Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

£3m government AI ‘content store’ to help teachers plan lessons

The government will create a £3 million “content store” to train artificial intelligence (AI) to be more reliable to help teachers mark work and plan lessons.

Government documents, such as curriculum guidance, lesson plans and anonymised student assessments will be pooled into a “content store”, with AI firms encouraged to use this to train their tools, the Department for Education said.

Ministers hope this will generate accurate, high-quality content, such as lesson plans and workbooks that can be reliably used in schools and colleges.

Stephen Morgan, the new minister for early education, claimed the announcement marked a “huge step forward for AI in the classroom”.

“This investment will allow us to safely harness the power of tech to make it work for our hard-working teachers, easing the pressures and workload burdens we know are facing the profession and freeing up time, allowing them to focus on face-to-face teaching.”

£1m to incentivise AI firms

The content store will be funded by £3 million from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).

This includes a partnership with the Open University, which is sharing learning resources.

It is aimed at firms building tools to help teachers mark work, create teaching materials and to assist with routine administrative tasks.

To incentivise AI firms to use this, an extra £1 million will be awarded by the DfE to those with the best ideas to put the data into practice to reduce teacher workload.

Each winner will build an AI tool to help teachers with feedback and marking by March 2025, and applications open on September 9.

But none of this money, allocated as part of a wider DSIT project, will go directly to schools and colleges to help them develop and adopt AI.

DfE says providing AI with data boosts accuracy

It comes as the DfE said it would today publish test results showing that providing generative AI models with this kind of data can increase accuracy to 92 per cent.

This is up by a quarter, from 67 per cent, when no targeted data was provided to a large language model, it said.

The development of more sophisticated AI has sparked debate about its potential benefits to schools, along with fears about its potential misuse, such as if used to cheat assignments.

The DfE’s policy paper on generative AI in education also warns content created can be inaccurate, inappropriate, biased, out of date or unreliable.

In October 2023, the DfE hosted an AI “hackathon” event, where school and college leaders and tech experts discussed how the technology could be used to reduce teacher workload.

They explored how AI could help draft and review written policies published on school and college websites and how ChatGPT could be used to create parent newsletters, among other issues.

The DfE said teachers at its hackathons said standard AI tools “weren’t yet fit for purpose” for education use, as outputs were below national standards and they were tricky to use.

DfE to publish safety framework on AI products for education

The department also pledged today to publish a safety framework on AI products for education later this year.

Morgan will meet ed tech firms before setting out “clear expectations” for the safety of AI products for education.

In May, FE Week revealed ministers were planning to appoint ed tech evidence checkers to help schools work out which products deliver the best impact as part of an AI “training package” for teachers worth up to £5 million.

But this was put on ice when the election was called.

A YouGov poll of 1,012 teachers in the UK in November found almost two thirds think AI is too unreliable to assess students’ work or help with resource or lesson planning.

College ‘auto-enrols’ students on voting register

Students at a north west college group will be automatically registered to vote when they enrol this year, in what is thought to be a first in the sector.

Run by Trafford and Stockport College Group (TSCG) , the trial scheme – starting this month – involves an “opt-in to register to vote” on new students’ enrolment forms.

This allows the college to share students’ information with local electoral registration office, ensuring they can vote once they turn 18.

The college is believed to be the first in England to run such a scheme, which aims to improve low levels of voter registration for 16- to 18-year-olds.

TSCG’s head of personal and professional development, Michelle McLaughlin, who led the scheme, said she hopes it is used as a blueprint for other colleges.

James Scott, the college group’s principal, said: “By automatically registering students to vote as part of the enrolment process, we are carrying out a civic duty and supporting an important transition from childhood to adulthood.

“Young people are significantly less likely to vote than older people, and if we don’t engage them early, we risk losing a generation of voters.”

Although the ‘opt-in’ scheme only currently applies to students living in Stockport, the college said its staff have been helping students in other areas register themselves to vote online.

A study by the Institute For Public Policy Research (IPPR) found that only half of adults voted at the 2024 general elections, the lowest share of the population since universal suffrage.

Constituencies where a larger share of the population is older also had a higher turnout.

Market research company Ipsos MORI estimates that only 36 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the last general election, the lowest of any age group.

Younger age groups are thought to have voted the least in the last decade of general elections in the United Kingdom.

Ahead of the election, Labour pledged to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16, but legislation to do this was not included in the 40 bills in the King’s Speech last month.

However, Commons leader Lucy Powell has said the party still hopes the change could be made before the next general election.

The TSCG initiative is part of a wider drive to find effective ways to encourage young people to vote, led nationally by social purpose strategy firm Purpose Union, in collaboration with the Politics Project and financial support from the UK Democracy Fund.

Purpose Union hopes to build on its reported success with a similar initiative running at some universities.

However, both colleges and universities face similar challenges with setting it up, due to the need for data sharing agreements with local authorities that their students live in.

Lydia Richmond, an associate director at Purpose Union, said: “Getting the next generation registered to vote is fundamental for ensuring civic engagement.

“We hope, following in Michelle’s example, more colleges adopt auto-enrolment to increase student voter registration in further education.

“It is clear to see Michelle’s passion for, and belief in, politics is at the heart of her work. It’s a leading example for other colleges looking to involve their students more in civic responsibility.”

Purpose Union and the Politics Project are now planning a series of workshops to encourage other colleges to sign up – and ultimately hope for a national data sharing agreement colleges and universities can sign up to more easily.

Labour’s private school VAT plan must exclude specialist colleges

When Labour launched its flagship policy to raise money for state education by imposing VAT on private school fees, I’m pretty sure the politicians did not intend to include organisations that were neither a school nor privately funded. And I’m even more sure that they did not intend the policy to cost the state money rather than raise it.

But specialist colleges funded by the Education and Skills Funding Agency and local authorities, for students with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), together with specialist colleges in Wales receiving Welsh Government funding for students with additional learning needs, somehow appear to have been drawn into the definition of “private school” in the draft legislation announced on July 29.

Non-maintained special schools, academies, and general further education colleges are all specifically excluded from the definition. By not explicitly excluding specialist colleges in the same way, the government has failed to recognise that they are the only state-funded alternative to mainstream further education for those with the most complex learning needs. To equate them with private schools is to completely misunderstand their role.

Specialist colleges are run by organisations with a variety of legal types. The vast majority are charities or not-for-profit companies. All students, including those that attend the minority of colleges that are run by private companies, are state-funded through a combination of 16-19 ESFA budgets and local authority high needs budgets in England and by Welsh Government in Wales.

The government will effectively be taxing itself

The potential inclusion of specialist colleges in the definition of a private school is at odds with all four principles outlined in the policy which are based on redistribution, quality, equity and efficiency.

The first is to “raise revenue to support the public finances”. That’s not going to happen.

According to the consultation, local authorities will be able to reclaim the VAT charged to their high needs budgets for each of the 8,000+ students in specialist colleges.

The government will effectively be taxing itself and the money will go round in circles, likely causing headaches, confusion and an extra administrative burden along the way.

Cash-strapped local authorities will need to pay the colleges 20 per cent extra and wait months before the VAT gets paid back to them.

Ironically, by becoming VAT registered, specialist colleges will be able to partially reclaim VAT on their purchases, thereby costing rather than raising public money.

The second principle is to “ensure high-quality education is available for every child”. I find it difficult to see how colleges will be able improve the quality of their provision when the added bureaucracy of the policy will divert them from their core business of providing high-quality education.

The policy could also risk equity of access to education if the 20 per cent increase in fees discourages some local authorities from placing students in specialist colleges, despite their need for specialist provision.

The third principle is to “be fair, with all users of private schools paying their fair share, whilst ensuring that pupils with the most acute needs are not impacted”. It doesn’t seem fair to me that students with the most complex needs, who require specialist provision, will have their fees subject to VAT if they are in a specialist college, but not if they attend a sixth form in an academy or maintained special school.

The final principle is to “minimise administrative burdens for taxpayers and HMRC, whilst ensuring these policies are not open to abuse.”

The consultation alone has caused administrative burdens galore, with uncertainty amongst colleges and tax advisers about whether specialist colleges are in or out of scope, and if so which students, and which parts of their programmes, will be subject to VAT.

Without urgent clarification, we could fall into a nightmare of specialist college and local authority staff spending hours calculating and processing VAT invoices on students aged 16-19 but not those aged 19+, and on the education elements of the programme, but not the health and social care elements. All so that LAs can then reclaim the VAT. This feels to me more like maximising than minimising administration and bureaucracy.

I’m fully supportive of the aim to create a more equitable system that sits at the core of this policy. However, the government must recognise that specialist colleges are neither privately funded, nor are they schools.

We await the outcome of the consultation but if they remain in scope, the only winners will be tax advisers and accountants, and the loser will be the state-funded education it seeks to protect.

Combined authority abandons botched AEB procurement

A combined authority has dramatically abandoned its adult education budget procurement for this academic year.

In an unprecedented move, West Yorkshire Combined Authority has cancelled its AEB tender for 2024/25, 22 days after contracts were due to start.

Training providers have been left hanging as WYCA promised a full review of its tender documentation after complaints and “substantial challenges” over the procurement scoring led to a re-evaluation of bids earlier this year.

The combined authority said it received letters challenging the “validity” of the procurement process and after a re-evaluation, continuing the contract award would not be “expedient or in the public interest”.

WYCA now plans to completely re-start the procurement process, pushing training contract start dates back by five months to January next year.

This means the region will see a reduced amount of training provision compared to what was planned, although the combined authority is understood to be exploring whether it can fill some gaps through existing providers.

Earlier this summer, the WYCA made the highly unusual move to “rewind” its adult education budget procurement, due to start on August 1, after it had already informed the winners on May 14.

Just two weeks later, it had received complaints from providers accusing WYCA of unfairness over how competing bids were scored.

It means that two “intention to award” letters to successful providers, the first in May and the second on August 2, have now been cancelled.

In the letter today, the WYCA said the re-evaluation decision was “the correct action to take at the time”.

“However, from the communication received it would appear that this has undermined confidence in the process as a whole,” the combined authority added.

“In this situation the combined authority do not consider continuing with the award to its conclusion would be expedient or in the public interest. To this end, a decision has been made to abandon, cancel and not award the contract(s) and to review the tender documents in their entirety before going back out to tender for the combined authority’s future requirements.”

They added: “We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and hope that this does not deter you from bidding for future opportunities.”

The exact value of the tender, which is for adult education budget (AEB) contracts in 2024/25, is £7 million.

Separate pots from the AEB, including £3.7 million for ‘targeted commissioning’ are understood to be in place.

The authority has also set aside a £2.7 million ‘responsiveness’ pot for provision that should align with its economic strategy and priorities.

FE Week understands that the combined authority had slimlined the number of successful providers to just nine, down from 19 private providers last year.

WYCA’s published allocations from last year indicate it had already confirmed its provider funding allocations by March – months before the August 1 contract start date.

A WYCA spokesperson said: “A West Yorkshire Combined Authority spokesperson said: “We have strict checks and balances in place to protect taxpayers’ money.

“Ninety percent of our adult skills fund has been successfully commissioned and will benefit learners across West Yorkshire from September.

“Our procurement for the remaining ten percent will be repurposed and sharpened to meet any emerging gaps in skills provision from January next year.”

The combined authority, which has a population of 2.3 million, is run by Labour mayor Tracey Brabin and has had devolved control of its adult education budget of about £66 million since 2021.

The majority of WYCA’s adult education budget is distributed to colleges and local authorities in the region.

AEB funded training delivered by private providers in West Yorkshire includes short courses in construction, telecommunications and customer services.

Ofsted blasts SEND college for ‘unnecessarily’ putting learners at risk of harm

The principal and trustees of a SEND college have resigned and two campuses will close after Ofsted discovered major safeguarding failures, including unsafe administration of medications.

In a report published today, the watchdog downgraded Langdon College to ‘inadequate’.

Part of the charity Kisharon Langdon, the college was teaching 29 learners at its London campus and 21 learners at its two campuses in Manchester at the time of inspection. It specialises in teaching students who have a range of special educational and emotional needs with a Jewish ethos.

As a result of the damning report, the charity will close the two Manchester campuses at the end of the year and have informed the Department for Education and local authorities to find alternative placements for learners. The college will however retain its London campus.

The specialist college was last graded ‘good’ by Ofsted in 2013. Since then it has had three consecutive ‘requires improvement’ judgments and three monitoring visits. Its last ‘requires improvement’ result was in January 2022, which was followed by a monitoring visit last March in which inspectors said the college was making ‘reasonable progress’.

Leadership and management was the biggest area of concern for inspectors who found a “weak” culture of safeguarding.

Ofsted said too many staff didn’t have current or relevant knowledge and understanding of the safeguarding risks and threats to the learners in their care.

Inspectors discovered that staff “do not routinely follow” college policies for the administration of medications, including recording how much medication is given to learners and when.

“Learners are put at unnecessary risk of harm by the college staff,” the report said.

The college also was found to have an unsuitable recruitment process by not routinely checking criminal records, gaps in employment history or references for new staff.

“Consequently, leaders and managers do not create a safe environment for learners,” the report added.

The report suggests the college parted ways with principal Jane Baker, who has been in post since 2019, shortly after Ofsted called. She has now been replaced by Katie Morley who will join this September.

Ofsted said: “On the day of notification of inspection, the principal of Langdon College was in post, however on the first day of inspection the director of education of Kisharon Langdon stepped in as interim principal to act as nominee for the inspection.”

Just three days after the July 1 to 3 inspection, college trustees and governors resigned and the charity has appointed new trustees.

Emily Haddock, Kisharon Langdon’s director of education, was acting as interim principal after Baker left, while Emma Castleton, the chair of the education committee, has stepped in as interim chair of college trustees.

Inspectors criticised previous leaders’ “poor planning” of the curriculum, leading to too many learners not fulfilling their potential or preparing them for their next steps.

For example, learners continually repeat the same tasks in lessons, make the same products in practical cookery workshops and do not make sufficient progress in their studies.

“Leaders and staff do not have high enough expectations of, and aspirations for, learners,” the report said. “As most staff do not monitor or record learners’ progress well enough, they are unable to share accurate information with parents and carers about the new skills that learners develop.”

The college’s governance arrangements were also found to be “ineffective” as previous governors did not properly hold leaders to account. The recently appointed governing body was too new to evaluate their expertise and the impact of their actions but inspectors did say that they are “well qualified” in SEND and determined to improve the quality of education.

The college was however awarded a ‘good’ for behaviour and attitudes and personal development and ‘requires improvement’ for the quality of education.

Ofsted praised learners’ politeness and helpfulness to tutors, visitors and peers. They said that learners value their friendships and enjoy coming to college.

Another positive from the report was tutors and support staff knowing their learners well, which informs how they communicate with learners who are non-verbal or have limited communication skills.

As a result, “most learners demonstrate increased confidence and ability, improve their concentration and become increasingly more independent in their learning.”

Richard Franklin, chief executive of Kisharon Langdon, said: “We deeply value the support from local rabbinic leadership, local authorities, and community leaders. Our actions reflect Kisharon Langdon’s unwavering commitment to high standards, safeguarding, and continuous improvement. We are confident these necessary measures will lead to positive outcomes for the future.”

Bauckham: Assessment review should ‘look at’ GCSE resits policy

The government’s curriculum and assessment review should look at the policy of forcing pupils who don’t pass GCSE English and maths to resit the subjects, the head of exams regulator Ofqual has said.

Today’s GCSE results saw both a reduction in the proportion of 16-year-olds achieving a grade 5 English and maths grades of 4 or above – a “standard pass” according to the government – and a fall in the pass rate for those re-taking the subjects.

Introduced in 2014, the government’s resits policy requires students who have not achieved a grade 4 pass in English and/or maths GCSE by age 16 to continue to work towards achieving these qualifications as a condition of their places being funded.

Students who achieve a grade 3 have to retake their GCSE, while students with a grade 2 or below can either take a functional skills level 2 or resit their GCSE.

Pupils ‘consigned to a remorseless treadmill’

Today’s data has prompted fresh criticism of the policy, with leaders warning that pupils who don’t pass are “consigned to a remorseless treadmill of resits”.

Sir Ian Bauckham told FE Week’s sister title Schools Week he did not have view on the policy itself, which is a “matter for government”, but that it would be “helpful for the government’s curriculum and assessment review to take a look at this question, assess all the evidence in the round and reach a conclusion”.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson last month appointed Professor Becky Francis, the head of the Education Endowment Foundation, to lead Labour’s curriculum and assessment review.

Labour’s policy under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership was to scrap the resits requirement, but the party has not re-committed to this under Sir Keir Starmer.

Asked if he had advised Phillipson to include the re-sits policy in the review, Bauckham said: “I think it would just be a very good thing if the curriculum and assessment reviews took that on board. Okay, I don’t think the secretary of state needs my advice on that.”

Eight in ten don’t pass re-takes

Of 185,727 pupils aged 17 and older who re-took GCSE maths this summer, just 32,316, or 17.4 per cent, achieved a grade 4 or above. Of the 148,569 who re-took English, just 31,050, or 20.9 per cent, achieved the benchmark.

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was a “huge achievement that so many young people will now progress with confidence onto courses in colleges and sixth forms”.

However, he said “we must recognise that this is not the story in England for a significant proportion of students who fall short of achieving at least a grade 4 GCSE pass in English and maths”.

These pupils “will be consigned to a remorseless treadmill of resits in post-16 education under rules drawn up by the last government”.

Paul Whiteman, leader of the NAHT, said the resit policy “must be scrapped”.

“Those students who haven’t achieved the required grade are forced into repeated resits which are demotivating and can lead to disengagement with their learning

“For some young people alternative qualifications in maths and English would be a more positive and effective way to demonstrate their achievements and government policy should allow much more flexibility.”

Cath Sezen, director of education policy at Association of Colleges, added: “After 10 years of condition of funding the time is right to review government policy and look at a different way to support students to gain crucial English and maths skills, rather than putting them through a system which can leave many of them feeling that they have failed again and again.’’

GCSE resits 2024: Maths pass rate up but English falls again

There has been a small increase in the proportion of students achieving a grade 4 pass in their GCSE maths resit in England – but pass rates for English have continued to fall.

Results published today show that 17.4 per cent of the 185,727 post-16 learners taking GCSE maths in 2024 achieved a grade 4 or above – a 1 percentage point rise compared to last year.

This year’s maths resit grade 4 pass rate is, however, almost 4 percentage points lower than the pre-pandemic level of 21.2 per cent.

In English, 148,569 students entered to resit the GCSE in post-16 education and the proportion that achieved a grade 4 pass was 20.9 per cent. This is 5 percentage points lower than 2023, and almost 10 percentage points down on 2019.

The results mean there are over 31,000 more people who have gained their GCSE English grade 4 or above after failing to do so at school, and over 32,000 in maths.

Rising cohorts and gender gaps

A gender gap in pass rates is noticeable in post-16 GCSE English, where 25.9 per cent of females achieved a grade 4 or above compared to 17.3 per cent of males. In maths, the pass rate for females in 2024 was 18.2 per cent compared to 16.6 per cent for males.

Cohorts for both subjects were much higher in 2024: in English, there were 31,000 more resit entries compared to 2023 and 30,000 more entries to maths resits.

FE Week analysis shows that 175,898 pupils aged 16 failed to achieve a grade 4 GCSE maths in school this year and could need to resit the subject in 2024/25.

And for English, the data shows 181,682 didn’t achieve the grade 4 pass grade at school and are in line for retakes over the next year.

Where will Labour land on resits policy?

Introduced in 2014, the government’s resits policy forces students who have not achieved a grade 4 pass in English and/or maths GCSE by age 16 to continue to work towards achieving these qualifications as a condition of their places being funded.

Students who achieve a grade 3 have to retake their GCSE, while students with a grade 2 or below can either take a functional skills level 2 or resit their GCSE.

The policy has split the sector since its inception, with some arguing it is a vital lifeline for young people who struggled at school, while others say that forcing students to repeatedly retake the exams is demoralising.

In 2018, then shadow education secretary Angela Rayner vowed that a Labour government would scrap the resits policy. The party’s current education team have however been silent on the issue since coming into power last month.

Pepe Di’Iasio, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, congratulated students on today’s results but added: “We must recognise that this is not the story in England for a significant proportion of students who fall short of achieving at least a grade 4 GCSE pass in English and maths, and so will be consigned to a remorseless treadmill of resits in post-16 education under rules drawn up by the last government.

“As this year’s results show, most of these students once again fall short of the grade 4 benchmark in their resits. This is completely demoralising.”

Di’Iasio called on the government to use its current curriculum and assessment review, being led by Professor Becky Francis, to “scrap the requirements which compel mass resits”.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady echoed the call.

She said: “This should be the last year that students are forced to endure the resit nightmare. Labour’s curriculum and assessment review should begin by recognising student’s diverse array of talents and focus on empowering students to study subjects they enjoy and enable them to thrive.”

Leaders slam ‘unacceptable’ above-inflation 2025 exam fee rises

England’s largest exam board has hiked fees for some of its most popular GCSE and A-level subjects by up to 10 per cent, as its competitors also set inflation-busting prices.

AQA’s A-level entry fees for top subjects next summer will be between 3.5 per cent and 7 per cent higher on this year, with GCSE prices typically increasing by about 3.5 per cent.

But next year entry to AQA’s business studies and geography GCSEs – two of their most popular subjects – will cost 10 per cent more, as will entries to citizenship, economics and sociology. A geography entry will rise from £48.20 to £53.05.

Entries into AQA’s A-level languages will also cost about 7 per cent more, the analysis by Lee Hitchen of the Academic Enrichment Centre, a former OCR staffer, shows.

A-level and GCSE subjects with more than 30,000 and 100,000 entries respectively were treated as the most popular courses for the analysis.

OCR and Pearson Edexcel have also raised their fees for next year, typically increasing them by 6 per cent and 5.9 per cent, respectively. These jumps outstrip the current rate of inflation, which was 2.2 per cent in the year to July.

The exam boards now look set to net millions in extra entry fee revenue between them across GCSEs and A-levels next summer. It comes after an Ofqual report in May revealed prices of GCSE and A-level exams had already soared by 6.4 per cent this year.

Schools and colleges ‘simply cannot afford rises’

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, vowed to raise the issue with exams regulator Ofqual and ministers.

“We can see no justifiable reason why exam fees should rise by any more than (the current rate of inflation), let alone the significantly higher increases being charged by the exam boards.

“It is completely unacceptable and will put schools and colleges under yet more cost pressures that they simply cannot afford.”

AQA published its summer 2025 entry fees last month, initially reporting most would rise by about two per cent, with a few exceptions.

It said this initial publication contained some incorrect numbers, which it corrected that day and before other exam boards published their own fees.

Across the 11 most popular A-level subjects looked at for the analysis, AQA is predicted to accrue an additional £755,000 in revenue after upwardly revising its initial figures.

Rises ‘hard to stomach’ but earlier publication welcome

Paul Whiteman, National Association of Headteachers general secretary, said the financial pressures facing schools and colleges meant “all costs are subject to review and these above-inflation rises by exam boards are really hard to stomach”.

“The cost of examinations is not discretionary expenditure for secondary schools and colleges – the only choice they have is which exam board to use for the qualifications they offer.”

But NAHT welcomed exam boards publishing pricing information earlier, saying it helped cash-strapped schools and colleges plan upcoming expenditure.

However, this “does not in itself compensate for the additional budgetary pressures these big increases in fees will place upon schools and colleges”.

AQA previously raised entry fees for some subjects by as much as 16.5 per cent for 2024, as FE Week reported last year. But the exam board’s fees for most other subjects only jumped by 4 per this summer, whereas OCR and Edexcel implemented 7 per cent increases.

“As an education charity, we reinvest exam entry fees back into education and research,” and AQA spokesperson said.

“Like many other organisations we’ve had to deal with rising costs. Last month, we announced increases to exam entry fees so that they better reflect the true cost of delivering qualifications.”

Exam boards say they’ve kept fees ‘as low as possible’

Pearson has increased fees for its A-level and GCSE sciences by about 5.9 per cent for next summer, with similar jumps across other subjects.

A spokesperson for the company said its recognised “budgets are stretched” and will “always aim to keep fee increases to a minimum, while providing as much value for money as possible”.

They said the fees include “two full years of support for teachers”, with “access to scripts at no extra charge, as well as data for staff to help inform more personalised teaching and learning”.

OCR’s entry fee for A-level maths next summer is £156, up 6.12 per cent on £147 this year, among other rises.

A spokesperson for OCR said: “As a not-for-profit, OCR only increases fees to meet rising costs and fund essential investment to keep exams fair, secure, and future-proof.

“We’ve done everything we can to keep our fees as low as possible despite continuing cost pressures.”

They said it took time for cost pressures to feed through the supply chain, meaning there is often a lag between headline economic indicators and qualification fee increases.

Cumulatively, over the past three years OCR said its fees had increased in line with the average Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period – about 6 per cent.

DfE advertises for Skills England permanent chair and board

The government has launched its hunt for a permanent chair and seven board members to oversee its new quango, Skills England.

Labour ministers, who hope the organisation will fix the “fragmented and broken” skills system, are expected to form Skills England as a full arm’s length body over the next “six to nine months”.

Richard Pennycook, a Department for Education non-executive director and former boss of the Co-operative Group, was named interim chair last month. An interim chief executive is yet to be appointed.

Adverts for a permanent chair and seven board members went live yesterday.

According to job applications, the chair and board will be expected to spend 20 days per year delivering “clear strategic direction, specialist expertise and independent scrutiny” to Skills England.

The chair, paid £25,000 per year, will work closely with the CEO and board to set the organisation’s objectives, support “effective decision making” and “deliver high standards” of corporate governance.

The government is seeking a strategic thinker, with good communication skills and experience driving forward the work of an organisation.

This could include expertise in skills or migration, preferably through academia, a think tank, business or a public body.

By early November, all shortlisted candidates are expected to be interviewed by an advisory assessment panel, comprised of senior representatives from the DfE, Skills England and an independent panel member.

The successful candidate will serve a term of up to three years once Skills England is fully operational.

Board members – paid £10,000 to £15,000 per year – will be expected to provide “independent perspective and insight” to the responsible minister, helping set key strategic objectives and identifying “high-quality feedback loops” between the government and skills bodies across the country.

Other duties include ensuring Skills England complies with its legal duties, spends public funds appropriately and observes “high standards of corporate governance”.

The DfE has been recruiting for other Skills England roles in recent weeks. For example, it is currently recruiting a £75,000-a-year operations deputy director to help “develop and drive forward the design and set up” of the new body.

Boards of similar government bodies such as the DfE meet seven times last year, while the board of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, whose functions will transfer to Skills England and potentially many of its staff, met six times.

The government hopes Skills England will help the country meet regional and national skills needs over the next decade by developing a “single picture” of skills needs and prioritising funding for training.

Ministers have confirmed Skills England will also decide what non-apprenticeship training courses employers can fund through the proposed growth and skills levy, which is set to replace the apprenticeship levy.

Labour has said Skills England’s work will sit alongside a national industrial strategy and a requirement for towns, cities and regions to produce “local growth plans”.

During the general election campaign, Labour accused the previous government of lacking “a proper plan” to address national skills shortages.

The party promised to cut overseas recruitment and overall immigration figures by targeting training at key sectors.

Earlier this month, home secretary Yvette Cooper wrote to the migration advisory committee asking it whether training is one of the factors behind at high levels of foreign visas granted to IT and engineering professionals.

“The current high levels of international recruitment reflect weaknesses in the labour market including persistent skills shortages in the UK,” she wrote.

“The current approach is not sustainable and the system as it exists is not operating in the national interest. “This government will deliver a fair, coherent, more joined up approach to the labour market by linking immigration with skills policy.”