Latest news from FE Week

DfE: Funding ‘unprecedented’ extra students this year is ‘unaffordable’

The Department for Education has announced it can’t afford to fully fund “unprecedented” requests for in-year growth to cover this year’s rise in student numbers.

Instead, the department said it could only fund two-thirds of what colleges expected based on previously published guidance.

In an update this evening, the DfE said a “very large” increase in 16- to 19-year-olds in colleges this year is “positive” for young people but “significantly above the budget for in-year payments, so we cannot fully fund this growth.

“Because of the size and distribution of this growth in student numbers, it does create an unprecedented amount of in-year growth. We will fund all students through the lagged student number methodology in future allocations as normal. However, the current growth is significantly above the budget available for in-year payments, and so we cannot fully fund this growth.”

Officials use November data returns on student numbers to determine over-delivery against previously agreed allocations for funded student numbers.

For this year, a new step has been added to the way colleges calculate how much in-year growth they can claim called “the affordability factor”. This means once over-delivery has been calculated and any previous under-delivery removed, only two-thirds of the growth award can be claimed.

Institutions will be told their growth payments for this year by the end of March, ahead of payments starting in May

Colleges have been told not to assume these rules will apply to in-year growth for 2025-26 as no decisions have been made.

Raise the rate

Today’s announcement does however confirm a 3.78 per cent funding rate rise for 16- to- 19-year-old students, bringing the top funding rate for study programme students to £5,026.

This increase comes from the £300 million package announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in October’s budget.

Around £50 million of that has been committed to “one-off grants” to further education and sixth form colleges to help with pay awards this year from April to July.

The remaining funding has gone towards the rate increase for 2025-26.

Funding details for adult learners, and payments covering next month’s employer national insurance rise, have not yet been released.

The base rate increase applies to each study programme funding band, which is calculated using annual planned hours.

At the top end, for 16 and 17 year olds with 580+ planned hours, the base rate will increase from £4,843 to £5,026. This also applies to high needs students aged 18 and over. For student aged 18 and over who are not high needs, the rate will increase from £4,006 to £4,157.

Additional payments for disadvantaged students and care leavers will be frozen at current rates: £570 for bands 4 and 5 students and £772 for T Level students.

English and maths funding has also not changed.

T Levels uplift removed

A 10 per cent uplift on T Level funding applied for this year has not been applied for next year. DfE said it would “confirm the position” on the uplift “in due course”.

Today’s update confirms that the September 2024 intake of T Level onsite construction will be the last.

Funding for students on the T Levels in the legal services specialisms will be reduced for 2025-26. This is because it was previously “over-funded” and there was an error in previously calculated guided learning hours for the courses. They will attract £10,456 for the two year course rather than £12,060.

Funding for the new T Level in marketing, which begins teaching for the first time in September, has been confirmed at the lowest funding band, £10,456.

English and maths

Previously announced changes to the English and maths condition of funding have been confirmed.

These include the 100 hours over-the-year requirement, asking institutions for their “best efforts” to deliver an extra 35 hours of maths on top of that, and reducing the non-compliance tolerance threshold from 5 per cent in 2025-26.

College unfairly dismissed managers ‘pressured’ over provision for principal’s relative

Two college managers who were “pressured” to accommodate special provisions for a relative of the principal in an understaffed department were unfairly dismissed after “falling out of favour”, a tribunal has ruled.

A judgment published this week found in favour of two ex-staff members of the City of Liverpool College who felt they were forced to resign after facing significant pressures to make special arrangements for a relative of principal Elaine Bowker.

The three-year-long battle with the college resulted in a win for Stephanie Doyle and Kerry Dowd, who were employed as the head and deputy head of the college’s digital academy (DA) nearly four years ago.

The tribunal accepted the allegations that the principal expected the pair to give “preferential treatment” to her relative, who was enrolled on a course at the DA.

The staff members “fell out of favour” with Bowker who made “bespoke requests” on behalf of the student which were interpreted by staff as instructions from their principal.

College bosses later “put pressure” on Doyle and Dowd to resign after being suspended over alleged safeguarding concerns the tribunal found not to be genuine.

Doyle told FE Week she and Dowd were “relieved” but “traumatised” over the whole ordeal.

“I was asked to manage a school with a blindfold on and my hands tied behind my back. It felt very planned, and I could see what was happening.”

The claimants said they are seeking “substantial” compensation at a remedy hearing later this year.

In a statement, the college said “there were a number of inaccuracies” in the court’s judgment “linked to key information” and are taking advice for an appeal.

“As a result, the college is seeking legal support to help review and advise on next steps, which may include appointing counsel and submitting an official appeal.”

Bespoke provision for family member

The complaints against the college started in May 2021, when the college conducted a quality assurance visit to the DA, which found some areas for improvement as well as “complementary comments” about Doyle and Dowd’s performance as leaders.

The tribunal judgment also noted senior managers were aware of the DA was understaffed but did not approve hiring requests until after the 2021-22 academic year started.

Meanwhile, the college was cutting courses with low enrolment numbers. One course in scope to be cut was a level 3 coding programme, but this was retained even though it had one enrolment: a student who was a relative of Bowker.

Doyle was called into a meeting to discuss running the course, which the tribunal found would not have happened for other students in similar circumstances.

The two heads were instructed to continue the course and assigned one teacher to the principal’s relative, creating “bespoke provision”.

Bowker emailed the senior leadership from her college email account complaining about her relative’s experience in the DA, who was struggling on the course.

As a result, Doyle and Dowd found themselves “falling out of Ms Bowker’s favour”.

The tribunal also heard that no one in the senior leadership team was able to speak openly to Bowker about the DA’s staffing issues or the correct procedure for complaints.

The judge noted that the college’s witnesses during the hearing, including senior leadership and governors, were “unusually stressed” when giving evidence, visibly shaking, perspiring and flushing bright red.

“Witnesses may be nervous at the start of giving their evidence, but it is unusual for them to suddenly become visibly nervous in response to a particular line of questioning,” the ruling said.

Following Bowker’s intervention, a personalised timetable for one-to-one tuition was created for the student despite “chronic staff shortages”.

“We find that Ms Doyle did this as she understood that the consequences for her of falling out of favour with Ms Bowker would have been significant,” the judge said.

Doyle said: “It was heartbreaking because there were students with no teacher in front of them, and there was literally nothing I could do.”

Shortly after, the DA was subject to another “deep dive” quality visit and a proposed “curriculum transformation” which the judge accepted caused the two academy heads to feel “ever-increasing pressure” by senior leadership.

“We had an idea that we were being pushed out because the pressure was just coming in thick and fast,” Doyle added.

No evidence of ‘genuine’ safeguarding concerns

Doyle and Dowd were off sick from December 2021. In the new year, the college suspended the two women claiming to have found a “potential safeguarding concern”. They were suspended for alleged gross negligence over quality standards and inaccurate registers.

But the tribunal found no evidence of “genuine” safeguarding concerns as the college never took steps to “properly” investigate the matter.

“[The college] never genuinely believed that there was a real risk of safeguarding failures and that HR included this in the suspension letter in order to put pressure on the claimants to resign,” the report said.

The college’s HR department told the pair they would give them a clear employer reference excluding safeguarding breach if they resigned within 24 hours.

Both staff members resigned immediately as they said the safeguarding threat would not allow them to get a job in education again.

A spokesperson for the college said: “The safety and well-being of all students is of paramount importance at The City of Liverpool College. The college takes great pride in providing effective, secure, and high-quality learning environments for thousands of students who choose to learn and develop here. The college takes its governance and duty of care very seriously, as evidenced by a positive Ofsted inspection in 2024.

“In relation to the recent legal case, a potential safeguarding issue regarding the falsification of an attendance register was identified, logged and subsequently, investigated.

“The college takes such claims very seriously; registers are legal, auditable records used to evidence attendance and support student welfare.

“The falsification of this official documentation was deemed as a potential safeguarding issue and as such, the college’s HR processes and procedures were subsequently duly followed.”

Third ‘outstanding’ for London Catholic sixth form college

A London-based catholic sixth form college has received its third grade one rating from Ofsted for “outstanding” exam results and pushing students to achieve “far beyond” the basics.

St Dominic’s Sixth Form College was awarded top marks in all categories for the third time in a report published today after landing the accolade in 2022 and 2008.

The beaming report found the college’s ambitious curriculum results in “outstanding” outcomes in exams, leading to most students continuing to university.

St Dominic’s in Harrow, north-west London is a Roman Catholic designated college. During its January 14 to 17 inspection, the college had 1,475 students enrolled mostly on A-Level courses. Fewer than 10 students with high needs were enrolled at the college.

Inspectors said students flourish in a college community where differences are “celebrated” while practicing the Christian ethos of care, kindness and integrity.

Students from a range of backgrounds, including from LGBTQ+ communities, feel “welcomed and accepted for who they are” from day one at college, inspectors found.

The report also said many students achieve grade B or better in their A-level examinations and progress to the university or job of their choice.

Inspectors were impressed with the ambitious curriculum that demonstrates the college’s “high expectations and vision” for all students to achieve their highest potential.

“They ensure students take advantage of outstanding opportunities to expand their knowledge far beyond the basics of their qualifications,” the report said.

Andrew Parkin, principal of St Dominic’s, told FE Week he was delighted by the news.

“I’m very, very proud of the students and I’m very proud of my staff. I have a superb staff team, and I couldn’t want anything better from them.”

Parkin added: “We’ve got really strong teaching, and the students work hard. The students are really committed to their own academic development, and they’re ambitious. There’s an element of competition among them, which helps them.”

Students are also encouraged to take part in external competitions and practice their skills in group projects, such as mock trials for A-level law students.

“This enables students to develop important skills they need for future employment such as oracy, critical thinking, confidence and working collaboratively,” inspectors said.

As a result, students are “fully prepared” for university or apprenticeships that they progress onto.

Ofsted also found the college made a “strong” contribution to meeting local skills needs.

They said St Dominic’s established “meaningful and highly effective” relationships with West London Business, North West London Chamber of Commerce and neighbouring education organisations.

The college involves stakeholders in workshops and workplace projects, helping students to develop skills needed by employers.

For learners with special educational needs, the watchdog found the college provides “outstanding support” to them.

High needs learners are very involved in the college community as well. They manage the college’s popular law society, which helps them to develop friendships with others who have similar interests.

Ofsted praised the college for instilling confidence in students with high needs and noted they were prepared for their next steps in education or employment.

The inspectorate also found “exceptional” oversight of the provision from leaders and managers, who use data effectively to spot low performing areas. Governors were also found to provide leaders with “excellent support and challenge”.

There’s no simple answer to trainer shortages, so don’t seek one

There’s no universal cure for the construction trainer and assessor shortage we’re experiencing. I really wish there was, and I bet I’m not alone there.

The challenge is complex, with sticky issues like pay and working conditions in construction and education.

You might have a picture in your head of what a construction trainer is, where they work and what they do for a living – but that image is probably different to mine.

The variety of sector specialisms and qualifications makes generalised observations about the problem and potential solutions unhelpful. To solve the challenge, we first need to understand it.

A training provider’s ability to overcome the problem also varies. Some larger commercial providers are better able to offer competitive wages or flexible forms of employment. Construction firms with a training arm may be better placed to identify candidates from their own workforce who may make suitable trainers. Micro providers likely face similar recruitment challenges to micro construction companies, such as reaching the best candidates and ensuring profitability.

If we accept there is no cure-all solution, we need to stop looking for one and begin breaking the problem down into manageable pieces.

Here are three pieces we’re considering at CITB:

Making it easier for people at different stages of their career to become trainers or assessors

The role of older construction workers embarking on a second career is, quite rightly, considered of paramount importance. However, often a second career is shorter than the first. Helping the right skilled people make a change earlier on in their career offers a whole host of benefits.

Action Sustainability’s diversity benchmarking survey indicates a peak in construction workers leaving the industry aged 25–34. Typically, this isn’t the age group that comes to mind when we think about recruiting trainers and assessors, but it could be an area of untapped potential.

Many of these people will have started their construction career in their teenage years, meaning they could be looking for a change of career but still have over a decade of construction experience. If we are losing them from construction, can we make a transition to education easier? This will be an area we explore more closely at CITB this year.

Fostering greater industry collaboration to prevent short-termism

Trying to find a trainer can lead to short-term periods of panic – someone has resigned and you have to replace them. These short-term problems can suck up time and resources, but it’s important to have an eye on long-term solutions and collaborations that may help. Building recruitment pipelines from industry takes time, as does training up a great teacher.

There are some fantastic examples of collaborative partnerships between construction companies and training providers. CITB can invest up to £500,000 through the industry impact fund for innovative collaborations led by employers that address any aspect of the trainer and assessor challenge.

CITB will be trialling approaches to build construction employer and provider collaborations this year and next, exploring how this can drive improvements in a learner’s experience and potentially bridge teaching shortages.

We must retain and support existing trainers and assessors

Lastly, we must not forget the construction trainer and assessors we already have. Supporting them to stay in education is vital. Providers themselves, and of course the government, will play an important part in this.

There is a role for CITB to support continuous professional development and keep the conversation going on this issue with providers, representative bodies and awarding bodies.

Ultimately, without more trainers and assessors, we will struggle to train the number of people we need to join the construction industry.

By making it easier for more construction workers to make a switch at any point in their careers, building collaborations between construction and education and looking after the trainers and assessors we already have, we can make serious inroads.

AI and data security – let’s worry about the right things

Do AI chatbots learn from everything we enter? That’s probably the most common question I’m asked when it comes to AI and data security.

I can see the logic in asking this. Because AI chatbots talk to us in a human-like way, it’s easy to assume that they also learn in a human-like way. There’s also a tendency to assume that, just like a human, not only might they learn from a conversation, but they are probably awful at keeping secrets and might well share the information they have learnt with many other users.

Why does this matter? Because I think it’s driving how we approach AI and security, with people often focusing too much on the very limited risks around AI models and training data, and not enough on other, more pressing AI security issues, such as the overall security of the tools they are using.

At one end of the spectrum this is causing users to think any system is safe if it says it’s not using interactions for training, and at the other end, leading to the idea that developing in-house solutions to avoid data being used for training is the most effective way to get a secure AI system.

AI and training data

To understand this, it’s good to think a little more about the data involved. The data used to train large language models is typically scraped from the internet, is licensed from big media companies, or includes books obtained by potentially unethical means. As an aside, that means any data we intentionally or otherwise make available on the internet could be used to train AI models – it’s not just about interactions with AI tools.

Language models are trained infrequently, as each training run can cost millions of pounds. Their model isn’t updated as we use them.

As these are language models, the companies behind them are looking for high-quality texts, so things we tend to type into AI tools generally aren’t useful as training data. They are random chats, fragments of text, etc.

The companies will ask for permission to use our data in the terms and conditions primarily to understand how we use the tool, to help them improve its overall performance.

But even if our text did find its way into the training set, the chance of it being output by the model is close to zero. That’s because the size of the training set is vast—typically 10 trillion words. To put this into context, if you started reading it today, it would take over 120,000 years to read it all! (and yes, I should confess, ChatGPT helped me work that out).

Language models aren’t knowledge models, so they can’t look things up from the training set. Instead, each extra bit of data has a tiny, tiny impact on the overall output, which, in the end, is just a text prediction. It’s partly why we don’t see lots of personal data revealed by tools such as ChatGPT and Gemini.

Data security

So, does that mean we don’t need to worry about using AI tools at all from a security perspective? Absolutely not!

Legally we must prevent our staff and students’ private data from being used for purposes other than those necessary and contractually agreed. But we also need to understand what the actual risks are, and it’s much more about general data security.

The biggest risks are actually around data being poorly secured or shared with other third parties. Only a few weeks ago security researchers found a basic security flaw that meant anyone could access Chinese chatbot DeepSeek’s database and view all the chat history.

It’s tempting perhaps, to think the best way to get secure AI is to create or host your own solutions. But securing software is really hard! And don’t forget, our word processors and spreadsheets, for example, handle our most sensitive data, but we don’t build or host our own in-house versions of them. We manage the risks through contracts, user training, policies and technical controls.

So, what’s the best approach to using AI safely and securely? It’s simple. Don’t think of AI systems as gossipy friends eager to spill your secrets. Instead, treat them like any other IT system—where security and contracts matter most.

Contracts are key, and if you only take away one thing from reading this it should be to use AI systems with a robust agreement in place, ensuring responsible and secure data handling.

Mayor launches £100 per week payments for net zero students

Weekly payments of £100 have been made available to over 100 students in the north east to incentivise in net zero skills courses.

A £1 million ‘net zero industry scholarship’ has been launched by Tees Valley Combined Authority. It will offer term-time weekly payments of £100 to up to 141 students who train in industrial skills at local colleges and training providers from September.

Funding will be available to students aged 16 or above who study priority skills, including welding, instrumentation, pipefitting, electrical engineering and civil operations.

Adult learners looking to change careers or upskill are also encouraged to apply.

The scholarship, which is initially funded for one year, is financed by businesses Net Zero Teesside Power (NZT Power) and Northern Endurance Partnership (NEP) and is being promoted and coordinated by Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA), which has devolved control of adult skills policy locally.

Last year, Basildon Council announced an “education essentials grant” funded by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund that will pay £360 to up to 360 students to help them stay in further education.

Mark Lewis, NZT Power and NEP construction manager, said: “Construction of Net Zero Teesside Power and the Northern Endurance Partnership will require thousands of skilled workers.

“Along with our construction partner Balfour Beatty, we have worked closely with local colleges across the Tees Valley to design a net zero industry scholarship which will equip people from the region with the skills needed to secure the roles that are urgently required to drive the energy transition”.

The businesses are owned by a consortium of global gas corporations, including Equinor, BP and Shell, and are focused on exploiting new carbon dioxide “capture” technology.

Net Zero Teesside Power claims to be the “world’s first commercial scale gas-fired power station” that will capture carbon emissions and pump them into former oil and gasfields beneath the bed of the North Sea.

Northern Endurance Partnership will build and run the carbon capture, transport and storage technology.

Local training providers involved in the scheme include Education Training Collective, Redcar and Cleveland College, NETA Training Group, Middlesbrough College, Hartlepool College of Further Education and Darlington College.

Each has a limited number of scholarships available per subject. For example, there are 36 available at Middlesbrough College; 24 for instrument tech and 12 for electrical.

Zoe Lewis, principal and CEO of Middlesbrough College, told the BBC the scholarships have “created quite a buzz” towards “rapidly expanding number of opportunities in the renewable and low-carbon energy sector right on their doorstep”.

Students have to apply for scholarships directly with their training provider.

Mayor of TVCA Ben Houchen said: “With billions of pounds of investment coming into our clean energy industry, we need a workforce that is ready to meet demand.

“The Tees Valley industry scholarship will give people the training and support they need to secure well-paid, high-quality jobs right here on their doorstep.”

Global firm’s coding bootcamps secures high Ofsted praise

A Dublin-based coding provider has been awarded Ofsted’s top grade in its first full inspection.

Code Institute Limited, a global company set up in 2015, scored ‘outstanding’ judgments across the board after the watchdog saw how learners “quickly develop” the skills that will “allow them to gain entry-level employment in the industry”.

The firm secured funding contracts with four combined authorities and a local enterprise company to teach skills bootcamps in England in 2023 – the year that Ofsted’s remit was expanded to inspect the short courses which can last up to 16 weeks and must involve a job interview for each student.

At the time of Ofsted’s visit in January, 245 learners were studying bootcamps including a high-performance full-stack software developer course, a data analytics with artificial intelligence (AI) non-accredited programme, and a level 3 certificate in software development.

Ofsted’s report, published today, said leaders have developed a curriculum offer that is “highly responsive to the skills needs of the coding industry”.

Managers have “fostered strong partnerships with a well-developed network of leading global employers in the digital industry” and these networks have enabled them to “design and continuously adapt curriculums to reflect current trends in the industry”.

Artificial intelligence (AI) modules have been added to the skills bootcamps “in response to a growing industry need, giving learners the skills they need to be successful”.

Jim Cassidy, CEO of Code Institute, said the feat was a “significant milestone” for his education provider.

“It validates our ongoing commitment to bridging the digital skills gap and providing an environment that truly supports and propels our learners towards success,” Cassidy added. “This achievement is a shared victory for our team, our learners, and our partners.”

Ofsted found learners who are “incredibly enthusiastic” about their training. They are “highly driven to extend their learning beyond the classroom, participating in research and independent learning activities to deepen their knowledge”.

Participants are said to be part of an “extensive, extended global network of alumni and other coders” who also “contribute positively to society through charitable projects, such as raising awareness of modern-day slavery”.

The watchdog also praised learners’ attendance at online sessions as “exceptional”, highlighting how facilitators use “highly effective strategies to guarantee that learners are participating fully and are committed to their studies”.

Ofsted said leaders have an accurate understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their courses and take action where necessary.

For example, following a review of early withdrawals, leaders “strengthened the advice and guidance provided to learners at the start of their course, leading to a substantial decrease in learners leaving their courses early”.

Governors were praised for having “valuable experience, knowledge and skills” and for “carefully” monitoring quality improvement while providing “high-quality” challenge on the quality of education offered.

Learners also “engage frequently with the highly skilled careers team”, developing technical CVs and cover letters tailored to specific digital skills roles and improving their interview skills.

This “helps learners to advance their skills and the personal and professional qualities they need to succeed in technical interviews”.

Lorraine Hall, director of quality at Code Institute, said: “This recognition confirms what we already know – that our learners receive an outstanding education in an environment that nurtures and challenges them to be their very best.”

DfE begins search for next FE Commissioner

The government is looking for an FE leader with an “outstanding” track record to take over as FE Commissioner when Shelagh Legrave steps down this autumn.

The Department for Education has launched a job advert for the next FE Commissioner to assess colleges that are in intervention and advise ministers on FE college improvement.

Legrave is the third person to hold the position. She started in the role in 2021 and her term ends this October.

The successful candidate will be paid £140,000 a year, a small bump from Legrave’s remuneration of £135,000.

The role will remain as a four-day week position and the next FE commissioner will serve for a three-year term.

The FE Commissioner oversees a team of five deputy FE commissioners, 15 FE advisers as well as working with National Leaders of FE and National Leaders of Governance.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson is encouraging candidates with an “exceptional understanding” of the FE sector and a proven track record of leadership to apply for the position.

The FE Commissioner role was created in 2013 as an independent adviser to ministers, appointed by the education secretary and reporting to the skills minister.

“We are seeking candidates with an exceptional understanding of the FE sector, a proven track record of leadership, delivery, and achievement, outstanding communication and interpersonal skills, and the ability to drive initiatives with enthusiasm, dedication, and expertise,” Phillipson said.

She added: “In this exciting, challenging and high-profile role, you will lead the next steps in the work to ensure that statutory FE colleges and local authorities delivering FE across England are in the strongest possible position to provide an outstanding standard of education and training. As the FE Commissioner, you will collaborate closely with me, my ministerial team, sector stakeholders, and civil servants, as well as your own dedicated team of Deputy FE Commissioners and FE Advisers. Together, we will advance this important work.”

The FE Commissioner is appointed by the education secretary and reports to the skills minister.

The position requires candidates to have current or very recent experience of being an FE sector leader with a national profile, a history of promoting/advocating diversity in leadership and “exceptional” communication skills.

“This includes sometimes leading challenging and sensitive conversations to secure change,” the advert said.

It also requires expertise in both curriculum delivery and quality as well as finance performance.

Current commissioner Legrave had her term extended back in October 2023 for an extra 18 months, effective from April 2024. She will officially retire from the role on October 1, 2025.

Legrave had a background in accounting and previously led Chichester College before taking over the FE Commissioner role from Richard Atkins.

Legrave’s latest FE Commissioner report covering the 2023-24 academic year found four colleges and one local authority triggered intervention from the FE commissioner, while seven colleges left intervention.

Selection process

Ministers have created an advisory assessment panel consisting of three members to help assess who meet the eligibility criteria for the role.

The panel is chaired by Julia Kinniburg, director general of the skills group in the Department for Education, and is also made up of CEO of Walsall College Jatinder Sharma and Shaid Mahmood, chair of the Association of Colleges.

Sharma was also on the five-member panel that helped with the appointment of Legrave back in 2020.

The deadline for applications is midday on March 28. DfE will conclude interviews by mid-May.

WorldSkills UK EDI heroes 2025 revealed

Educators tackling under-representation in industry and employers going the extra mile for apprentices are among the winners of this year’s WorldSkills UK equity, diversity and inclusion heroes awards.

Winners spanning nine categories including apprentice of the year, social mobility champion and training provider of the year were announced this afternoon at a ceremony in Westminster.

The awards, sponsored by the University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC) and Skills and Education Group, aim to celebrate and showcase individuals, initiatives and institutions that break down barriers through technical education, training and apprenticeships.

Judges selected a project that intervened early to prevent young people from becoming NEET, a high-profile apprenticeships advocate and a care-experienced apprentice fighting for support for young people at risk of homelessness.

This year’s apprentice of the year is Andrew from United Colleges Group. Andrew grew up in foster care, and when he secured an apprenticeship with the College of North West London had to turn to homeless charities for support because his benefits were reduced.

Undeterred, with the help of his tutors and Centrepoint, Andrew completed his level electrotechnical apprenticeship and is now a powerful advocate for young people experiencing homelessness. He presented the #PlanForThe136k petition to Downing Street calling for better support for the over 100,000 young people who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness.

Winning training provider of the year is Birmingham Metropolitan College’s rail engineering department. Working in some of the most deprived areas in the West Midlands, they’ve helped over 500 people achieve the level 2 diploma in rail track maintenance and in to jobs with Network Rail and other companies.

Ben Blackledge, chief executive at WorldSkills UK, said: “A huge congratulations to all the winners. We’ve been truly inspired by the incredible people and the powerful stories behind the nominations.

“Together with our partners, we’re committed to celebrating the individuals and organisations driving real change, and we’ll use their success to inspire even more opportunities for young people, from all backgrounds, to choose apprenticeships and technical education as a route to success in work and life.”

Gower College Swansea’s eco-construction programme won this year’s social mobility champion award. The project targets young people at risk of becoming not in education, employment or training (NEET) and, despite launching in a morgue with no funding, it has now supports over 150 14-16 learners annually with an impressive 87 per cent progression rate.

Kaye Jackson, director of business growth and engagement at Skills and Education Group, said: “These inspiring individuals are truly making a difference in the further education and skills sector and championing EDI. Their passion and dedication are remarkable, and we are so proud to celebrate their achievements. Well done to all the nominees, and a special thanks to our partners at WorldSkills UK. We are excited to continue this important work together.”

A special outstanding winner of the year award went to Jagdeep Soor for his work in growing the Multicultural Apprenticeship Alliance. Since joining, he expanded the number of high-profile businesses and industry leaders, including bringing on board the likes of British Airways and Lloyds Banking Group, making the organisation a powerhouse for advocacy for inclusion in apprenticeships.