Latest news from FE Week

Providers turning adult learners away because of funding constraints, MPs find

Adult learners are being turned away from adult education providers due to inflexible funding rules and eligibility constraints, a parliamentary inquiry has warned.

The report, ‘Skills for life, work and place’, found that 56 per cent of survey respondents said they often or very often refuse entry for adult learners because of the restrictions despite demand in industrial priority sectors such as manufacturing, construction and digital.

A further 35 per cent said this happened occasionally, while none said it never happened.

The findings come from an inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on further education and lifelong learning, supported by the Association of Colleges (AoC), which gathered evidence from more than 150 contributors, including providers, employers, researchers and learners.

The cross-party group of MPs and peers offered 12 overarching recommendations to develop a national vision for adult education, including that government should establish a minimum learning offer to all adults up to level 3.

Jonathan Brash MP, chair of the APPG on further education and lifelong learning, said: “There is strong support across the political divide for lifelong learning, and I urge the prime minister to take our united plea seriously.

“We must turn this consensus into action and make sure that wherever people live, and whatever their starting point, they have the opportunity to learn throughout their lives.”

Lord Johnson of Marylebone added that both the autumn budget and spring spending review are an “opportunity for the government to reverse years of underinvestment and give more people the chance to learn, retrain and get the skills they need for good jobs”.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “We are committed to giving people the skills they need for employment and further education as part of our £1.4 billion Adult Skills Fund.

“Local leaders understand the skills needs of their residents and businesses which is why we are determined to providing them with the powers they need to enable growth in every postcode.”

Multi-layered barriers

The inquiry linked the restrictions facing providers to a long-term decline in investment in adult education.

It cited analysis showing that public spending on classroom-based adult learning has fallen by 70 per cent in real terms since the early 2000s.

Around three quarters of England’s £1.4 billion adult skills fund (ASF) is now devolved to local areas which create their own rules.

Out of 62 providers who answered the question, 56 per cent said they often or very often turn potential adult learners away because of funding and eligibility constraints. This included reaching their ASF allocation limit.

Childcare and travel costs, residency rules and mental health needs were also holding learners back.

One learner said: “The reason I’m having to interview for a place is because there’s a limited amount of places and a big list of people who want to do level 2.”

More than four in five respondents named funding as a major barrier to tackling skills shortages and two thirds said public investment was “not at all adequate”.

Providers also described funding as fragmented, inflexible and insufficient.

“Contributors argued that adult education is being asked to deliver increasingly wide-ranging outcomes without the stable funding, policy coherence or national direction needed to do so,” the report said.

New City College told the inquiry: “The current rulebook that we have that determines whether you’re funded or not is more than two hundred pages long.”

The APPG recommended a “baseline” adult education offer for every adult in England, multi-year investment plans for mayoral strategic authorities, and national expectations on funding and learner outcomes.

It also called on government to explore options for local anchor institutions such as colleges and community education providers to award their own qualifications at entry level, level 1 and level 2.

The AoC has previously called for awarding powers to colleges for higher technical and vocational qualifications.

David Hughes, AoC chief executive, said: “We’ve all seen how the public conversation has shifted on the NEET crisis, thanks to the work from Alan Milburn and his team, and this is exactly what needs to happen with adult education.

“The Prime Minister has helpfully pledged a “guarantee of support” for young people, and as this report highlights, that same pledge is needed for an England-wide minimum adult learning offer, so that every adult, no matter what their age or circumstances, should have access to opportunities to retrain, upskill or reengage with learning.”

Welfare system falls short

Adult education providers also poorly rated the government’s welfare support for retraining.

Zero respondents said the welfare system was fully adequate for retraining, while one quarter said it was “not at all adequate”.

The report called for a cross-government review on welfare rules for learners, a grant-based offer – in devolved and non-devolved areas – for learners below level 4 and national guidance on how universal credit interacts with learning.

The APPG also called the incoming lifelong learning entitlement “valuable and welcome” but said it “should not be seen as a response to the broader challenges in access to adult education at lower levels”.

Only 1 per cent of respondents said learner support such as advanced learner loans was fully adequate, while 24 per cent said it was ‘not at all adequate’.

Protect ESOL funding

Several providers told the inquiry they could use their “entire” ASF allocation on English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) alone, driven by demand for the courses.

Contributors “highlighted the need for faster access and more integrated ESOL and vocational pathways,” the APPG said.

The report recommended “protected” ESOL funding for local delivery and making ESOL provision an “integral” part of a national vision for adult education.

Move prison education to DWP

MPs also heard evidence on prison education and called the scale of cuts to contract values “striking”.

Earlier this year, ministers were accused of downplaying cuts to prison education budgets after a watchdog found evidence of “seismic” reductions.

The APPG recommended urgently reviewing funding levels to improve employment outcomes and reduced re-offending rates.

It also recommended moving oversight of prison education to the Department for Work and Pensions to “help ensure it aligns with wider adult learning and employment approaches” though contributors urged for provision to shift to the Department for Education.

DWP said it was not currently considering taking responsibility for prison education.

Our students need more than hope in a world on fire

Students who starting college this term did so following a summer that broke many records – and not in a good way. 2026 is the first year since records began to reach 35°C or higher during May, June and July, with the MET office declaring this summer as the UK’s hottest on record.

This contributed to over 1000 wildfires throughout the country.

The stark reality is that the summer we have just experienced may be the coolest summer our students will know, as the climate crisis take serious hold of the UK and tips us into unchartered territory.

Ongoing research by YouGov found that in August 2026, nearly 80 per cent of young people aged between 18 and 24 believed that concerns around climate change have not been exaggerated and the threat is every bit as real as scientists are saying.

A report in The Lancet, which surveyed 10,000 young people aged between 16 and 25, from ten countries, found that 43 per cent feel climate anxiety negatively impacts their daily life and functioning; 75 per cent think the future is frightening, and 83 per cent believe people have failed to take care of the planet. Respondents rated governmental responses to climate change negatively and reported greater feelings of betrayal than of reassurance.

So what do we do with this? In my book, I draw on my experience of working for social justice and environmental care over three decades and finding ways to stop myself being overwhelmed so that I can keep engaging, and I want to implore you to help the young people in your institutions too to find ways to channel their feelings into constructive action.

I have learnt the importance of developing a vision of what I want my life to be contributing to, even if the actual outworking of that takes many shapes, and then holding onto that vision and reminding myself of it when things get tough.

I know how important it is to have people around me who share my concerns; friends with whom I can be open when I want to rant or cry about the state of the world. I have discovered that it is really important that I look after myself, follow good practices and life rhythms, and that time spent in nature helps me to keep going.

The work for colleges starts simply by giving young people the opportunity to talk about their concerns.

They are not likely to volunteer their feelings, so provide space and ask open questions. Let them know they are not on their own but part of millions of people (and young people) in the UK and around the world who care deeply and want to be part of the change.

Encourage them to find ways to turn their skills and talents into careers that can contribute to a better future, and help them find good role models to inspire vision and ambition.

Not only in relation to the climate emergency, but in so many other ways too, we live in a frightening world facing existential crises and our young people need to be equipped to navigate them, whether it be racism, worries over the cost of living, the ongoing wars in the Middle East, family struggles or other things.

Now more than ever in our argumentative and fractured society, ruled by the algorithms of social media, we need young people of character, with values that will lead them to be caring, wise and compassionate, and who will live from those values in all areas of their lives.

As we progress through this academic year, let’s determine to enable our students to face this world of many crises and find ways to engage positively, in both their personal and professional lives.

Don’t ban AI in FE classrooms, teach students how to use it

The idea of AI being used in FE classrooms is not some distant concept that has yet to be achieved. The question now is no longer whether our students will use AI in their studies. Instead, the question now is whether our students will use AI to help them in learning their subjects, or for the avoidance of learning.

AI can assist our students to understand a tough subject, give them recommendations, help them in doing research, and direct them where they might be struggling with something.

But a danger arises when our students stop learning and start thinking through AI. Students will ask the software to do an assignment for them, then hand it over without even knowing about the subject at hand. This presents educationalists with a real challenge in the future.

Instead of instructing our students not to use AI, we should instead try educating them on how to use it properly.

In my role at HRUC, I have seen students in level 1 vocational studies use AI in developing websites, programming and coding assignments. However, what surprised me was not the fact that students were using AI but the way they were using it. It was interesting because they did not just want to receive the answer but also learn how to interact with the technology to generate their ideas.

This experience has made me realise that colleges need to concentrate on how learners interact with AI and why.

For example, instead of having AI perform a task, the student could ask such questions as: “I do not fully understand this concept. Can you explain it to me and provide me with some examples?”

Learners evaluate the information received from the technology, choosing what data to utilise, whether it is true or not, and paraphrasing it. This way, the learner remains the key player.

The AI platform can detect the gaps in the learner’s knowledge and understanding, explain the complicated parts of the material and suggest new research directions. At the same time, the learner needs to critically assess the information received from AI since it can be wrong, false or even misleading. To use AI effectively, it is not enough just to have good digital literacy skills but also critical thinking skills as well.

Educators should be particularly mindful that young or inexperienced students might be more likely to accept the answers of AI without any doubts as they do not know how to distinguish between correct and false information.

This is the reason why I have a strong conviction that AI usage should be integrated in vocational education in colleges. There should be an opportunity for students to learn how to formulate appropriate prompts, evaluate the information presented by AI, detect any false or misleading answers and differentiate between the work of AI and students’ own work.

Another responsibility of colleges should be confidentiality. The students should be aware that any confidential information should not be entered into AI systems, including personal information, private messages, and photos containing identifiable information.

We should not be prohibiting AI from being used in class. It is too efficient to be prohibited. It is our job to make sure that AI becomes not a substitute for learning, but a learning tool.

There is every opportunity for the FE sector to arm students with the knowledge required to control not just the present technological equipment, but also that which they will confront throughout their careers.

The overlooked question in the NEETs debate: Who will hire them?

The Milburn review has, quite rightly, focused attention on young people and their employability. With approximately one million not in education, employment or training (NEETs), the case for action is clear.

Yet much of the debate continues to focus on the supply side: preparing young people, building their skills and making them work-ready. These are important issues, but employers ultimately create the opportunities that young people move into, and there is a risk that we spend less time understanding what enables employers to create those opportunities in the first place.

At The St Martin’s Group, we believe employer evidence should play a central role in shaping skills and employment policy. That is why we commissioned new research with the Learning and Work Institute. From Appetite to Opportunity: What employers need to recruit more young people draws on a survey of 1,039 HR decision makers, alongside reflections from our new Employer Insights Panel.

This report is the first in a new series of employer insight research which will continue to provide timely, up to date evidence on current skills and employment to inform policy as it develops.

The findings offer an important message for policymakers: employers want to recruit young people, but opportunity creation is uneven.

The good news is that employer appetite remains strong. Almost a quarter of employers expect to increase their recruitment of young people over the next year, while only 12 per cent expect to recruit fewer. Employers continue to see value and potential in young talent, but opportunities are not evenly distributed.

Three in ten large businesses expect to recruit more young people, compared with 14 per cent of small businesses, and a quarter of small firms do not expect to recruit any young person at all. Our research also found that newer businesses are more likely to increase their recruitment of young people than their longer-established counterparts.

This raises an important question for policymakers. If growing businesses are more likely to create opportunities for young people, what can we learn from them? Understanding the conditions that support business growth, confidence and workforce expansion may be just as important as understanding the barriers to recruitment.

Cost is certainly part of the picture. Employers cite training costs, wider financial pressures and limited staff time to supervise and support young recruits among their biggest barriers. A third say that financial incentives would make the biggest difference to their ability and willingness to recruit.

But the challenge is not solely financial. Among those planning to recruit, small firms are less likely to expect to use apprenticeships (22 per cent against 43 per cent of large employers), even as new funding for non-levy employers fully covers training for eligible under-25 apprentices from August 2026.

This points to differences in employer capability and confidence, as well as capacity. Some employers have developed the knowledge and processes needed to recruit and develop young people successfully, while others are less certain about where to start.

That should shape the policy response. Government should continue to focus on helping young people access opportunities and reducing the cost and complexity faced by employers. Simplifying apprenticeships, providing greater clarity and ensuring that smaller employers can afford to participate remain important priorities. Our employer insights panel has consistently highlighted these issues.

Alongside this, there may be value in thinking differently about how employers access support. Government should consider whether larger employers, who are often more familiar with apprenticeships, work experience and other structured routes into employment, can play a greater role as partners in the system.

By sharing expertise, practical tools and proven approaches through supply chains and partner ecosystems, they could help more businesses build the confidence and capability needed to create opportunities for young people.

One of the strongest messages from our research is that employers want to create opportunities. The challenge is turning that appetite into action and recognising that different employers need different forms of support to do so.

We hope that the Milburn review will place greater focus on labour market demand and strike a better balance between preparing young people for work and helping employers to hire them.

FE can help turn the tap on for nursing’s leaky pipeline

The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has talked about the need to fix nursing’s leaky pipeline. It’s a useful way to describe the loss of people during training and throughout their careers, but it prompts another question. How can FE and college-based HE help turn the tap on fully?

For some aspiring nurses, the usual higher education route works well. Others need a different way in because they can’t relocate, have caring responsibilities or can’t absorb the costs of travelling long distances to study and attend placements. For some learners, successful progression depends on access to more intensive support and the benefits of smaller class sizes.

Some don’t even think university is a place for them, and this is where FE and college-based HE can make a real difference.

Colleges can also start those conversations earlier. Our nurse lecturers work with students on access to higher education programmes and at levels 2 and 3. Seeing a nurse academic on their own campus can help learners picture a future that had previously felt beyond their reach.

South Devon College was given foundation degree awarding powers in 2019, we design, validate and award our own foundation degrees. In 2021, we became the first FE college to gain direct approval from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) for our nursing associate programme.

Our awarding powers became indefinite in 2025, yet we remain the only FE college delivering an NMC approved programme in this way.

That achievement reflects the expertise and commitment found within the college, but it also raises a wider question about why the model has not spread.

We regularly discuss the nursing workforce that the country needs, yet the nurse academics working in colleges are largely absent from that conversation. We don’t know how many there are across FE, college-based higher education, satellite campuses and partner provision.

These educators bring valuable industry experience into the classroom while remaining clinically credible as registered nurses. Their professional responsibilities need proper recognition, particularly when they work in small teams outside research-intensive universities and have less straightforward access to research communities, supervision and scholarly development..

The recent Higher Education Commission report, Trained for Tomorrow, describes educator capacity as a critical and under-recognised constraint on healthcare training. It calls for clearer routes into healthcare education, protected time for teaching and research, and a review of the way educators are rewarded and recognised.

Those recommendations are welcome, but the work that follows must take account of nurse academics wherever they are based.

My own experience has convinced me that we need to start by finding one another.

I have recently joined the Nurse Academics UK leadership team, where my role includes leading the nursing associate profile nationally. As part of that work, I am establishing a special interest group for nursing education across FE and college-based higher education.

Our first task is to create a clear picture of who is doing what, where and with whom, then we can begin to understand the contribution this provision makes to widening participation and local workforce development, using real evidence drawn from the people delivering it.

Members will be able to find research collaborators and receive peer support from colleagues who understand their professional context. I also want the group to offer practical opportunities for scholarly development, whether that means finding a critical friend, sharing methodological expertise or working together on publications.

Over time, the evidence gathered through the network should give FE and college-based higher education a stronger voice in discussions about nursing education and workforce planning. Decisions about future provision will be better informed when the full range of educators and delivery settings is visible.

So if you teach nursing in FE or college-based higher education, or work at a satellite campus, with a partner provider or in another setting that is easily overlooked, I would like to hear from you on ellareynolds@southdevon.ac.uk

The people opening routes into nursing should not have to work in isolation, finding and connecting them is a necessary step toward helping FE and college-based HE increase the flow of future nurses.

Employers face paying more to train older apprentices

Ministers plan to force employers to contribute 25 per cent towards the training costs of older apprentices, it is understood.

The change would mean businesses could use growth and skills levy funds to cover only 75 per cent of eligible training and assessment for apprentices aged 25 and over, with the remaining quarter paid by the employer.

Training for apprentices aged 16 to 24 would continue to receive full funding from the government’s growth and skills levy budget.

Multiple sources told FE Week the plan was being drawn up as part of the government’s response to Alan Milburn’s full reportfollowing his review of young people not in education, employment or training, which has been delayed until after the budget.

The Guardian also today reported that the policy change was set to be introduced on a phased basis from September 2027.

Ministers hope higher employer contributions for older apprentices will encourage businesses to take on more young people, following a 40 per cent decline in apprenticeship starts among younger learners.

But an FE Week source close to the government described the rationale as “nonsensical”, arguing that employers recruit according to their workforce needs rather than the age of candidates.

The Department for Work and Pensions said it would not comment on speculation but did confirm that “further reforms” were being made to the growth and skills levy to “prioritise young apprentices, secure value for money and give school and college leavers more opportunities than ever to build careers in cutting-edge industries”.

A DWP spokesperson said: “We remain determined to increase apprenticeship starts among young people and give them the skills they need to succeed.

“We are already pivoting the system towards the next generation, including by creating 50,000 additional apprenticeships for young people, and introducing a new hiring payment of £2,000 for SMEs who take on a 16 to 24-year-old apprentice.

“The Milburn review is due in the autumn. We will not pre-empt its findings.”

Pivoting to the youth

Since 2017, employers with an annual pay bill of more than £3 million have paid 0.5 per cent of their payroll figure into digital accounts to fund apprenticeship training and assessment. Unspent levy funds are used to subsidise training for small and medium-sized employers.

Levy contributions are forecast to generate £4.5 billion in 2026-27, but the money is not ring-fenced for apprenticeship spending. The government sets a separate annual apprenticeship budget, which currently stands at £3.3 billion in England.

Under current rules, employers that do not pay the apprenticeship levy receive full government funding for eligible apprentices aged 16 to 24, up to the relevant funding band maximum. For apprentices aged 25 and over they receive 95 per cent government funding and contribute the remaining 5 per cent.

From August 1, the government had planned to increase the employer contribution towards training and assessment from 5 per cent to 25 per cent for levy-paying employers that exhaust their growth and skills levy funds. The government’s contribution would fall from 95 per cent to 75 per cent.

But following a last-minute rethink, the higher co-funding requirement was introduced only for levy-paying employers when training apprentices aged 25 and over.

The reported proposal would extend this 75 per cent government funding and 25 per cent employer contribution arrangement to all employers training older apprentices, including those that do not pay the levy, it is understood.

While ministers are trying to create more youth apprenticeships, they are also under pressure to rein in costs as the Department for Work and Pensions’ annual apprenticeship budget has been fully spent in recent years. This has largely been caused by soaring spend on higher-level apprenticeships, mostly taken by older learners, which are more expensive to deliver.

The government has already defunded level 7 apprenticeships for people aged 22 and older, and this year defunded 16 other apprenticeships, including popular management standards, that were mostly taken by existing and older workers.

FE Week understands the government is continuing to explore the defunding of other standards, namely those that are perceived as generic training that resemble continuing professional development instead of discrete occupations.

DWP accounts this year revealed apprenticeship spending is forecast to fall from 2027-28.

The tech sector is growing. Its entry-level opportunities aren’t

A job in Britain’s booming technology sector is something of a golden ticket for young people lucky enough to find one.

The average advertised tech salary is around 60 per cent above the UK average. The government’s industrial strategy expects the digital and technologies sector to create more than half a million jobs by 2035.

The task now is to make sure more young people, including those without degrees, get the chance to hold one of those tickets.

Our new tech labour market briefing gives us the clearest picture yet of how. It uses data from Lightcast, a labour market analytics firm that collects and analyses job adverts posted online across the UK, covering more than six million tech job postings since 2019.

The picture is of a sector changing fast. Tech job postings fell from around 1.5 million in 2022 to roughly 470,000 in the year to June 2026, though they are now showing signs of stabilising. The focus has also shifted towards senior roles, whose share of tech vacancies rose from 13 per cent to 24 per cent since 2019, while entry-level adverts fell from 114,000 to 57,000.

Some new roles are booming. AI engineer job ads, for example, rose 42 per cent in the past year. But most specialist AI roles are aimed at graduates rather than younger talent. In fact, eight of the ten fastest-growing tech occupations advertised no entry-level roles at all.

The good news is that employers are still backing non-graduate talent. Of entry-level tech adverts that state an education requirement, almost half are open to people without degrees, a share that has held steady since 2019. Non-degree entry-level postings also rose by 7 per cent in the latest year.

Young people want in, too. DfE figures show 18,250 16 to 24-year-olds were enrolled on digital technology courses in further education in 2024-25, and starts on digital apprenticeships have more than doubled in four years to more than 31,000. The appetite is there. The challenge is making sure there are first-rung jobs waiting at the end.

Employers are also telling us what they want, and in tech the demand for essential skills has risen faster than across the rest of the labour market. Communication appears in 67 per cent of non-degree entry-level adverts, alongside attributes like problem solving and customer service. Technical support and Microsoft 365 skills also feature, while demand for AI skills is growing rapidly, including in entry-level roles.

This is territory FE knows well. Strong essential skills, practical technical training and confidence with new tools are what the sector does best. Linking that training closely to the roles employers are advertising, and to the places those jobs are, could open the door for thousands more young people. The FE sector also has long experience of serving the students most in need. We know that young people without degrees are more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds and to be at risk of falling out of education and employment.

For their part, employers can protect and grow their first-rung roles. That means investing in apprenticeships and structured junior jobs, and asking whether a degree requirement is needed at all. Opening up a role to non-graduates widens the talent pool overnight.

Training providers can build provision around real demand. The data shows which occupations are hiring at entry level and which skills they ask for. Courses that combine those skills with work experience and employer contact give young people the best chance of being hired.

Policymakers can join the dots. Programmes such as TechFirst are a very welcome step, and local skills strategies will go furthest when they are grounded in where entry-level tech jobs are and what they require.

The Hg Foundation wants to play its part. Today, with JPMorganChase, we are launching a £3.4 million AI & Economic Opportunity Fund. Over three years it will support the most promising programmes helping more than 900 young people without degrees into tech apprenticeships and careers.

The Fund will back programmes that teach AI-relevant skills and pair them with what young people need most to get hired: work experience, mentoring and connections to employers. It will also build the evidence on what works, so the best approaches can be shared and scaled across the country.

Tech can be one of the UK’s clearest routes to social mobility. With the rapid onset of AI, it has never been more important that the sector harnesses talent from all walks of life. Together, we can make sure the first rung is within reach for every young person with the talent to climb.

Ofsted to pilot independent complaint reviews – but not for FE

Further education and skills providers have been excluded from a new independent complaint review service set to be launched by Ofsted.

A pilot, announced today, will allow state-funded schools inspected during the 2026-27 academic year to request an independent review of how the watchdog handled their complaint and – for the first time – whether the outcome was fair and reasonable, including where it related to the inspection process and findings.

It could even lead to a full re-inspection if the independent reviewer sides with the complainant.

But the service will not initially be available to FE colleges, independent training providers or other post-16 education and skills providers.

Ofsted said the pilot would be evaluated before a decision was made on whether to implement it permanently and extend the arrangements to other remits the watchdog inspects. It did not set out a timetable for any wider rollout.

Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver announced the new independent complaint service today at the Confederation of School Trusts conference, following a difficult week in which three school and college unions have called for a change in the inspectorate’s leadership.

Kerry Boffey, chief executive of the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN), said the watchdog was wrong to only pilot the independent complaint service in schools.

“While the new scorecard methodology and the impact of increased pressure of the secure fit model of inspection are under scrutiny, the independent complaints should apply to FE and Skills at the same time,” she told FE Week.

“FIN actively encourages members, where they have concerns or issues about how the inspection is being conducted, to raise these during inspection; nominees are encouraged to challenge with confidence on the actual visit. However, where this is not successful, the opportunity for an independent complaint appeal must be open to all.”

Unredacted inspection evidence to be examined

The new service marks the latest in a series of changes to Ofsted’s complaints process since 2023, following calls for greater external oversight of inspection decisions.

In the wake of headteacher Ruth Perry’s death, and a coroner’s ruling an Ofsted inspection had contributed to her death, now-chair Christine Gilbert carried out an independent review for Ofsted.

Among 14 recommendations Gilbert made in September 2024 was that Ofsted “should continue to improve its complaints procedure, with a focus on embedding an element of independent external oversight with the power to reopen inspection judgements”.

Under the existing arrangements, education providers can ask the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted (ICASO) to review whether their complaint was handled properly. However, it cannot consider whether the outcome was fair and reasonable.

The new independent complaints review service will be able to examine the original, unredacted inspection evidence, as well as the complaint and Ofsted’s response.

It will be able to recommend that Ofsted reconsiders a complaint if it finds mistakes or concludes that the watchdog has not acted fairly and reasonably. Where a recommendation relates to an inspection grade, the chief inspector can set aside the published report card and arrange a new inspection.

This could lead to the same, or different, grades being awarded.

Oliver said he was “confident” that the current quality assurance and complaints processes are “robust enough to put things right in the vast majority of cases when schools have concerns about an inspection”.

But, he added, “I am fully aware that this confidence is not shared by everyone in the education sector.

“I hope that by adding a new level of independent oversight to our complaints process we will further increase trust in the system.”

Ofsted said the pilot would run throughout the 2026-27 academic year and would include ongoing complaints about school inspections raised during the current term.

The reviewing organisation will be a “full member of the Ombudsman Association and must operate strictly in compliance with their high standards for case handling and impartiality”.

What Alan Milburn and I learned from the Dutch

If we had the same NEET rate as the Netherlands (around 4.9 per cent rather than 15.1 per cent) we’d have around 650,000 more young people in purposeful education and training or in work. So, what can we learn from our neighbours? That’s what I wanted to find out when I joined Alan Milburn and curious stakeholders (including Gareth Southgate) on a trip there in September.

We saw plenty we need to learn from in a system with more investment, underpinned by a culture of true acceptance.

In the Netherlands, there is a belief that every young person deserves the very best start in life, and to achieve that, investment needs to be available up to age 25. Investment isn’t simply about more money (although there is more of that), but a commitment from employers, politicians, educators and people who, more widely, see it as their responsibility to ensure young people have the best possible start to adult life. There’s a moral and social responsibility that immediately makes it easier and better for young people.

We spoke to employers who see it as their job to make the transition into work as smooth as possible, recognising that nobody is truly ‘job-ready’ when they start work. There is an acceptance that, for perhaps most people in their first job, there will be wrong decisions and challenges. That acceptance is then translated into a supportive learning environment in which the things that go wrong can be put right, with safety nets and opportunities to get back on track.

The culture that underpins this is one I’d love to see us cultivate here in the UK. It’s best encapsulated by that lovely phrase: ‘it takes a village to raise a child’.

The culture we saw recognised that young people are growing up in a complex world which is more difficult to navigate than ever before. And because of that, we need to accept that not every decision made at 16, 18 or 20 will be optimal.

There’s a belief that when a chosen pathway doesn’t work out, that’s ok, because young people need to be fully rounded, confident and resilient. They need strong self-esteem as well as the skills to learn and adapt. This leads to people who, by their mid-twenties, are happy and settled in work.

Building societal investment, underpinned by an acceptance culture, is not something that can happen immediately. And while I do wholeheartedly believe we need those radical shifts to truly deliver for young people, there are also three tangible lessons that I am hoping Milburn’s final report will focus on.

Breadth of curriculum

The first is a far greater breadth of curriculum and experience, as well as the time offered to young people to grow, mature and learn before they enter the labour market. It was exposed beautifully by our visit to a hospitality and catering college in The Hague.

There we met articulate, professional and skilful young people who could explain, in English, their learning and development, and their aspirations and expectations for their future careers – not unlike the young people I could happily introduce you to in an English college.

However, there was a fundamental difference once you dug down a little. In England, our offer to young people is severely constrained by the lower overall investment the state makes.

Our students have about 16 hours of teaching contact time per week, over two years. In the Netherlands, they have double the number of teaching hours and double the years in which to develop. That extra time allows for a richer and broader education alongside the critical occupational competency skills – a foreign language, enterprise, business, management, citizenship, politics and a humanities or arts subject.

On top of that is a properly funded enrichment offer and two 20-week industry paid internships, ensuring that Dutch students grow up with a far broader education and experience which our UK students sadly miss out on.

A collective responsibility

Dutch employers see themselves as partners to education, with a responsibility to be part of the ‘village’ needed to help young people grow. They have agency in being able to influence the curriculum and the learning experience in education and they contribute time and work experience opportunities too.

That partnership, alongside the time young people are afforded, ultimately means that employers can expect more from young people in their first jobs. They have more rounded skillsets, confidence and experience because of the investment society makes in them.

Local objectives

The third big lesson is that in every area there is a system of local collaboration, founded on shared ambitions, objectives and targets, making for joined-up services and support.

Behind that is shared data tracking and follow-up services which means nobody is lost to the system. We need the same in the UK. Aligned and joined-up services can keep track of young people and intervene immediately when someone is at risk of dropping out.

In England, the radical approach being taken by the new prime minister to “rewire” the state and empower local areas should be ideal to develop these local systems.

Elected mayors will increasingly have the tools to convene employers and public and third sector organisations to work together.

New powers for mayors and aligned accountability measures for schools, colleges, employment services and health could bind together the key players and ensure that services and support are designed around the individual. These could then also be agile to ensure young people are on track and can cope with the inevitable crises, re-starts and resets that some young people need before they can fly.

The spotlight that Milburn has shone on the NEET challenge has already galvanised actions we should really have had in place for decades, and I’m confident that his final report will set out a bigger agenda across health, employment and welfare.

For the review to be truly impactful, we need a commitment to those three things: investment in the time our young people have to learn, a willingness from employers to become partners in this mission, and stronger local systems, with aligned targets and accountabilities for agencies and organisations.