National Grid lights up with fourth consecutive Ofsted ‘outstanding’

National Grid has been awarded its fourth consecutive ‘outstanding’ rating from Ofsted – maintaining its 20-year status as a grade one apprenticeship provider.

National Grid, which operates electricity transmission systems in England and Wales, trains its own workforce as an employer provider through apprenticeships in specialist electrical engineering at its national training centre in Eakring, Nottinghamshire.

Ofsted praised the organisation’s training regime that results in high-achieving safety-conscious apprentices with deep academic knowledge of electrical systems, networks and engineering principles.

During its July 15 to 18 full inspection, the watchdog awarded National Grid ‘outstanding’ in all areas according to a report published this morning.

The training arm was first inspected in 2002, receiving a grade two. It was upgraded to ‘outstanding’ in 2005 and has since kept the status in three subsequent inspections.

National Grid had 161 apprentices in training at the time of inspection. Nearly half were undertaking level 4 electrical power networks engineer or electrical power protection and plant commissioning engineer standards, while the rest were enrolled in level 3 power network apprenticeships. 

The inspection found most apprentices achieve distinction grades in their additional academic qualifications and first-time pass rates for final assessments are high.

Inspectors also heard from apprentices who were positive about leaders’ investment in their training, wellbeing and accommodation while attending training.

Apprentices “thoroughly” enjoy their training and are proud to work for National Grid, the report said. Ofsted’s report added that the technical training makes them competent and safety-conscious professionals. 

“They learn to work well in teams and communicate clearly, even in high-risk situations,” inspectors noted.

The report also found that apprentices benefit from a “well-planned” personal development programme, including opportunities to become STEM ambassadors in schools and colleges.

“Apprentices develop their confidence, while also building strong friendships by going on residential team-building events to outdoor pursuits centres,” it added.

Learners also said they felt safe in the work and training environment and contribute to, and benefit from, a “highly supportive and respectful” culture.

Ofsted inspectors noted leaders’ big ambitions for apprentices and commended their investment in high-quality training facilities and carefully designed curriculum.

“They view them as an important investment in the company’s future and aim for them to stay long after completion, which most do,” inspectors said.

Daniel Tingle, head of development programmes at National Grid said: “Our apprenticeships provide young people with world-class training, hands-on experience, and clear pathways to rewarding careers in the energy sector.

“In supporting the next generation of engineers and technical specialists, we’re not just investing in their futures—we’re equipping the UK with the skills and expertise needed to decarbonise. As our sector transforms, the new jobs and capabilities developed at National Grid and the world-class facilities at Eakring will be at the heart of building a sustainable, greener energy system for everyone.”

Bootcamps fray and wear thin as providers begin race to the bottom

Like many skills initiatives over the past three decades, the history of skills bootcamps in England has been mixed.

Conceived during the pandemic, bootcamps were designed as short, intensive courses aligned with employer demand. They have enjoyed a measure of success, attracting over 60,000 learners in their first three years across priority sectors including digital, construction, logistics, green skills, health and social care and engineering.

Their short duration has proved popular with employers and anecdotal evidence suggests the impact on individuals can be transformative.

Members of the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) cite numerous positive learner outcomes. One digital bootcamp graduate, for instance, went from busking on the streets to earning nearly £60,000 as a software engineer in the North West.

However, there are growing concerns about the effectiveness and sustainability of the bootcamp model. A modest 37 per cent success rate in 2023 has raised questions – not just about outcomes, but how those outcomes are defined and measured.

As the job market tightens, groups of bootcamp graduates find themselves competing for just one or two vacancies, calling into question the promise of rapid employment.

FIN has been closely monitoring the quality of provision and our analysis of Ofsted’s findings might offer some reassurance. As of January this year, 65 of the 90 most recent new provider monitoring visits, largely to independent training providers, were for bootcamps. All but two were judged to be making ‘reasonable progress’ across key areas such as curriculum, safeguarding and leadership.

Yet this presents only a partial picture. New providers can operate for up to two years before Ofsted even conducts a monitoring visit and it may be another two to two-and-a-half years before they undergo a full inspection. This four-year window leaves learners exposed and raises serious questions about provider vetting and programme oversight.

The situation is not without precedent. The government’s early experience with the apprenticeship levy saw the rapid expansion of untested providers entering the skills market, only for ministers to backtrack when quality concerns surfaced. The bootcamp programme risks repeating this cycle, particularly as devolution accelerates.

The shift to the combined authorities is already having a destabilising effect, with redundancies hitting high-performing providers. Several local commissioners are overseeing delayed tender processes, smaller contract sizes and pricing structures that reward low bids rather than quality. The result: pressure to deliver programmes for as little as £9 per learner hour.

FIN is increasingly hearing reports of corners being cut. Online group sessions are replacing interactive tutoring. Providers, incentivised by payment structures tied to job interviews, may be pushing candidates into interviews of questionable value just to trigger the next funding milestone. Such practices are undermining the reputation of the programme and penalising good providers, some of whom are still achieving employment outcomes for more than half of their learners.

Amid this, there are encouraging signs. Some established apprenticeship providers are using bootcamps as progression pathways to apprenticeship programmes, supporting sustained employment. But their viability is under threat unless funding models are reviewed. As with apprenticeships, quality cannot be bought on the cheap.

Five years in, the bootcamp programme is at a crossroads. To stay relevant, course content must evolve with the labour market. One example: demand from employers for Level 3 data bootcamp graduates has declined markedly compared to the early days of the programme.

Bootcamps have the potential to be a game-changer in adult skills and workforce development. But without clearer accountability, appropriate funding and strategic alignment between national and devolved decision-makers, they could wither on the vine and become yet another missed opportunity in England’s skills landscape.

Exams disadvantage the anxious and fail to prepare the crammers

I’ve seen countless learners with outstanding practical skills lose confidence because of exam-driven systems, while others who could cram for short-term recall gain high grades but struggle to demonstrate real-world competence.

I’m currently overseeing business HND provision, where there are no formal exams, and I’ve seen first-hand how alternative assessments can better capture ability, confidence and progression.

Employers tell us constantly they want learners who can apply knowledge – who can problem solve, collaborate, and adapt under pressure. Yet too often, assessment in FE still prioritises theory over practice.

We need systems that measure not just what learners know, but what learners can do with the knowledge they have acquired. This is especially true in skills-based qualifications such as HNDs. These qualifications are designed to bridge the gap between academic study and industry application which makes it easier for learners to pick up transferable skills. 

What’s wrong with the current model

The dominance of high-stakes exams in many FE pathways disproportionately disadvantages neurodiverse learners, those with social anxiety or students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Exams reward short-term recall, not creativity, teamwork or resilience.

This disconnect leaves us failing both students and employers. A student may leave with a distinction in theory but no confidence in applying those skills in a live workplace project. This is where FE should be making the difference to bridge that gap. 

Rethinking assessment

A more balanced model should look to embed various approaches which gives diverse learners opportunities to demonstrate mastery with:

  • Portfolios and projects – showcasing their work over time, which captures growth and reflective practice rather than a single performance on exam day.
  • Peer and self-assessment – encouraging learners to evaluate their own work and that of their peers, developing confidence and interpersonal skills.
  • Digital evidence – video presentations, online portfolios, or simulation work that mirrors the modern workplace.
  • Employer co-assessment – bringing industry partners into the process, ensuring learners meet the standards real workplaces demand.

From theory to practice

At Apex College Leicester we looked to pilot project-based assessments in the business HND programme. Learners collaborated in teams to design business pitches which they then presented to a panel of tutors. The process-built confidence and pushed students to link theory to application.

We also trialled portfolio-based evidence for management units, where learners documented real workplace case studies, reflections, and solutions to business challenges. Many of these learners later used their portfolios successfully in job applications and interviews, showing employers exactly what they could do.

Another example of learners being tested was digital presentations, where learners were asked to record video pitches for new product ideas. This developed both digital communication skills and the confidence to “sell” ideas under pressure. One student who had previously underperformed in written work excelled in this format and went on to secure an internship in marketing.

Finally, we embedded peer feedback sessions into group projects. Learners not only received tutor assessment but also practised giving and receiving constructive criticism. For many, this was their first experience of feedback in a professional format, mirroring the realities of performance reviews and workplace collaboration.

The outcomes were striking – achievement and engagement rose, but more importantly, learners reported they finally understood why the work mattered. One learner told me:
“I used to panic in exams. But showing my work through a portfolio gave me confidence that I could actually do the job.”

A call to the sector

We need courage to move away from the comfort of exams and towards assessments that reflect the realities of work and life. If FE really is about employability and lifelong learning, then our assessment systems must evolve to reflect that – not just in words, but in practice.

The HND model is pointing in the right direction: having exams is a way of testing, but not the only way. Now we need to embed this philosophy more widely across FE. Only then will we prepare learners not just to pass, but to progress and be ready for their next move. 

We must stop chasing unicorns and start valuing sustainability

I don’t like how a few people at the top walk away with the lion’s share of the wealth, and the duplication and waste that arises out of competition rather than genuine collaboration in our capitalist system. Saying that probably marks me out as naïve to my peers.

  But In the FE world, many larger private providers in the ‘quasi’ funding market are now owned or backed by private equity (PE) and/or venture capital (VC). A number of large providers are also now at least part owned by venture capitalists.

The widespread belief across the sector seems to be that there’s no problem in ‘entrepreneurs’ benefitting personally from the quasi funding market, be it from the proceeds of a company sale, or in executive salaries that are many multiples of their organisation’s median salary.

 The idea of a smaller provider, such as the one I manage, delivering slow sustainable growth doesn’t appear to be part of the DfE’s current thinking, which seems instead intent on betting the house on potential large provider ‘unicorns’. The recent response of someone I respect when discussing the pros and cons of PE/VC investment was “well, if people are prepared to invest in private providers why shouldn’t they be allowed to – that’s capitalism”.

Everyone knows equity investment is a risk. But, like the national lottery, every investor hopes that they’ll be the one to win big. No one thinks they will be the ones to lose, despite the contrary evidence.

Such thinking also allows ministers and civil servants to ignore the fact that current funding levels are insufficient to deliver quality training, because there are large providers that are closing the funding gap with external investment income. Unfortunately when such investment is burnt through, which it inevitably is in most PE and VC cases, the losers are the learners and staff of the companies that go into liquidation, the investors and the remaining providers expected to pick up the pieces.

These investors are more likely to be institutional pension funds than they are wealthy individuals who can afford to lose some of their disposable wealth. New investors often procure the failed enterprise for very little and start the whole sorry cycle over again.

 The current system is self-perpetuating because it is operating from the perspective of self-interest; a quick internet trawl shows just how intertwined the establishment and PE/VC companies are.

 Rachel Reeves recently doubled down on the government’s support for private equity in her mansion house speech, even pushing for pension funds to be taking a greater investment risk.

The industrial strategy talks about ‘taking a punt’ to generate rapid growth. And DfE are self-evidently tolerating poor financial performance in large PE/VC backed providers in a way they absolutely don’t do with other smaller (less politically relevant) providers.

Anyone who suggests that there isn’t a two-tier system of education providers is deluding themselves! Such ‘trusted’/politically relevant providers are also much more likely to be invited to DfE roundtables, public launch events and pilot initiatives.

The continual rhetoric from both government and PE/VC investors is that private equity leads to economic benefits and growth, despite the clear evidence that the majority of PE/VC ventures fail, that many of the new jobs created are insecure and short term, and that most wealth generated goes back into the pockets of the PE/VC investors – and definitely not into public services or the average citizen’s pockets.

PE/VC companies also hide behind impenetrable financial instruments whilst claiming that they ‘promote growth and innovation’ and/or that they are ‘saving good businesses from failure’. The reality is that both PE/VC investors are looking to make a substantial profit from a planned exit point – PE from underutilised assets and cost cutting, and VC from an IPO (initial public offering) or sale. PE will often leave a company saddled with unsustainable debt and a reduced workforce. VC will often require a company, if it survives at all, to rationalise its staff and pivot into other markets.

Before PE/VC ventures fail they often deliver an uneconomic product, which can appear high quality to external observers (such as Ofsted) but more often than not is being subsidised by equity burn, and not being produced by a sustainable business model. This gives such companies an unrealistic advantage over others trying to operate genuinely sustainable business models. Competitors are going out of business because they cannot compete with an equity subsidised product.

A subsidised operating model also promotes an unrealistic impression of what is achievable from the smallest economic unit, which with the apprenticeship market is determined by funding bands. The government actively supports and tolerates this flawed process because it is hamstrung by 100 per cent GDP debt levels and its own fiscal rules. Such ventures also offer the short term political benefit of creating an illusion that the economy is growing in a sustainable manner.  The reality s is just as likely that the government will ultimately be forced to bail out a company that they have allowed to operate in an unsustainable manner, and that other providers with suffer the inevitable regulatory backlash. The taxpayer will be left to pick up the costs, whilst the PE/VC investor move on to the next ‘opportunity’.

Young people have spoken. Now it’s time for government to listen

As NUS president I chair the youth-led shadow curriculum and assessment review, which was borne from a shared desire amongst young people for meaningful, inclusive and relevant education.

Our recently published final recommendations aim to address issues identified by young people through nationwide engagement, supported by evidence and insights provided by expert contributions.

We’ve worked to ensure that young people have their views represented in this review. I firmly believe that perspectives of young people must be included in reshaping education and am so proud to support the shadow review, along with leading organisations including SOS-UK, The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, I have a voice, NUS, The Scouts Association, NYA, UK Youth and Young Citizens.

The report sets out 14 key recommendations which reflect the shared view from young people for an education system across four themes: building skills and relevance to life; assessments, mental health and wellbeing; climate, sustainability and citizenship education; and equity and inclusion.

The recommendations have been shared with the intention of influencing the curriculum and assessment review, and I am hopeful that the recommendations will ultimately be implemented by the Department for Education. Students have a vision for education that is bold, ambitious, and fit for the challenges we face today and, for those of the future, and through the shadow review we’ve strived to present this vision to government.  

Students want an education system that prepares them for life, with skills like financial, digital, information and political literacy on the curriculum. Our young people are currently graduating without the broader competencies needed to thrive in life; the shadow review’s recommendations will change that.

Enhanced integration of citizenship skills – such as teamwork, critical thinking, resilience, analytical skills, empathy, debate and problem-solving – are also recommended across the curriculum and all key stages.

Young people today want the skills to become active, participatory and considerate members of our society. We know that our education should be preparing us to be active and engaged citizens, and we want to be prepared for the task. It is the government’s responsibility to incorporate the shadow review’s recommendations and guarantee young people the best possible foundation to take on tomorrow’s challenges.

Students also know that the society we want to meaningfully participate in is incredibly diverse, and we want an education system that reflects that. The shadow review calls on government to ensure that the national curriculum represents the full diversity of society, throughout history and at present. This means integrating a wider range of perspectives, including racialised, LGBTQIA+, disabled, neurodivergent, faith-based and working-class communities, whilst ensuring that these are presented sensitively to avoid tokenism. We want real experiences included through case studies, examples, and thoughtful subject content to guarantee psychological safety. Many FE providers are already independently working on delivering diverse curricula, such as Goldsmiths, University of London’s decolonised and diverse syllabuses, and Brighton MET College’s incorporation of queer perspectives in relevant courses. But the Shadow Review wants this inclusivity to be mandated across the whole country, and across all key stages.

We want the assessment system to be more inclusive and accessible, too. Current exam formats disproportionately disadvantage disabled and neurodiverse learners, and students are calling for reasonable adjustments to be proactively offered, not requested, and students should be able to choose from a range of assessment methods based on what will work best for them, rather than the narrow, prescriptive approach which exists now.

The shadow review shows that students want an education system built on inclusivity and empathy which prepares us for life’s future challenges, ranging from managing money to tackling climate change. Government has a major opportunity to respond to these demands with the publication of the curriculum and assessment review slated for this autumn. I am pleased by how receptive Professor Becky Francis and colleagues have been so far. If our recommendations are accepted in the final review, the benefits will be far reaching throughout this generation, the next, and all those which follow.

We’re reaching those young people who left the classroom behind

There are growing concerns about the rise in persistent absence, school avoidance, and the complex personal circumstances affecting young people. One manifestation of this trend is the sharp increase in elective home education (EHE). By autumn 2023, an estimated 92,000 children were in EHE nationally, up from 80,900 the previous year. Locally, we have seen a similarly significant and rising trend.

Wigan & Leigh College’s Re-Engage programme was established in response to this shift. It is designed to re-engage EHE young people, many of whom are disaffected or disengaged with traditional education and to offer them a fresh pathway forward. The programme aims to:

  • Reintegrate vulnerable learners into an education setting
  • Support achievement of key GCSEs in English and maths
  • Build confidence in learning and essential life skills
  • Provide tailored guidance on post-16 education options

The programme addresses three key concerns:

  1. Progression: Many EHE learners have not sat GCSEs, limiting their options.
  2. Retention: These learners often struggle to adapt back into full-time post-16 study.
  3. Risk of NEET: Without intervention, the likelihood of becoming NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) increases.

In 2023-24, we piloted the Re-Engage programme with a small cohort. Demand quickly grew, and in 2024-25 we expanded to accommodate 50 learners across two campuses. So far, 77 young people have been supported to sit their GCSEs, restoring their life chances and opening doors to further education.

Many of these young people did not leave school by choice but out of necessity, often due to unmet educational or mental health needs. An increasing number of EHE learners take no formal qualifications and are at real risk of being left behind. Re-Engage specifically targets this underrepresented group, respecting the decision to home educate while offering a bridge back to structured learning and post-16 pathways.

A core strength of the programme is its collaborative, non-adversarial approach. We understand that many EHE families distrust traditional institutions due to past negative experiences. Re-Engage builds relationships based on trust and choice. We work closely with families, allowing learners to attend voluntarily and participate at their pace.

Previously, EHE learners could access some college classes, particularly maths and English. But there was no bespoke offer. Re-Engage is groundbreaking in its structure, ambition, and delivery. It includes:

  • Small, dedicated classes exclusively for EHE students
  • Delivery across multiple campuses to reduce travel anxiety
  • Carefully selected classroom locations to minimise stress and ease transition
  • Joint presentations with the local authority to introduce the programme to parents and learners

Central to Re-Engage is a belief in transformation through education. Learners who had previously disengaged from schooling develop new confidence, motivation, and pride. The results speak volumes:

  • 100 per cent GCSE exam pass rate in 2024
  • 58 per cent of students achieved grades 9–4
  • 40 per cent achieved grade 5 or higher

Behind the statistics are individual stories of transformation. One such example is Pupil A, who left school in 2019 with just 7 per cent attendance. Their parent was anxious about the return to formal education, attending the first session for reassurance. Those concerns quickly faded. Pupil A thrived, achieved 100 per cent attendance, and secured Grade 8s in both English and maths.

This story reflects a broader impact: not only academic success but renewed belief in education and self. In learner feedback, students describe feeling “seen” and a strong sense of belonging.

Re-Engage is changing lives. When our 2023-24 cohort joined the programme, their average prior school attendance was 23.7 per cent, with some below 10 per cent. On Re-Engage, the average rose to 89 per cent, with over half of Year 11s achieving attendance of 94 per cent or higher and a third with perfect attendance.

The programme requires investment, but the return is evident in lives redirected, opportunities unlocked, and futures reclaimed. As one parent put it, “This gave our child a second chance we didn’t think was possible.”

That’s why we are recruiting again for the programme this academic year.

Being a ‘digital native’ doesn’t mean students are safe online

Online safety experts have criticised Ofcom’s latest regulations for social media companies and adult content providers for failing to go far enough in ensuring young people are protected holistically in digital spaces.

Research from Qoria, Smoothwall’s parent company, found this concern is warranted. Of the schools polled, 64 per cent said they lack the training and knowledge to deal with AI-specific threats, a figure that should alarm the FE sector when looking at the rapid transformation and acceptance of online harms. These extend in many cases beyond social media.

As young people progress into FE, they often gain more independence and with it, a growing confidence in their digital capabilities. Many see themselves as digitally mature. But independence should not be mistaken for immunity. Confidence online doesn’t always equate to competence, and maturity in real-world spaces doesn’t always extend to virtual ones.

What the new legislation means

Under the Online Safety Act, the “riskiest” services, such as social media platforms and adult content providers, have to block harmful content through age checks. Failure results in a fine, or the full site being shut down ‘in extreme cases’.

This still relies heavily on enforcing certain content types for different age groups, with the implication being that some exposure to harmful material is ‘appropriate’ if the user is old enough.

Enterprise-grade on-device safety technologies offer a far more comprehensive safeguard, capable of detecting and responding not only to social media harms but also to the wider spectrum of online risks beyond social media, including AI-generated exploitation, gaming-related abuse, gambling exposure and access to pornography. These solutions deliver real-time, age-assured protection exactly where young people are most at risk.

Ofcom should be actively exploring these tools as part of a more robust, long-term and holistic digital safety strategy that doesn’t leave young people’s wellbeing reliant on inconsistent age checks alone, in one segment of the internet.

Older students, different risks

FE students sit at the intersection of growing autonomy and intensifying digital threats. While they may appear more self-sufficient, their digital lives are shaped by a new layer of complex risk, AI-driven manipulation, gambling exposure, targeted scams, deepfake pornography and peer exploitation.

The myth of the ‘digital native’ can lead us to overestimate their resilience and underestimate the support they still need. Legislation continues to lean heavily on ‘age-appropriate’ thresholds, yet the reality is that online harm doesn’t stop when youngsters turn 16. It shifts, often becoming more sophisticated and difficult to detect.

What’s needed is a staggered, age-appropriate and progressive approach that supports students’ growing participation and digital literacy. Instead of static benchmarks, we must offer evolving safeguards that adapt to how students use technology, engage socially and experience risk across each developmental stage.

Holistic approach needed

Ofcom recently launched an investigation into two pornographic websites that did not appear to have any effective age checking mechanisms at all – which would be a violation of the new regulations under the Online Safety Act. It highlights a wider issue of regulation not working in practice.

Age verification technology is riddled with inconsistencies and often fails to provide reliable outcomes, leaving critical safety gaps that young people can fall through. In practice, many young users bypass these controls using VPNs or even AI-generated images to fool age estimation tools – highlighting how quickly current safeguards can be undermined without robust, multi-layered protections.

Many sites still rely on easily bypassed, simple self-declared age checks. FE students are more likely to be exposed, often engaging with online content far more independently and without safeguarding oversight. Ofcom regulations call for “highly effective” age checks, but these cannot be held up as the backbone of online safety strategy until verification is more robust.

Wider accountability from platforms and stronger support for FE providers is needed, particularly to support educators managing increasingly complex risks without adequate resources. 

Too often, the burden of navigating complex digital risks is placed on educators alone. This overlooks the broader culture of accountability required to truly protect young people.

Now is the time to ensure that online safety policy reflects young people’s real digital lives. That protection starts with acknowledging their risks, respecting their need for guidance and responding proactively rather than after harm has occurred.

Why we’re ditching pass/fail for bronze, silver and gold

Five years ago, The City of Liverpool College became a pilot institution for the WorldSkills UK Centre of Excellence programme and in the process, redefined its approach to technical education.

Serving over 10,000 learners annually, 75 per cent from the top three areas of postcode deprivation, our college is based in a designated Education Improvement Zone. Many students arrive with low starting points, diminished confidence and aspirations hindered by past educational or challenging life experiences. Our goal is to turn disadvantage into advantage. Becoming a member of the WorldSkills UK Centre of Excellence, in partnership with NCFE, beautifully supports our core mission. It shifts the focus from courses to careers, ensuring that no one is left behind.

Central to this partnership is the idea of moving learners from competence to excellence by embedding competition-based pedagogy across the curriculum. Trained by WorldSkills UK in a seven-step skills excellence framework, five educators across key departments cascaded this model college-wide. The result has been a cultural shift, embedding high standards and fostering ambition at all levels.

This is particularly evident in our School of Construction, where WorldSkills UK’ Gold-Silver-Bronze benchmarking is now wholly embedded into Level 1 and 2 assessments, turning pass/fail courses into genuine vehicles for aspiration. Instead of “you’ve passed”, learners now hear “you achieved silver, here’s how to reach gold”. The impact on self-belief and motivation, particularly amongst those with limited prior academic success, has been striking. At the recent regional plastering competition, our students claimed first, second and third place, with two heading to the SkillBuildFinals and one named as a reserve.

Success stories like Shayne’s show what’s possible. Starting at Level 1 plastering, Shayne progressed to an apprenticeship, won his regional SkillBuild competition, placed eighth nationally as the youngest competitor, and was named British Gypsum’s Apprentice of the Year 2024. Our most recent regional champion has just won the same title for 2025.

Dan’s journey in health and social care mirrors this success. He won his regional competition, earned bronze nationally in the WorldSkills UK Finals and is now part of Squad UK training for WorldSkills Shanghai 2026. Other students have shone in hairdressing and games development, with our games team placing second in the games benchmarking event.

Last year, we were selected by WorldSkills UK to lead an innovation project focused on integrating international benchmarking into all Level 1 programmes through co-designed assessments rooted in industry standards. This led to a shift from ‘meeting outcomes’ to ‘achieving mastery’. It encourages teachers to go beyond the specification and identify “what does excellence look like” in basic but essential skills, whether producing a perfect three-strand plait or preparing ingredients for a soup. Alongside assessing just technical skills, we embedded the resilience, confidence and professional behaviours that employers value because we firmly believe that excellence is more than just technical ability.

The impact was significant. Over 80 per cent of students reported greater confidence in their technical abilities and employability. The same proportion felt the benchmarking approach raised their aspirations, and 90 per cent said they now felt confident to enter competitions which is a remarkable outcome for those who previously saw themselves as having “failed” the system. This approach has helped to dismantle the pass/fail ceiling many had internalised. In our context, where trauma-informed pedagogy is essential, WorldSkills UK has helped us reframe what success looks like.

We are proud to be a trusted voice in this space. This work has amplified our presence in national conversations, from AoC conferences to DfE briefings, to showcase how WorldSkills UK pedagogy can be a powerful tool for social mobility. But the real success lies in what our learners have achieved. They’re not just qualifying, they’re becoming confident, industry-ready professionals.

Through the Centre of Excellence, we’re raising aspirations and developing the talent pipelines our region desperately needs. Our learners, regardless of background or starting point, are challenged to go beyond ‘good enough’ to achieve excellence. In doing so, we are proving that excellence is not exclusive. It belongs to everyone.

Adult education provider climbs to top of Ofsted ladder

An adult learning provider has been awarded Ofsted’s highest grade after inspectors found high achievement rates and “highly appreciative” employers.

The JGA Group, established over 30 years ago, offers apprenticeships, skills programmes and short courses to mostly adults in London and the south east.

It today received top marks across all areas following a full inspection between July 15 to 18, which found challenging content, “excellent” support and a well-planned adult curriculum that meets skills shortages.

The provider was rated ‘requires improvement’ in 2014, where it was critiqued for its maths and English provision and employer involvement.

It improved to a ‘good’ rating the year after and subsequently ‘outstanding’ following its latest Ofsted visit according to a glowing report this morning.

JGA Group managing director Richard Goodwin said today’s report was the culmination of “more than 10 years of hard work developing processes in a very human-centred way”.

“We’re just delighted,” he told FE Week. “I hadn’t really thought of it as 10 years of work until after the result, and I sat back and thought that it has been a long journey.

“We just about got our ‘good’ in 2015 by skin of our teeth, and then it’s developed from there.

“We’re over the moon. I think it’s fair to say,” he added.

Inspectors reported that the JGA Group has a comprehensive understanding of employer’s needs.

The report said: “The JGA Group is excellent at meeting the specific needs of large employers through niche apprenticeships. Employers are highly appreciative of this and very positive about the support that they received from staff at the provider.”

The JGA Group had 474 apprentices enrolled on 17 standards across level 3 to level 7 at the time of inspection. Just under half were on level 4 programmes such as policy officer and marketing executive.

The watchdog noted that a high proportion of apprentices and learners from JGA Group achieved their qualification.

Government data shows JGA’s overall apprenticeship achievement rate in 2023-24 was 70.3 per cent.

Goodwin said he would like to introduce standards that provide progession for people already on existing apprenticeships, such as offering a policy manager or policy advisor standard to complement the current policy officer standard.

“With the level sevens going we’re looking for opportunities for some big, new niche ones,” he added.

The ITP also had 164 adult learners on short courses and 92 skills bootcamp participants on film and television and spectator safety courses.

Ofsted commended the tutors for teaching bootcamp learners “valuable” technical skills before they gain employment.

“Leaders expose learners to prestigious employers in the creative and security sectors. This gives learners excellent insights into the industry,” the report said.