Why everyone benefits when more staff are trained in BSL

I began working as a British Sign Language (BSL) teacher at City Lit in 2018. My learners encompass a wonderfully diverse range of adults from 18 to 60. Each has their own motivation for learning BSL. For some, it’s work or fun. Often, it’s because they have people in their lives whom they wish to empower and support.

Learning BSL can be beneficial for a range of reasons – and you don’t need to know someone personally who is Deaf to start. Every learner who becomes a skilled signer has a positive impact on those they communicate with, and on the wider Deaf community. When you learn BSL, you are discovering not just language and linguistics but a whole culture. This is the rich history of a minority who have fought for equality and access – a history full of oppression, but also solidarity.

It’s important to know that history, because Deaf people today are still affected by it. I didn’t have access to signed education until the age of 17. I learned Sign Support English (SSE) from the wonderful CSW (Communication Support Work) at City Lit while I was studying design and art foundation at Southwark College.

I grew up at a time when oralism was still the norm. This culture came from the shadow of the 1880 Second International Congress on the Education of the Deaf, held in Milan and notorious for recommending that sign language be banned. For much of the 20th century up until the 1990s, schools promoted oralism rather than bilingualism in Deaf education. Only in 2003, after Deaf people had been campaigning for years, was BSL officially recognised by the British Government. It wasn’t until 2010 that the motions passed in Milan in 1880 were rejected in Vancouver at the 21st International Congress on the Education of the Deaf.

Actively encouraging staff in FE to learn BSL challenges this history. And colleges have so much to gain: everyone benefits when more staff receive training in BSL rather than rely on a sign language interpreter to engage with Deaf students. Teachers are better equipped to foster a welcoming environment and more aware of the needs of their learners, which can help reaffirm inclusive teaching practices. This is also an opportunity for integration with Deaf culture and a springboard for learning experiences that enrich the whole college community.

I grew up at a time when oralism was still the norm

Experiencing Deaf culture is imperative to breaking down barriers and creating allies for my community. I encourage my students to attend events: last year, for example, I took some of my learners to the BSL rally to experience first-hand the Deaf community coming together. It’s important to me remain tightly woven into that community. In 2014, I started the ‘BSL News’ Facebook group to provide social media content in BSL on current affairs and Deaf news. We regularly film ourselves explaining what’s going on in the world, giving Deaf people the opportunity to access information and ask further questions. The group, now with 7,000 members, has gone on to cover Covid news, election information, and cost-of-living advice.

On Saturday 13 April, I look forward to taking part in Deaf Day, City Lit’s annual event for the Deaf community. Now in its 26th year, Deaf Day is a free annual one-day event at City Lit celebrating Deaf culture. It is an opportunity for Deaf and hard-of-hearing people to get together, socialise and celebrate Deaf provision and the Deaf community – increasing our social impact and strengthening the community. This has been part of City Lit’s ethos since its early days; some of its first courses in 1919 were lip-reading courses for deafened soldiers returning from WW1.

As a new learner ambassador for Learning and Work Institute, I’m passionate about advocating for the transformative effects of lifelong learning. For me, that extends to colleagues too. Everyone benefits from the culture of learning and openness we create in our colleges. Let’s make BSL integral to it everywhere.

Emma Iliffe won the tutor award at the Festival of Learning 2023. Nominations for this year’s awards are open until 2 February. Access them here

Three ways AI could transform the EPA landscape in 2024

The longstanding challenge for the end-point assessment (EPA) sector has been reconciling the rising demand for assessments with a limited ability to scale in parallel – leading to strain and pressure on the EPA system.

So, as we look ahead to what 2024 will bring, I expect this need for greater efficiency will remain a key issue for the sector to try and address.

Ofqual’s latest data on the recent growth in the number of apprenticeship completions highlights that from 2020/21 to 2022/23, the number of EPAs completed increased from 13,405 to over 110,000.

To compound matters further, the next 12 months will also see a number of reviews to existing apprenticeship standards which could bring significant change to assessment plans. This could result in huge operational impact for end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) in terms of how these changes are delivered.

So, if EPAOs are to stay ahead of the game in 2024, it’s crucial that they remain cognisant of ‘emerging’ technologies, ones that can make a marked improvement to the efficient delivery of end-point assessments.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one huge area of opportunity here. Within vocational education, discussions on AI have largely focussed on concern around the prevention of cheating, with a small acknowledgement that AI may be able to primarily assist training providers, rather than EPAOs. But I believe there’s a vast range of other useful applications that are yet to be explored for EPAOs.

A significant boost to efficiency that would be impossible to ignore would be the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate question banks based on inputted occupational standards. These LLMs could be embedded within the question authoring system, providing the ability for the requisite assessment information to be fed in without user intervention – in a similar way to how APIs work. As a result, this could save EPAOs significant time and cost on question writers, with experts able to refine questions rather than create them.

A vast range of applications are yet to be explored for EPAOs

Another huge efficiency boost for the EPA sector would be the exploration of AI for boosting the productivity of administrators. If this came to fruition, we could see a huge reduction in the cost and logistical planning hurdles that are often associated with EPA. For instance, AI could be used to coordinate diaries of the candidate and assessor via an online booking platform, meaning candidates could book in and take their exam sooner.

Oral assessments represent another area that can benefit from an infusion of AI. As speech-to-text technology improves, the recording of the assessment could be directly inputted into an LLM, transcribed, and then compared against a marking rubric.

It means a live human assessor could have a first draft of a mark done almost immediately and wouldn’t need to spend hours revisiting transcripts or recordings. Of course, it still needs to be checked by human intelligence, but this would be significantly more efficient and would increase the capacity of an assessor to deliver more assessments, as well as providing more standardised, consistent assessment decisions.

These three AI developments are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to possible improvements that AI can make to the operations of EPAOs.

Critically, this isn’t to say AI is the panacea to the issues the EPA sector is facing: human intelligence remains the key driver to success. Rather, it’s to point out that we, as an industry, have the ability to drastically improve the efficiency of how we work, and AI could be an incredibly valuable ‘co-pilot’ in providing solutions to the widespread issues facing the EPA sector.

The common issue I’ve come across to date is that EPAs perhaps don’t have the resource to fully explore where they can utilise AI, which brings us back to the overarching issue: resolving challenges in the EPA space requires continuous innovation and development.

In 2024 and beyond, edtech providers must continue to prioritise solutions that deliver measurable and tangible impact for the sector.

What employers need to help improve apprenticeship completions 

Our new report, published this week, Enabling Better Outcomes: A wider view of apprenticeship success, has revealed that while employers overwhelmingly see the value in hiring apprentices, there are too many barriers to supporting apprentices to complete their apprenticeship programmes.

Crucially, we found that financial barriers hinder the progress of apprentices, as businesses – particularly SMEs – do not have the necessary funds to offer competitive pay, or time off, for apprentices to complete other elements of their apprenticeship.  

Employer perspectives 

This report is the second in our series looking at apprenticeship outcomes and destinations. Our 2022 report looked at apprentices’ perspectives, while this new release provides unique insights into the employers’ views on apprenticeship completions. 

To conduct this research, which was produced in partnership with Learning and Work Institute (L&W), we surveyed over 800 employers to better understand what leads to successful completions, and the challenges they face.

We found that almost all employers view apprenticeship completion as important but only 1 in 3 report completion rates of over 75 per cent, against the government’s target of 67 per cent by 2025. 

Employers told us that the number one barrier they face is the ability to arrange time off for apprentices to study, finish assignments, or complete off the job training. Financial support was raised as crucial to helping apprentices complete their programmes, as it helps cover off-the-job training time and can be used to help apprentices with direct costs, such as transport or childcare.

Employers also suggested their relationship with training providers posed additional challenges due to poor communication and lack of support, as well as lack of staff capacity to line manage apprentices and the ability to pay apprentices competitive rates. 

Importantly, we found that employers who place more value on completion believe apprentices gain better soft skills, industry knowledge and experience, and become more productive employees. 

Unsurprisingly, these employers experience higher completion rates, something that indicates completion is a value not just in itself, but because it has wider business benefits. 

This wider set of positive impacts underlines how apprenticeships play a crucial role in facilitating access to employment, bridging skills gaps, achieving economic growth, and, consequently, generating additional opportunities for the future.

Creating a system that supports employers  

We recommend several policies that would create a system that enables employers to support their apprentices to complete their programmes. 

As a starting point, the Department for Education should convene a stakeholder group to look at what can be done to help employers provide sufficient off-the-job training. Through close collaboration with businesses, additional support and guidance should be published on how this can be achieved, with a particular focus on SMEs, who in particular struggle with the costs of providing this. 

Internally, employers need to reflect on their organisational culture and take steps to create an environment that facilitates more pastoral support for apprentices. A key part of this should be more time being made to train line managers, who in turn can then more thoroughly support apprentices and drive completion rates. 

Additionally, the relationship between employers and training providers needs to be strengthened to support more apprentices. Both parties should be encouraged to consider enabling more three-party meetings – between apprentices, training providers, and employers – throughout apprenticeships, given the evidence this makes a strongly positive difference to apprentices and the prospects of completion. 

We know that high-quality apprenticeships benefit people, employers, and our economy, and are an integral part of the Government’s skills policy in England, but these ambitions cannot be realised unless we expand apprenticeship opportunities and raise completion rates. 

As ever, policymakers, employers, and training providers must work in tandem to create an environment that supports employers to support their apprentices to complete their programmes. Working together, we can see excellent results that will bring benefits to the individual, businesses, and the wider economy. 

The report, Enabling Better Outcomes: A wider view of apprenticeship success, can be downloaded here.

Legal explainer: Sexual misconduct and workplace sexual harassment

There have been a couple of recent changes in law to which colleges will need to adapt. The first change comes as a result of a recent case about sexual misconduct between students. The second relates to a new law covering sexual harassment in the workplace.

These two changes are separate (one covers students and the other covers staff), but they do cover similar topics and colleges need to be ready for both.

Student sexual misconduct

There has been a recent case about the investigation into reports of sexual misconduct made by two students about a fellow student. The students studied at a higher education college, although the findings apply just as much to further education colleges.

The judgment concluded that the college was negligent in the conduct of its disciplinary process and in its treatment of the two reporting students in the course of that process, causing them psychiatric harm. As a result, the students were awarded damages. 

What does this mean for colleges?

This case does not create a new duty of care. It applies the ordinary principles of a duty of care, albeit for the first time in the context of an education institution’s disciplinary proceedings for sexual misconduct.

There is no duty of care to prevent harm generally (self-harm or harm by third parties). The duty relates to matters that are within an institution’s reasonable control or matters for which it assumes responsibility.

The lesson of this case is that, if a college mishandles the disciplinary process in cases of alleged sexual assault, it is reasonably foreseeable that it is likely to cause or exacerbate psychiatric harm that often follows such an assault. If a person is left exposed to harm that arises from making a report or because they are unsupported, that harm is likely to make a college vulnerable to a successful claim.

Although every case is very much determined by its specific facts, this is an important reminder for colleges to review their practices. Serious sexual-misconduct cases can have significant consequences for both reporting and responding students and, if badly handled by institutions, can result in liability for the college. Does your college have policies and procedures in place to deal with such a situation?

Sexual harassment in the workplace

In the context of employment law, the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 comes into force in October 2024. This means that all employers, including colleges, will be under a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. If employers fail to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, then the Equality and Human Right Commission can take enforcement steps, plus any successful tribunal claim will be subject to a compensation uplift of up to 25 per cent.

What does this mean for colleges?

Colleges must understand what their obligations will be and put in place the correct policies and procedures to ensure that they can show they have taken such steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. This includes providing specific, tailored training to line managers and senior staff who are responsible for ensuring compliance with those policies and procedures.

Clear and unequivocal statements as to a college’s ‘zero-tolerance’ policy and approach to harassment should also be set out, perhaps by way of clearly displayed signs or notices. Colleges might also wish to consider having a central register of all harassment complaints raised, so that they can keep track of any areas with particular issues or trends and so that they can ensure they are addressed quickly. However, that would need to be carefully executed considering data protection rules.

The cost of getting it wrong could be extensive, with no cap on compensation in discrimination claims, plus the potential 25 per cent uplift on that compensation when employers fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

UCU staff up the ante in pay dispute with own bosses

Staff at the University and College Union have escalated a pay dispute with their bosses and accused them of “prioritising the pay of senior management”.

Talks broke down last week between Unite, the union representing over 200 UCU employees, and UCU management to the point where the union has demanded a meeting with UCU senior officers including president Justine Mercer.

UCU has offered staff a five per cent pay rise backdated to August 1, 2023, plus a 3.5 per cent pension-related uplift from January 1, 2024, a London weighting increase to £5,400 and a one-off non-consolidated £1,200 payment.

Employees have rejected the offer, instead demanding the percentage increases be translated into a flat sum for all staff, a compromise that a Unite UCU spokesperson told FE Week wouldn’t cost UCU any more than its offer.

“Clearly our employer’s priority during the cost-of-living crisis is to bolster senior manager pay at the expense of lower-paid staff,” the group said in a tweet last week.

A Unite UCU spokesperson told FE Week: “To resolve this dispute, we have tabled a compromise counter-proposal, which will not cost UCU a penny more than it has already offered; but it would redistribute the money already identified in a way which prioritises those on the lower part of the pay spine – those staff hit hardest by the cost-of-living crisis.”

Pressure is mounting on UCU bosses to resolve the dispute, especially as the ballot to vote for UCU general secretary and the national executive committee (NEC) begins next week. General secretary Jo Grady is standing for a second term and will compete against three other nominees.

UCU represents around 120,000 people working in universities and colleges. The union often attacks so-called “greedy” university and college bosses as it represents lecturers and other staff in their fight for higher pay and better working conditions.

UCU employees have been fighting bosses’ workplace policies as far back as last March, when Unite submitted their pay claim on behalf of UCU staff. 

Unite also launched a dispute over UCU’s failure to agree a hybrid working policy, as well as members voting to strike over colleague redundancies in September, and a dispute over UCU managers forming their own union.

Unite also reported UCU to the health and safety executive (HSE) – a safety regulator – last summer over concerns that the employer was not risk assessing the level of work-related stress of staff.

The HSE investigation found in November the employer breached health and safety law by not carrying out risk assessment at an organisational level, opting for individual stress risk assessments for employees who report work-related stress.

A UCU spokesperson said: “UCU staff do an incredible job for our members, and in return they rightly receive some of the best pay and terms and conditions in the whole trade union movement. 

“We are committed to ensuring that members are satisfied, and we remain hopeful that the 2023/24 pay round will be agreed as soon as possible, despite Unite members rejecting a consolidated pay offer worth 8.5 per cent as of January 2024, and a non-consolidated payment of £1,200. This equates to an in-year salary increase of around 11 per cent (excluding London allowance) for those on a midpoint salary.

“UCU met with Unite last week, where we offered to reconfigure how the non-consolidated amount is paid and look forward to resolving this pay round.”

A Unite UCU spokesperson said: “As a trade union UCU should model the values and the practices that it wishes to see all employers uphold. It is deeply disappointing, therefore, that UCU as an employer has disregarded the key trade union value of solidarity by prioritising the pay of senior management at the expense of lower paid staff.

“It is now up to UCU as an employer to do the right thing by agreeing to our compromise proposal. Any other response would be contrary to the interests of UCU staff and contrary to the interests of UCU members.”

Union representation of union staff members is not out of the ordinary, nor are internal disputes at unions.

Unite also represents employees of the National Education Union (NEU). Last November, members voted for strike action, rejecting the employer’s five per cent pay offer.

Meanwhile, one of the UK’s largest unions, GMB, was found to be institutionally sexist by an independent inquiry in 2020. Last year, another inquiry found sexism, bullying and a “mafia-like” culture was pervasive at Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association rail union.

Council spending on post-16 SEND place creation just 1% of total pot

Councils have spent just one per cent of a grant pot earmarked for creating tens of thousands of new specialist education places on post-16 providers, new data has revealed.

Of the £1.55 billion used by local authorities from the high needs provision capital allocation (HNPCA) grant to date, £20 million has gone towards post-16 learners.

From the 20,000 SEND places this funding creates, only 160 will be for young people with SEND in post-16 education.

The grant was announced by the Department for Education in 2021 when ministers committed £2.6 billion to spend over three financial years, from April 2022 to March 2025. By the start of 2024, £1.55 billion had been distributed. The remainder will be handed over in the 2024-25 financial year.

SEND experts said the level of spend on post-16 places “wasn’t a surprise, but it was disappointing”.

Matt Keer, SEND specialist at the Special Needs Jungle website which obtained the data through a Freedom of Information request, told FE Week: “With FE, the SEND system rarely misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and it’s happened again with this capital grant.

“Young people with complex special educational needs often have few local choices when they reach 16. This funding will make very little difference to their situation.”

Clare Howard, chief executive of specialist college membership organisation Natspec, added: “It’s disappointing as we’ve been pushing DfE and local authorities for years to remember post-16 and further education in those grant allocations.”

A Local Government Association (LGA) spokesperson said: “These are local decisions for councils to make, in consultation with parents and schools. Councils would likely have consulted SEND groups and these decisions therefore reflect local priorities.

“The Department for Education has indicated that they want most of the funding directed to schools, with capital funding likely going to new places in special schools, where there is a shortage of spaces.”

The LGA spokesperson added: “Post-16 colleges are more flexible and can accommodate SEND without building new sites due to the lack of limits on class sizes.”

Howard disagreed. “There are a lot of colleges finding it very difficult to find spaces for the number of young people that need places in further education across general FE and specialist colleges,” she said.

“Most of our members have restricted sites. They may well be able to put extra buildings on that site, but they don’t have the capital funding to do that.

“Most of our members are charities, and they’ve had to use their charitable funding, they’ve had to draw down reserves from their charity to build new spaces for these learners.”

A 2021 Natspec survey found that 53 per cent of 125 member colleges had buildings in need of urgent repair, or within the next two years. The majority (96 per cent) of colleges said that their buildings would need repairs within 10 years.

Howard pointed out that specialist colleges are also locked out of the £1.5 billion FE capital transformation fund, the £1 billion plus school transformation fund, and are unable to bid for the post-16 capacity fund available to FE colleges.

Calls have been renewed for the government to create a separate capital improvement fund for specialist colleges to develop their estates.

In October, conservative MP Jo Gideon wrote to the minister for children, families and wellbeing David Johnston to call for FE’s eligibility for capital funding rounds and a one-off urgent capital improvement fund.

“This lack of access to capital funding is adversely affecting some of the most vulnerable 16 to 25-year-olds currently in the system,” she wrote. “They are learning in cold, drafty and damp buildings, as a result of failing boilers, leaking roofs and single-glazed windows, or in teaching spaces that cannot adequately accommodate their wheelchairs or the specialist equipment they need to hand.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “It is the decision of the local authorities to determine how best to use their high needs capital allocations to meet local priorities.

“Local authorities can use their high needs capital allocation to work with any school or institution in their area, including academies. They are also free to choose to spend the funding across the 0-25 age range, including in dedicated post-16 institutions or other FE settings.”

Collab Group closes after 20 years

A national body that has represented UK further education colleges for nearly two decades has closed.

Members of the Collab Group were offered refunds for their annual membership subscriptions last month, and were told the organisation would soon be dissolved.

A communication to member colleges sent in early December said: “The board of directors have made the decision to dissolve Collab Group. The company will officially be closed from December 31, 2023.”

It is not yet clear precisely what will happen to Collab Group as a company, but multiple principals of member colleges told FE Week they expect it to be subsumed into the Association of Colleges (AoC).

The company was listed as active on Companies House at the time of going to press but its website has been removed.

FE Week understands the Collab Group board, chaired by LTE Group chief executive John Thornhill, is in talks with the AoC about how it can better represent large college groups. Those talks are ongoing, and no decisions have yet been made about whether a formal merger of the two organisations is on the cards.

Thornhill paid tribute to Collab’s “distinguished history” in the sector and said the board is exploring options.

He told FE Week: “The Collab Group has a distinguished history of supporting its members across the UK in shaping and delivering skills policy. In recent months the Collab Group Board has been working closely with members to identify their priorities and the role they would like Collab to play in representing their interests going forwards.

“We have also held positive discussions with a range of partners and senior stakeholders, including government departments, ministers and other representative bodies. Our deliberations also include a review of sector representation nationally and of representation in the devolved regions. We will confirm our future plans once these have been finalised.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, told FE Week: “We have had several discussions with the Collab board about the needs and opportunities for large college groups. They’ve been positive discussions, but nothing has yet been decided.”

Collab Group chief executive Ian Pretty retired from his role in December and was not replaced. It had 26 member colleges from across the UK at the time, a number which has fluctuated over the years.

Its website is no longer active, and it hasn’t posted on its X or LinkedIn pages since May. Companies House lists seven company directors, including Pretty, Thornhill and the leaders of Newham College, Bradford College and Walsall College.

Collab was founded in 2006 as the 157 Group following a review of further education colleges commissioned by the then secretary of state for education, Charles Clarke, and Chris Banks, the then chair of the Learning and Skills Council, a predecessor to the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

The review, Realising the potential: A review of the future role of further education colleges, was led by Sir Andrew Foster and was published in 2005.

Paragraph 157 of Foster’s report called for “greater involvement of principals in national representation, in particular those from larger, successful colleges where management capacity and capability exists to release them for this work”.

“There is a strong need for articulate FE college principals to be explaining the services they give society and how colleges can make a significant contribution to the economy and to developing fulfilled citizens,” Foster said.

A year later, the 157 Group, named after Foster’s paragraph above, was formed, initially as a group representing large and Ofsted ‘outstanding’ colleges. It was reported at the time as an equivalent to the Russell Group for universities given its “elite” membership requirements.

Over the years, under the leadership of Lynne Sedgemore, the group became a high-profile national voice for colleges and widened its membership criteria to allow more colleges to join.

Sedgemore told FE Week she was “very sad” to hear the news of Collab’s closure.

“I am very sad to hear this. In its heyday, 157 Group made a significant contribution from the particular perspective of large urban colleges on various fronts. I wish everyone involved a successful way forward,” she said.

Sedgemore retired as CEO in 2015 and was succeeded by Ian Pretty, who quickly launched a review of the organisation’s role which led to the rebranding of 157 Group to Collab Group.

Under Pretty’s leadership, the group pivoted away from high-profile policy and political work and instead focused on college commercial activities and supporting its members on specific government priorities, such as apprenticeships, Institutes of Technology, and higher technical skills.

Ofsted reforms to ensure ‘no more tragedies’

Ofsted will look at “decoupling” safeguarding from judgements, publish reports quicker, and appoint a sector expert to lead an independent inquiry into how it responded to the death of Ruth Perry.

Today Sir Martyn Oliver, the chief inspector, accepted all of the senior coroner Heidi Connor’s recommendations as he issued a heartfelt apology for the watchdog’s role in the death of the Caversham Primary School headteacher. 

Both Ofsted and the Department for Education have published their response to Connor’s prevention of future deaths report.

Ruth Perry

Oliver “apologised sincerely for the part our inspection of her school played in [Ruth’s] death” and said: “As the new HMCI, I will do everything in my power to help ensure that inspections are carried out with professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect and with consideration for staff welfare. 

“Such tragedies should never happen again, and no one should feel as Ruth did.”

The Ofsted changes

The inspectorate will run a formal, internal review of how safeguarding fits with individual inspection judgements, including whether it should be “decoupled” from the leadership grade and have its own judgement entirely.

An independent, expert-led learning review is to be commissioned into Ofsted’s response to Perry’s death. The inspectorate will review its “quality assurance processes” with a view to slashing “the time between inspection and publication of the report.” 

An “expert reference group” will also be created to “provide constructive challenge to Ofsted,” focusing on “aspects of training and where well-being might be incorporated more explicitly across the education inspection framework.” 

Connor last month ruled an Ofsted inspection in November 2022 contributed to Perry’s suicide in January last year.

This will come alongside the “Big Listen” consultation and further mental health training that has been already promised.

Ofsted also admitted that there had “previously been no clear, written policy for pausing inspections.” 

During Perry’s inquest, Connor said it was “suggested by Ofsted witnesses that it is an option to pause an ongoing inspection because of reasons of teacher distress.” 

The DfE’s response

The government’s response had fewer clear-cut changes. The DfE has reviewed how it communicates with schools facing intervention to ensure contact is “undertaken sensitively and with full consideration of the possible impact on school leaders.” 

DfE does not make clear how much of its response will apply to the FE sector.

Training on how to pick up on distress and adequately respond has been delivered to all officials in the DfE’s regions group and “relevant” staff at the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

Future work on “tone and style” of communications is planned, including on termination warning notices.

The DfE will also launch a call for evidence on whether further changes to safeguarding guidance are needed. This will run alongside Ofsted’s “Big Listen,” with small clarifications from September and “any fundamental changes made in 2025.” 

Speaking earlier this week, education secretary Gillian Keegan said when appointing Oliver she “was making sure that we got somebody who recognised that we needed to have a different culture, a different approach, a more supportive approach to inspection as well.” 

The sector response

Professor Julia Waters, Perry’s sister, said Ofsted’s “new direction is encouraging. Had these reforms been in place just over a year ago, perhaps my beautiful sister Ruth might still be with us today.”

“Much work now needs to be done to bring about the radical overhaul to the culture of school inspections, so that a tragedy like Ruth’s cannot happen again,” she added.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges said: “I welcome the promise of transparency and openness to rebuild and strengthen confidence in Ofsted and inspection.”

“While a lot of the discussion has been focused on schools, there are very real consequences for colleges when a grade 3 or 4 is given around funding and provision. AoC is in talks with both the government and Ofsted about how those rules can change to support, rather than hinder, colleges to continually improve,” he said.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said Ofsted’s response showed “positive steps in the right direction”, but “does not address all the problems with the inspection system.” 

Inspections are due to restart on Monday, when all lead inspectors should have completed new mental health awareness training.

Ofsted Ruth Perry report response: What you need to know

Ofsted and the Department for Education have responded to a prevention of future deaths report from the coroner who oversaw the inquest into headteacher Ruth Perry’s death.

Here is your trusty FE Week speed read on what inspection changes the watchdog has promised today (and a reminder of what changes have already been implemented). Ofsted have confirmed that changes affecting schools will also apply to colleges unless otherwise stated.

Coroner’s concern 1

The schools with serious safeguarding concerns and those with issues that can be fixed quickly receive the same overall grade.

What Ofsted plans to do:

  • Conduct a formal internal review of where safeguarding fits with individual inspection judgments
  • Explore having safeguarding as a standalone judgement, “decoupled” from the leadership and management grade
  • Examine whether further changes can provide more time for improvement with ‘ineffective’ safeguarding but judged ‘good’ or better in other areas
  • Hold a comprehensive listening exercise called “The Big Listen” between March and June
  • “Where appropriate,” changes will come in immediately. Ofsted will consult by September on more major changes, and introduce them in the 2024-25 academic year

Coroner’s concern 2

An ‘almost complete absence’ of training or policy on spotting and dealing with distress and pausing inspections

  • Publish a new policy today on pausing inspections where a serious issue has been identified requiring “substantial action”
  • Develop a long-term programme of training for inspectors on mental health and supporting leaders’ wellbeing, with a roadmap due this spring
  • Form an expert reference group to provide “constructive challenge” and look at “aspects of training and where well-being might be incorporated more explicitly across the education inspection framework”
  • DfE regions group will proactively notify responsible bodies when a provider receives an adverse inspection outcome

Coroner’s concern 3

Absence of a clear path to raise concerns during an inspection if these cannot be resolved directly with the lead inspector

  • Work with sector bodies to make sure “roles, responsibilities and process for raising and responding to concerns about leaders’ welfare” are understood clearly by the inspection team and the responsible body
  • Clarify in handbooks, guidance, code of conduct and complaints procedures how providers can raise concerns about inspectors’ behaviour. Process to be complete by the end of March

Coroner’s concern 4

Changes to the confidentiality requirement after an inspection have not yet been written into policy, meaning some leaders may fear discussing outcomes

  • Communicate the message that leaders can share provisional outcomes and the draft inspection report with those they deem appropriate, including partners, health professionals and those providing personal support

Coroner’s concern 5

Timescales for report publication

  • Review, in the first half of 2024, quality assurance processes to “see if we can make further changes to reduce the amount of time between an inspection and the publication of a report”
  • Findings will feed into the “Big Listen” and will be part of the proposals put to the sector and parents for their views
  • Where reports do take longer to be published, “we will endeavour to explain why”

Coroner’s concern 6

No learning review of these matters was conducted by Ofsted. There is no policy requiring this to be done

  • By March, appoint a “recognised expert from the education sector to lead an independent learning review of Ofsted’s response” to Perry’s death
  • The independent expert will consider “whether Ofsted’s internal policies and processes for responding to tragic incidents need to be revised”
  • Define clearly the “circumstances in which a learning review will be commissioned, who will conduct it, how it will be carried out and arrangements for publishing and disseminating the lessons learned”

Coroner’s concern 7

Ofsted was not able to say what additional support government was providing for leaders

  • Ensure inspectors are “conversant with this support and ready to remind leaders that it is available”
  • Through training, “reinforce the expectation that they share this information with leaders at the beginning of an inspection”

Refresher: What Ofsted has already done

  • Updated handbooks to make clear that providers can fix minor administrative issues during inspections (schools only)
  • Introduced policy of revisiting schools with safeguarding issues but that are otherwise “good” within three months
  • Introduced a national safeguarding duty desk that inspectors can call if evidence points to ineffective safeguarding
  • Changed its handbook to allow leaders to have a colleague join discussions with inspectors
  • Introduced a helpline for managing concerns about the inspection process
  • All lead inspectors are now required to request contact details of the person responsible for leaders’ wellbeing
  • All lead inspectors are given mental health awareness training. All remaining inspectors to be trained by end of March
  • Proposed a new complaints process allowing providers to contact Ofsted the day after an inspection and for direct escalation to an independent body