and helping them to navigate their way through college life – and, ultimately, their next steps. As Nottingham College’s Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire collaborative outreach partnership (DANCOP) project manager I was already working to raise the aspirations of learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and to help them realise their potential, but I wanted to get back to that one-to-one, direct support.

As a result of the course, I switched to becoming a pastoral tutor in our A Level department. Just a few weeks into my new role, I already know I made the right move. And the experience has got me thinking: imagine if I’d understood myself this well when I was younger.

Every day I work with learners who don’t fully understand their strengths and don’t know how to navigate or overcome their weaknesses. So I contacted Hannah and discovered that she already had a version of the course for young people. We collaborated to devise a bespoke, face-to-face version that we could run over two days at Nottingham College. We called it Purpose Pursuit, Young Adult Edition.

We wanted the programme to develop attendees’ confidence and focus on their strengths. We also wanted to address the notion that career and next-step support can sometimes be quite generic or leave young people ill-equipped.

Imagine if I’d understood myself this well when I was younger

By liaising with the college’s pastoral staff and the DANCOP programme, we approached 25 learners to take part in the first of our courses. We focused on students who were either progressing onto their second year of A Levels, needed help in considering their next steps, or were at risk of not completing their course due to issues around confidence.

For two days, we worked with those learners to focus on their moments of brilliance and to view them as clues to their real purpose. We looked at talking confidently about who you are and what you bring to a situation, and we worked on identifying transferable skills, experiences and behaviours.

We also worked to identify weaknesses and figure out how to navigate what might be holding these learners back in order to remove barriers to change. Doing all of this enabled us to tease out realistic five- and ten-year goals for every person in the room – along with a plan on how to achieve them.

The course was a huge success, but one moment really stood out for me. One particular learner, who hadn’t lived in the UK for long, was struggling with their identity and with what they saw as an uncertain future. This manifested in a fear of talking to other people. By the end of the two days they were joining in a group discussion. This was a big win.

So we are now planning to run the course again at the end of this month for another 25 learners. I cannot wait to see what impact this will have on the next cohort of learners. And meanwhile, we will also be catching up with our last cohort to monitor and support the longer-term impact of taking part in the programme.

One thing is certain: it has already been transformative for me.

8 reasons we shouldn’t use the term ‘provider’ – and what we could say instead

In the ever-evolving landscape of education, a debate is brewing over the term ‘provider’ and its application to esteemed institutions such as colleges, institutes for adult learning and local authority adult community education services. Advocates for change argue that the use of this term diminishes the significance of their work and fails to garner the attention and recognition they rightly deserve.

For my part, it seems that the term ‘provider’ could mean anything. It’s demeaning, disrespectful and minimises the great work our sector does to support individuals and their communities.

Not convinced? Here are eight reasons to jettison the word from our educational vocabulary, and my pitch for what to replace it with.

1. Narrow focus

The term ‘provider’ suggests a narrow focus on delivering services, potentially overshadowing the broader educational goals of these institutions. Learning organisations aspire to more than just service delivery; their missions often include fostering critical thinking, creativity and personal growth. Often, they support learners, families and whole communities well beyond the strict remit of providing courses.

2. Incomplete representation

Learning institutions are not just service providers; they engage in curriculum development, research, policy advocacy and community engagement. The term ‘provider’ falls short in representing the multifaceted role they play in society, potentially diminishing their standing and role in fostering economic gain.

3. Depersonalisation of education

Critics argue that the term ‘provider’ depersonalises the educational process, reducing education, mentoring and teaching to mere mechanical processes. This oversimplification neglects the intricate and nurturing relationships that form the foundation of effective learning.

4. Commodification of learning

Referring to education as a ‘service’ delivered by a ‘provider’ emphasises a transactional relationship  that belongs in the register of commerce rather than education. It’s language that undermines the intrinsic value of learning, turning it into a mere commodity, and the relational nature of education.

5. Overemphasis on delivery

The use of ‘provider’ can shift the focus towards the delivery of content, sidelining crucial aspects of the learning experience. Learning is not solely about what is provided but how it is absorbed, understood and applied.

6. Downplaying diversity

‘Provider’ oversimplifies the diverse nature of education and learning, failing to capture the variety of approaches, methods and philosophies employed by different institutions – and indeed within institutions.

7. Quantity over quality

Perhaps inadvertently, the term ‘provider’ with all its connotations prioritises quantity and profitability over educational quality and ethical considerations. This is a key concern among critics of the commercialisation of education, and one its proponents have consistently argued should be guarded against.

8. Incommensurate with our standing

The department for education and its agencies extensively use the term ‘provider’, while simultaneously talking up FE’s parity with other parts of the education sector and its importance to economic prosperity. For all the reasons above, the language and aspiration are essentially incompatible. The term is disrespectful, hinders the sector’s desired standing and diverts attention from learning organisations’ overarching objectives and values.

Embracing ‘learning organisations’

It would great if agencies of government could use institutions’ true names: college, institute for adult learning or local authority adult service. If that’s not possible then we advocate a change and propose adopting the term ‘learning organisations’ as a more encompassing and respectful alternative. This shift would better reflect the multifaceted nature of these institutions and highlight their crucial role in shaping society.

As the debate continues, the education sector grapples with the challenge of finding a term that truly encapsulates the essence of these vital institutions. Of course, there are other more pressing priorities, but one thing I am convinced of is that the choice of language goes beyond mere semantics.

How we are referred to – and how we refer to ourselves – reflects our values, our priorities and our worth. That makes this debate an empowering one for the sector. But more than that, it could turn out to be the key that unlocks many of our other challenges.

How colleges can foster safe engagement with the Israel/Palestine conflict

The current conflict between Israel and Gaza means it is incumbent on college leaders to familiarise themselves with the legal framework around issues of discrimination, extremism and freedom of speech as they impact campus life.

Colleges have a statutory duty to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure freedom of speech within the law for staff, students and visiting speakers. This is in addition to their duty as public authorities to act in a manner compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights, including the qualified right to freedom of expression.

Neither of these duties were mentioned in the education secretary’s letter to colleges, which focused on duties to prevent harm and ensure safety. This may be because the letter was also addressed to schools, which operate under a different statutory context. Rather than being restricted by concepts of harm and safety, free speech obligations permit colleges to intervene where speech is unlawful, including by taking disciplinary action where proportionate.

Words and context will always be highly relevant, but there are a range of ways in which campus speech could potentially be unlawful.

Terrorism offences

Hamas is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Students and staff may be at risk of committing a range offences by speaking in support of it. These include inviting support for Hamas or expressing supportive opinions regardless of whether these might encourage others to support it. Arranging meetings and protests that appear to support Hamas or its activities is also unlawful. Other offences include glorifying terrorist events that have already occurred.

Colleges may be at risk of breaching their Prevent duty if they don’t take steps to ensure such offences do not occur. The Prevent guidance extends to exposure to non-violent extremism, so colleges may be required to act where speech strays close to support for Hamas or violence more generally.

Incitement and harassment

Speech about the conflict could amount to a public order offence such as incitement to racial or religious hatred or causing harassment, alarm and distress. Similarly, online speech could amount to a communications offence.

Colleges can also intervene where speech constitutes unlawful harassment under the Equality Act.  This is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic (such as race or religion) that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person.

Where conduct is intended to harass by targeting individuals or groups, then the decision to take action should be straightforward. More problematic is where protest or debate is claimed to have the effect of harassing individuals.

In these cases, the law applies a three-point test:

  1. Whether the individual experienced the conduct as harassment
  2. The circumstances in which the conduct occurred. For example, it will be relevant that the speech relates to matters of public interest and is taking place in a setting where the aim is to advance knowledge
  3. Whether it is reasonable for the conduct to be perceived as harassment given the fundamental importance of freedom of expression – a right that extends to ideas that disturb or offend.

Fostering relations

Where colleges are aware of campus tensions, the public sector equality duty to foster good relations may require them to intervene proactively to ensure all groups feel supported and able to participate effectively in campus life. Colleges may want to consider issuing guidance on freedom of speech, emphasising their duty to uphold it while highlighting the risks of criminal offences or unlawful harassment. 

Speech which transgresses the guidance should be investigated quickly and proportionate action taken where appropriate to ensure the parameters of lawful free speech are respected. Staff and students who feel marginalised or vilified should be offered appropriate support. The aim should be to enable students and staff to discuss matters of public interest freely and robustly without exposing themselves, others or the college to the consequences of unlawful speech.

Given the complexity of the legal position, colleges may understandably be concerned that they will face complaints and potentially legal or regulatory challenge whatever they do. The key will be to demonstrate that decisions were made reasonably, taking all the evidence and responsibilities into account.