Latest news from FE Week

Units provider list widens despite quality concerns

More than 300 training providers have been approved to deliver the government’s apprenticeship units, with FE Week analysis showing low achievement rates and mixed inspection outcomes remain prevalent among eligible providers.

The apprenticeship provider and assessment register has been updated to include a “can deliver” units column, revealing a total of 306 eligible providers approved to offer the short-course alternatives to full apprenticeships in the initial rollout of the flagship scheme.

Providers must still update their training offer through the online apprenticeship service before appearing on the real-time Find Apprenticeship Training system that employers will use to select a training provider.

As of FE Week’s latest stocktake on 1 June, fewer than half of the approved providers – 147 – had signed up to deliver individual units.

In April, FE Week conducted an initial audit of the first 80 providers listed for units and found six with apprenticeship achievement rates below 60 per cent, including one with a rate of 52.9 per cent. The national average apprenticeship achievement rate sits at 65.4 per cent.

Eight providers also had fewer than 20 apprenticeship leavers in total in 2024-25, while three had fewer than 10. One provider’s learner numbers were so low that no achievement rate was published.

(Story continues after table)

The findings sit uneasily with Skills England guidance, which stated that initial delivery would be “limited to a targeted group of existing apprenticeship providers who already demonstrate strong performance in the occupational standards from which the units are drawn”.

While the guidance only specified that providers must not have any indicators rated as ‘at risk’ on the apprenticeship accountability framework and be free from contractual funding restrictions, analysis of the newly released full list suggests eligibility has continued to be extended beyond providers with the strongest apprenticeship performance indicators.

One provider on the updated approved list, Furness College, was rated “inadequate” by Ofsted under the previous inspection framework in 2024. It recorded an apprenticeship achievement rate of 57.2 per cent last year.

Under Ofsted’s new report-card framework, the college received 13 “needs attention” judgments and two ‘expected standard’ judgments during an inspection this year.

The college is due to merge with Blackpool and The Fylde College in August. Blackpool and The Fylde College recorded a 60 per cent apprenticeship achievement rate and holds a ‘good’ Ofsted rating under the previous inspection framework.

Two other new approved providers on the units list have never received a full Ofsted inspection.

‘Not fit for purpose’

Twenty-three providers recorded 20 or fewer apprenticeship leavers in 2024-25. Meanwhile, 43 providers approved to deliver units recorded apprenticeship achievement rates of between 50 and 60 per cent.

Among the lowest-performing providers by apprenticeship achievement rate were City of Portsmouth College (50.2 per cent), MITskills (50.7 per cent) and Greenlight Training (52.0 per cent).

The rollout has also attracted criticism from within the provider market. Corndel, one of the major apprenticeship providers initially signed up to deliver units, has since withdrawn from the programme, arguing that the government’s model is “not fit for purpose”.

A previous FE Week investigation found concerns over the design, funding rates and payment model for apprenticeship units, with some providers warning that the arrangements made delivery unattractive.

A government spokesperson previously told FE Week it would not comment on individual providers because of commercial sensitivities, but said employers could be assured that the government has ‘standard processes for managing contracts to protect learner outcomes’.

It was recently revealed that Ofsted will not inspect apprenticeship unit provision until April 2027 at the earliest.

Apprenticeship unit starts have been permitted since April 28, allowing employers to spend levy funds on non-apprenticeship training for the first time.

Ten units are available in the initial phase of the rollout:

AI leadership – AI strategy and opportunity
AI leadership – AI adoption, procurement and governance
AI leadership – AI delivery and organisational transformation
Electric vehicle charging point installation and maintenance
Electrical fitting and assembly
Mechanical fitting and assembly
Permanent modular building assembly
Solar PV installation and maintenance
Welding – mechanised
Battery manufacturing

Delivery hours range from 30 to 140 hours, while funding rates vary between £750 and £3,200.

Principal sums: 97 college chiefs now on £200k-plus packages

The number of colleges paying £200,000 or more for their chief executives grew by more than a third last year, with the total nearing 100, FE Week analysis shows.

Three leaders now sit in the £300,000 club – one more than the previous year.

FE Week’s annual investigation of college boss pay packages shows a relatively equal gender split among the highest-paid leaders, rising numbers of performance-related bonuses, and one six-figure severance payout for the principal of a college that almost went insolvent.

The analysis is based on the Department for Education’s annual college accounts database for 2024-25, published last week, and cross-referenced with individual published financial statements.

It focused on total remuneration, rather than just take-home pay, because some colleges report payments in lieu of pension separately, while others include them within basic salary. This can distort salary comparisons.

Data for just over 200 colleges was available, including general FE colleges, sixth-form colleges and land-based colleges. We excluded colleges that had multiple principals in 2024-25, leaving about 180 institutions in the analysis.

£300k club expands

Last year’s college principal pay investigation found 71 colleges spent £200,000 or more remunerating their accounting officer in total.

That figure rose to 97 in 2024-25.

Gerry McDonald, who runs New City College in London, retained his position as the highest-paid principal in the country. He received a total remuneration package of £347,000, made up of a £273,000 basic salary, a £17,000 bonus and a £57,000 payment in lieu of pension.

This was 9 per cent higher than the year before. The increase was driven mostly by the addition of a performance-related bonus, awarded in the year McDonald’s college group was judged ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. His basic salary increased by £10,000, or 4 per cent.

New City College is one of the largest college groups in the country, teaching almost 20,000 students in 2024-25 and generating income of almost £140 million.

The second highest-paid college CEO was Gary Headland, who leads Oxfordshire-based Activate Learning and received £310,000 last year. This comprised a £220,000 basic salary, a £26,000 bonus, £12,000 in benefits in kind and £52,000 in pension contributions.

Headland’s total remuneration was £6,000 lower than in 2023-24, largely because his bonus fell by £5,000. His basic salary was unchanged.

Activate Learning teaches about 17,000 students and generated total income of £113 million last year.

Entering the £300,000 bracket for the first time was John Thornhill, the CEO of Manchester’s LTE Group. He earned a £232,000 basic salary, a £18,000 bonus, £8,000 in benefits in kind and received £42,000 in pension contributions.

This compared with a £290,000 remuneration package the year before. The increase was driven mainly by a 3 per cent rise in his basic salary, which stood at £225,000 in 2023-24.

LTE Group runs The Manchester College as well as seven other education and training organisations across England and Wales, collectively supporting about 50,000 learners each year. The group generated total income of £196 million in 2024-25 – more than any other college group in the country.

The analysis showed that, on average, CEOs’ basic salaries were five times the median salary of employees at their colleges.

The pay multiples for the three highest-paid leaders were higher: McDonald’s was 7.22, Headland’s was 6, and Thornhill’s was 6.6.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said college governing bodies “take seriously their role to ensure that decisions about pay for senior leaders represent good value for money”, adding that remuneration packages are “defensible relative to the wider public sector market”.

“They commonly use benchmarks from within and outside of the sector and this is closely monitored by DfE officials who use the managing public money guidelines to ensure pay is set fairly and proportionately,” he added.

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “Colleges are large, complex organisations which clearly require leaders with substantial experience and expertise. It is therefore to be expected that salaries will reflect the significant demands of these roles.”

Gender balance

FE Week’s analysis found 54 (56 per cent) of college leaders with remuneration packages totalling £200,000 or more were men and 43 (44 per cent) were women.

A separate analysis of academy trust CEO pay by FE Week’s sister publication Schools Week found that just a quarter of the highest earners were women.

Hughes said he was “pleased to see that there is a relatively equal gender split in pay at senior levels across colleges, reflecting the values of a sector that supports equality and fairness”.

The highest-paid female CEO in colleges in 2024-25 was Angela Joyce, who leads Capital City College in London. She received £287,000 in total remuneration, including a £223,000 basic salary and £64,000 in pension contributions. This made her the fourth highest-paid college leader in the country.

Capital City College taught about 28,500 students last year and generated an income of £137 million. Joyce’s basic pay multiple was 4.74.

Liz Bromley, who leads NCG, was the second highest-paid woman and the fifth highest-paid college CEO in England in 2024-25.

Her total remuneration reached £286,000, made up of a £227,000 basic salary, £21,000 in benefits in kind and £38,000 in pension contributions.

NCG operates across the north, midlands and London. It educated 35,000 learners last year and generated income of £187 million – the second highest total among college groups in England.

Bromley’s basic pay multiple was 6.8.

Bonuses on the rise

The DfE’s college accounts database showed 23 performance-related payments and bonuses were awarded to CEOs in 2024-25, totalling £296,000.

This compares with 17 bonuses in the previous year, worth a combined £209,000.

Gary Headland of Activate Learning received the largest bonus of £26,000 in 2024-25, followed by Alan Pease of Suffolk New College, who received £24,000, and Lawrence Wood of Telford College, who received £23,000.

Colleges have been required to seek government approval for bonuses above a certain threshold since public-sector reclassification took effect in 2022. The threshold was originally set at £17,500 but increased to £25,000 in July 2025.

Activate Learning’s accounts said Headland’s bonus was assessed “against the objectives set by the corporation board and in line with his contractual entitlement”, which is exercised at the board’s “full discretion”.

Suffolk New College’s accounts said Pease’s performance was “measured by the review of the targets set, undertaken by the chair of corporation, with evidence to support achievement and subsequent report of the outcome to the remuneration committee”.

Telford College’s accounts said Wood’s remuneration was justified because he “continued to perform well in 2024-25 with a number of strategic initiatives being progressed which will continue the growth of the college, whilst maintaining the college’s objectives of delivering quality teaching and learning provision to all students”.

“This is in addition to work undertaken in respect of continuing to develop local partnerships, securing further opportunities for the local community and maintaining the college’s outstanding financial health,” Telford’s accounts added.

£136k payout for boss of college that almost went insolvent

There was one standout severance payment for loss of office in 2024-25. Dawn Whitemore received £136,000 from the now-merged SMB Group when she retired.

The SMB Group was flagged as an insolvency risk in 2024 and was being supported by emergency funding following a “turbulent” period. It merged with Loughborough College in August 2025 to create a solvent college group under Loughborough College’s leadership.

Whitemore, who had led SMB Group since 2018, stepped down when the merger took effect.

SMB Group’s accounts are not publicly available, but the DfE’s accounts database suggested Whitemore received the £136,000 severance payment on top of her usual £150,000 salary in 2024-25.

Loughborough College Group told FE Week it was unable to comment on individual severance packages, but added that any payments made would have been in line with contractual agreements and DfE guidance on senior pay.

Colleges must seek DfE approval for severance payments above £50,000.

If belonging is real, your data won’t look pretty

Belonging in FE has had a curious re‑emergence over the past two to three years. It is not new; anyone who has worked in FE long enough knows that the sector has always carried an unsung moral commitment to widening participation and second chances.

But recently, belonging and mattering have moved from the margins of practice into the centre. Attachment‑aware and trauma‑informed approaches have given us new language, better evidence and crucially, permission to say out loud that learning does not happen in isolation from relationships.

Students do not just attend college; they arrive carrying stories, ruptures, hopes and histories. When we attend to those things, psychological safety is established and belonging emerges allowing students to build and develop an optimal brain state for learning.

The danger, however, is that belonging becomes the next fad.

Those of us of a certain age will remember pogs, and those of us that don’t will be able to insert the relevant childhood fad from their epoch (see Pokémon, Cabbage Patch, Furby’s et al.). They appeared overnight, were obsessively traded in playgrounds, rioted over in Woolworths and vanished just as quickly. More recently, I was reminded of this while sitting with a cuppa the other night, watching my daughter open a gift from her Nana: a squishy dumpling – the latest playground, TikTok and YouTube craze.

The anticipation was electric. Which dumpling would it be? Then came the reveal, a few energetic squishes… and almost immediately, the magic was gone. The dumpling was put aside, replaced by the next thing calling for attention.

Belonging and mattering in FE cannot be allowed to follow that trajectory. They cannot be our latest shiny pedagogical playthings we squeeze for impact before discarding when novelty fades or when data becomes negatively affected.

The renewed emphasis on inclusion across the system makes this moment different. The SEND White Paper and reform agenda mark a genuine call to arms for inclusive education, setting expectations that learners with additional and complex needs belong in mainstream post‑16 spaces.

Alongside this, the evolving Ofsted inspection framework has elevated inclusion and belonging to a top tier priority, arguably for the first time in such explicit terms in the sector’s history. This is not aesthetic inclusion or rhetorical belonging; it is structural, inspected and consequential.

And yet, there are implicit and uncomfortable consequences to doing this work properly.

If belonging becomes real rather than performative, attendance may dip, progress may be less linear and less rapid. Safeguarding and welfare concerns may rise. On paper, this looks like decline, in lived reality, it often means something else entirely. Learners who would previously have been excluded, withdrawn, ‘managed out’ or quietly redirected elsewhere are now here. They are visible. They are staying. They matter enough for us to notice their distress rather than remove it from the dataset.

In our endeavour for quality in FE we continuously strive for “nice” and “clean” data. Attendance figures that reassure, progress measures that glide upwards, indicators of cohorts that do not ask much of overwhelmed systems. Inclusion disrupts that comfort. Trauma‑informed practice does not smooth the picture; it reveals it. Attachment‑aware approaches do not reduce complexity; they legitimise it.

This is not to say that FE should settle for poor outcomes or abandon ambition. We can retain learners and achieve outstanding data. We might. We should. However, we must be honest about the reality of the challenge.

Creating a genuine culture of belonging and mattering stretches staffing models, it is absent from costed funding formulas and challenges professional resilience in unprecedented ways. It asks us to tolerate the discomfort of data that makes us squirm and sometimes feel squished without abandoning our values.

Belonging and mattering are not squishy dumplings.
They are not designed for momentary pleasure.

They are moral commitments: slow, purposeful, relational and necessary. If we are serious about inclusion, we must be prepared to hold onto those commitments far longer than a six‑year‑old engages with a playground trend.

In FE, belonging and mattering are not a phase. They are the mission.

Movers & Shakers: Edition 536

This student artwork made me rethink burnout in today’s learners

Over several psychology lessons, we’d been discussing addiction, burnout, coping mechanisms, overstimulation, and all the ways people try to regulate themselves through modern life. Conversations bounced between theories, memes, energy drinks, vaping, doom scrolling, and the challenge of simply staying functional.

A few days later, one of my students came back with a piece of artwork inspired by those discussions that honestly stopped me in my tracks.

You could tell immediately it wasn’t something thrown together quickly. He must have spent hours on it.

At the centre of the page was a single word:

Burnout.

Around it spiralled a chaotic explosion of imagery: energy drinks, cigarettes, pills, fast food wrappers, cartoon faces, graffiti-style text, fragmented thoughts, humour, noise and overstimulation. Hidden amongst the chaos were references pulled directly from our classroom discussions and activities. Even the small “nuggets duck” from one of our lessons appeared tucked into the imagery, one of the only coloured parts of the entire piece.

The artwork was crowded, funny, bleak, creative and visually overwhelming all at once.

I took the artwork to our art department almost immediately, who offered to print it on A1 paper. After sharing it with marketing, they wanted to photograph the student with the piece and feature it across college social media and newsletters. Before long, conversations expanded into notebooks, T-shirts and ways to celebrate the student’s creativity more widely.

But what struck me most was not simply the artistic talent on display – although the skill was undeniable – but the conversations the artwork immediately triggered amongst staff.

Standing around the piece together, many of us found ourselves reflecting on an uncomfortable truth:

We do not fully know what it feels like to grow up as a teenager in today’s world.

Today’s students are navigating constant stimulation, online comparison, digital visibility, and levels of connectivity that simply did not exist when many of us were young. While every generation experiences pressure, the environments surrounding young people now feel fundamentally different in both pace and intensity.

Perhaps part of the disconnect in education is that adults often interpret student behaviour through outdated assumptions about adolescence, without fully recognising how dramatically the emotional and cognitive landscape of growing up has changed.

This artwork seemed to visualise that tension perfectly.

Many students arrive at college already carrying layers of pressure before learning has even begun: academic stress, financial worries, disrupted sleep, uncertainty about the future, and the constant background noise of digital life. Increasingly, students talk openly about needing music, humour, snacks, caffeine, or constant stimulation simply to help them focus and regulate themselves enough to engage.

What fascinated me most was the way this student transformed those conversations into something visual and meaningful. The cluttered composition mirrored overload. Humour sat alongside darker themes in a way that felt deeply familiar to contemporary youth culture: “everything is chaos, so let’s laugh about it.”

Most strikingly, despite all the humour, noise and overstimulation, the piece still carried a sense of emptiness, as though the chaos itself was masking a deeper emotional exhaustion.

As a practitioner researching attention and engagement within further education, the piece reinforced something I increasingly observe in classrooms: students often communicate their emotional worlds more honestly through creativity, humour and symbolism than through formal discussion alone.

Perhaps some of the most meaningful conversations in education begin not with policies or statistics, but with authentic student voice.

Because students are communicating constantly.

The question is whether education systems are prepared to truly see what they are showing us.

I want to open up property careers to the people currently shut out

When I’m asked why I’m launching the new social mobility campaigning company Common Ground, I simply say this: people in charge of creating places and communities, including major public building projects, schools, and hospitals, should reflect the communities they serve.

Common Ground launches at a critical time for FE colleges. Our latest polling, commissioned for our launch, reveals a significant disconnect between young people and the property industry. There are significant barriers that exist for those who do not go to university but have the talent and aspiration to get into my industry.

The research, carried out by More in Common, found that half of 18-24 year-olds would either not consider a career in the commercial property and real estate industry or simply do not know enough about it to consider it. I think that is a damning reflection of the fact that many young people are left thinking these jobs are ‘not for them’.

It’s polling also reveals that a majority of people (58 per cent) think it is important that people who work in the commercial property and real estate industry are reflective of broader British society. However, only a third (34 per cent) think that the industry does reflect wider society.

Talent is being locked out

We do need more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to secure successful careers in industries and professions that are notoriously elitist. I did go to university, but came from a family background that was barely even working class (nobody was actually in work, several were in prison), I lived in a council house, was on free school meals and had no role models. That’s why I champion the idea that young people ‘can’t be what they can’t see’ and I am sure that aspiration is shared by the vast majority of staff and students in FE colleges.

Industries in the built environment talk about inclusion. But I don’t think they tackle the underlying structures that exclude people in the first place: school and college outreach is often tokenistic, funded pathways go to the wrong people, and nobody thinks to explain the rules of the game. The profession over-relies on informal networks and traditional routes. It excludes a huge amount of talent.

What that often means is that our industry’s apprenticeships often don’t actually reach the people they were intended for. Instead, they get taken up by young people who were already on a pathway to university. I have seen that with my own eyes.

Common Ground’s approach leads on career opportunities specifically around disadvantage, not just around non-university pathways. We target the right people from the start, working with FE colleges, schools, membership bodies and community partners. And we avoid open application processes as, quite frankly, these favour the most confident and supported.

We are designing out requirements that exclude the disadvantaged, those who can’t compete financially and those who don’t know the rules of the game. We focus on wraparound support, not just placement. We must make the routes available to those currently locked out.

Opening doors, not ticking boxes

Diversity must mean more than just replacing one gender for another, or ‘token’ hires. It’s about opening up routes to successful careers for people who have, until now, been ignored, excluded or discriminated against, either because they are from the ‘wrong’ class, been in care, disabled, LGBTQ+ or neurodiverse.

This hasn’t come from a single moment. It’s the result of years working in construction and property and seeing the barriers remain firmly in place. Success is still overwhelmingly shaped by who has access to the right education, the right contacts and the financial ability to take unpaid work experience roles or internships.

What has changed for me is the timing. Now that I have stepped down from running LocatED, I have the opportunity to drive this change as a core part of a new business, not just a side hustle as it was in my previous role. It comes at the right time. We face challenges around skills shortages, public sector capacity, climate resilience and the condition of social infrastructure – there is a sense of urgency!

Adult education institutions are being dismantled by stealth

As the country’s need for a skilled and adaptable workforce continues to grow and evidence increasingly demonstrates the role that community education plays in improving wellbeing, social cohesion and life opportunities, it is deeply concerning that policy and structural changes appear to be moving in the opposite direction. Rather than strengthening and investing in specialist adult education institutions that have successfully delivered these outcomes for generations, government-led reforms are accelerating a trend towards their merger into larger further education colleges, often driven by financial pressures and structural restructuring.

This is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a broader pattern that has emerged gradually over recent years. It is a worrying direction of travel. While one or two mergers may be regarded as successful, the longer-term jury is still out. There has been little robust evaluation of whether these changes preserve the distinctive qualities that made these institutions successful in the first place, or whether something important and irreplaceable is being lost.

There is also a wider question about the policy decisions that have brought us to this point. The erosion of specialist adult education institutions has not happened through an open public debate about their value or purpose, nor through meaningful consultation about whether their distinctive role should continue. Instead, it has occurred through changes in status, governance and funding arrangements. The move to statutory college status has weakened institutional independence and reshaped governance arrangements, while funding methodologies designed around mainstream provision for young people often fail to recognise the distinctive costs and benefits of residential and specialist adult education models.

England has a rich history of specialist adult education institutions, many founded over 100 years ago with a mission to widen participation, support social mobility and strengthen democracy through learning. Institutions such as WM College, Mary Ward Centre, Ruskin College, Hillcroft College, Morley College, City Lit, Northern College and Fircroft were established with a clear social purpose and a belief that adult education should transform lives, not simply deliver qualifications.

Recent years have seen mergers and restructures across the sector, including Northern College merging into Barnsley and Ruskin College becoming part of the University of West London. While these changes may have brought operational benefits, there has been little assessment of what may have been lost in identity, mission and social impact.

Over time, adult education policy has shifted away from broader lifelong learning towards a narrower focus on employment and economic outcomes. Funding has increasingly followed qualifications linked to labour market priorities, often at the expense of community learning, integration, wellbeing and wider social outcomes. Public spending on adult education and skills has fallen significantly, while participation in publicly funded classroom-based learning has dropped dramatically over the last two decades.

Specialist adult education institutions have played a unique role in England’s learning landscape for more than a century. They were never simply places where adults gained qualifications; they created spaces where people from different backgrounds could come together to learn, live, debate and grow in ways that changed lives and strengthened communities. Their distinctive character bringing together learning, personal development, social connection and civic engagement cannot easily be replicated within the hustle and bustle of predominantly 16-19 FE colleges.

As these historic institutions increasingly merge into the wider FE system, there is a real risk something special will disappear. A distinctive feature of several of these organisations has been their residential element, providing immersive learning experiences and opportunities to build lasting communities.

At a time of increasing social fragmentation and division, we need places that bring communities together more than ever. Residential and community-based adult education has been doing exactly that for over 100 years. We should not underestimate the contribution these institutions have made, or the significance of what could be lost.

Across many countries, adult learning is increasingly recognised as essential to addressing skills shortages, supporting longer working lives and improving wellbeing. Yet at the very moment when lifelong learning has never been more important, England risks diminishing institutions that have spent generations doing precisely that.

Once these distinctive institutions, traditions and approaches disappear, they are incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to rebuild.

The Milburn review is a watershed moment for FE

The prime minister referred to the Alan Milburn review into young people and work as “sobering”. My own reaction was nothing less than jaw-dropping; to see the failure of historic education policy laid bare in such stark terms was certainly not what I expected.

The report points to many factors contributing to a situation where over a million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Milburn sees it as “shameful” that so much was spent on welfare support for young people compared with getting them into jobs. The world has moved on; entry-level jobs are no longer in such plentiful supply. What employers require and what the education system provides are in many ways poles apart, and the ability of employers to respond to the changing needs of this young generation is a key challenge.

The review is being described as a “landmark” and appears to present a watershed moment, perhaps as consequential as the Tomlinson and Dearing reports or, in time, more so. Yet this is “only” an interim report. It sets out the current situation and evidence. A sequel later in the year will provide a suggested direction of travel.

At this stage, here are my takeaways:

First, the acknowledgement that vocational and technical education has been subject to continued policy churn (unlike academic education) must be taken seriously as a core contributing factor to why young people, employers, schools and parents struggle to navigate the system. As far back as I can remember, every successive government has vowed to simplify the landscape and create clarity. Instead, they cause further confusion and unwittingly ensure that further education remains “close to impassable”.

The obsession that traditional sixth form and university education is the golden ticket to success and that alternatives like apprenticeships and technical education are “for someone else’s child” is so deeply ingrained in the psyche of this country. This risks making so many thousands of young people feel second best. It is hard to see how this narrative can change, but it must.

Second, we need to avoid the temptation to rush to piecemeal solutions. As the report suggests, countless initiatives that appear reactive and have effectively been sticking plasters have not worked. In recent memory, I can think of traineeships and Kickstart, now we have foundation apprenticeships and the youth guarantee.

Apprenticeships themselves, arguably the gold standard in getting young people into work, have seen starts for this age category reduce by 40 per cent. Pledging 300,000 new work placements is now the latest well-meaning response. To raise the profile of technical education in schools, we are seeing calls again for colleges to provide day release opportunities – when many cannot accommodate demand for 16–19-year-olds. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do any of these things, but my reading of the report is that we need a fundamental rethink and a much more coordinated approach to how we address youth employment.

Third, the review must lead to a debate about some of the current activities colleges are required to do. There is reference in the report to maths and English re-sits and surely the time is ripe again to discuss the merits of ploughing massive resource and cost into a policy for a return of one in five students being successful. Years of following this policy clearly hasn’t helped more young people into employment. The report’s acknowledgement of the significant strain due to college and school support for mental health and deficiencies in social work must be recognised more fully.

We should also start a conversation that focuses on the “engagement” of young people, broader than the blunt instrument of classroom-based attendance. As a colleague recently said to me, we could have attendance rates that satisfy policymakers and regulators far better by not taking on those who have struggled with this at school – but that’s not who we are, and we meet people where they are.

Finally, there must be reflection on the report’s claim that FE has been made weaker and hollowed out by the lack of adequate funding over a sustained period of time.

Yes, the current government has started to right this wrong. Yet, stark inequalities still exist across the wider education system and in terms of addressing the most disadvantaged young people, including those most likely to become NEET, the report states that FE isn’t some “marginal landscape” but “it is the landscape”. However, it is a landscape that needs more flexibility, parity of esteem with other parts of the education system and demand-led funding to meet the challenge.

The suggestion that funding should be outcomes (i.e. destinations) based needs a cautious response and careful thought – but there is no denying that greater accountability for where students go as opposed to just “bums on seats” and qualifications passed should be treated seriously.

It’s great we’ve been able to demonstrate greater numbers of young people into bricklaying and electrical courses, but how many are we actually progressing into the industry? It’s time to shift the conversation.

City & Guilds threatened with legal action over ‘disgraceful’ staff cuts plan

A union is threatening awarding giant City & Guilds with “legal and industrial action” over its workforce redundancy plans.

Unite the Union claimed City & Guilds, which is now owned by Greek awarding business PeopleCert, is “advertising for jobs” in Greece and the UK at the same time as running redundancy consultations.

A union spokesperson claimed the company is “unlawfully withholding key information” during transfer consultations and advertising for new recruits when it is “legally required” to give its staff at risk of redundancy first refusal on available roles.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “The way PeopleCert is treating these workers is absolutely disgraceful and will not be tolerated.

“Unite will use everything in its power to defend the City & Guilds workforce.”

FE Week understands about 75 roles are at risk, with the majority within the business’s central support functions.

Referencing a presentation shared with investors last year, the union said it believes PeopleCert is ultimately planning to shed around a third of City & Guilds’ 1,300-strong UK workforce.

The presentation suggested plans to relocate some staff roles to Greece, where personnel costs are “up to 50 per cent lower”, through “natural employee churn”.

The legal and industrial threats are a public escalation of a growing dispute between the awarding business’ staff and their new executives.

‘Inadequate disclosure’

PeopleCert bought City & Guilds’ awarding and commercial business from the 148-year-old charity in October for about £166 million.

The sale is the subject of a live Charity Commission inquiry, with the regulator examining “trustees’ decision making” and large bonuses paid to senior executives after the transaction. PeopleCert itself also launched its own probe into the “conduct” of top City & Guilds executives during the sale. Neither inquiry has reported yet.

According to a leaked letter, seen by FE Week, Unite the Union regional officer Peter Storey accused the new owners of failing to involve staff at a formative stage of the redundancy process.

He also alleged “inadequate disclosure” about why job losses are necessary and “insufficient transparency” around the methodology of choosing which roles should be cut.

Storey said the union would no longer participate in the redundancy consultation.

He added that an “absence of management ownership” has created huge levels of anger and a lack of trust.

The union representative also called for “urgent” involvement of conciliation service ACAS and “direct engagement” from interim CEO Andy Moss.

Storey said: “PeopleCert has been dishonest from the moment it took over City & Guilds.

“Without significant movement from the company, this dispute will continue to escalate, including through potential legal and industrial action.”

‘Process remains ongoing’

A spokesperson for PeopleCert said: “We remain committed to conducting a meaningful collective consultation with colleagues and their representatives in good faith and in accordance with our legal obligations.

“We have provided extensive information on the proposals, responded to requests for further detail, and continue to engage constructively with representatives and impacted colleagues whose contribution to date has been valuable.

“No outcomes have been predetermined. The purpose of consultation is to seek feedback on the proposals, explore ways to avoid, reduce and mitigate proposed redundancies where possible, and consider alternative approaches.

“That process remains ongoing. We have agreed additional time for collective consultation discussions and continue to meet regularly with Unite and colleague representatives. We recognise this will be a difficult and uncertain time for colleagues whose roles may be impacted and are committed to handling the process with care, fairness and respect.”

The spokesperson added their current redundancy proposals follow a review of the business earlier this year and are “separate to previous discussions on the workforce”.

The proposed changes are designed to “further strengthen and enhance” the reliability and quality of City & Guilds qualifications, they said.