Latest news from FE Week

No plumbers, no homes: The skills crisis threatening Britain’s building ambitions

Plumbers are as essential to this country’s housebuilding, data centre and clean energy ambitions as any other trade in construction, but the pipeline replacing them is nowhere near wide enough.

England has lost 25,700 plumbers from its workforce since 2018, a 16 per cent fall in under a decade. On current trends, a further 30 per cent will go by 2039.

That is the finding of JTL’s new workforce modelling, the first analysis to draw together data from across the sector’s main skills card schemes to map the true scale of the workforce.

Built with data and insight from the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Education, the Joint Industry Board for Plumbing and Mechanical Engineering Services and the Building Engineering Services Association, together with other industry partners, it gives the sector the clearest picture of its own workforce it has ever had.

Apprentices make up just 5.2 per cent of the plumbing workforce today, less than half the 14.2 per cent apprentice share in electrical. Skills England’s own growth modelling implies the plumbing sector needs more than 8,500 new entrants a year to meet demand. However, the latest full-year figures show just 2,150 started a plumbing apprenticeship in the sector.

Completion rates have also stalled at around 45 per cent, so the number of people finishing a plumbing apprenticeship each year is now roughly half what it was a decade ago.

We don’t think this happened by accident.

The incentive for small and medium-sized employers (SMEs) to take on an apprentice has not kept pace with the real cost of training someone over three or four years. An employer taking on an apprentice on minimum wage over a four-year programme invests between £70,000 and £90,000 in wages and on-boarding costs, and typically only breaks even in year three. Over 95 per cent of employers in this sector are SMEs, most of them micro-businesses, for whom that upfront cost is a much harder barrier to overcome.

New level 2 and 3 plumbing standards designed to simplify entry routes into the trade have also been delayed, leaving training providers and employers working to standards that no longer reflect the job as it is done.

Together, these pressures mean fewer people are entering the trade than are leaving it.

This falls within the context of Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government setting out some of the most ambitious housebuilding plans in a generation, including his pledge for the biggest council housebuilding programme since the post-war period, alongside tens of billions of pounds of data centre development and the rollout of heat pumps and other low-carbon heating technology central to the clean energy transition.

Every one of those ambitions depends on people who can install and maintain this infrastructure safely. On current trends, the plumbing workforce will not be large enough to deliver them.

We do not think this decline is irreversible, but it will not correct itself without the government taking urgent action.

Raising the SME apprenticeship hiring incentive from £2,000 to £3,000 for under-25 recruits, with a further £3,000 for apprentices on priority construction standards including plumbing, would make taking on an apprentice viable again for more employers.

Designating plumbing a priority occupation in national workforce planning would mean funding and attention follow the sharpest shortfalls, rather than being spread evenly across every trade regardless of need.

Finally, removing the delay to the new level 2 and 3 plumbing standards would increase employer demand, creating more opportunities for young people and let training keep pace with the job as it is now done.

Whilst it is positive to see the government’s focus on technical education, without further support, there will not be the opportunities available for young people to take up trades like plumbing.

Full apprenticeships remain the gold standard route into this trade for good reason, but the pipeline into this trade is too narrow, and every year it goes unfixed, the shortfall gets harder to close. Government, employers and training providers each have a part to play in widening it, because the houses, data centres and heat pumps this country needs will not get built without the people to install them.

Getting young people into jobs is only half the battle

The government’s response to the NEETs (not in education, employment or training) crisis is now beginning to take shape, with more apprenticeships, stronger local routes into work and renewed efforts to help those currently NEET take their first steps into the labour market.

That is welcome. But there is another question we should be asking: what happens once someone gets through the door?

The new local apprenticeship service is designed to create thousands more apprenticeship opportunities, with local teams matching potential recruits with employers and encouraging smaller firms that have never taken on a trainee to do so. It is an important response to the challenge that Alan Milburn identified in his interim report.

But getting someone into a first job is only half the challenge. The job also needs to be “sticky”: a place where a new starter receives the support, management and opportunity they need to stay, learn, earn and progress.

That matters because the barriers to employment do not disappear when someone receives a job offer. Milburn’s interim report highlights the growing prevalence of health conditions among those who are NEET, with anxiety, depression and neuro-developmental conditions among the defining features of the problem. It also found that employers are increasingly concerned about the pastoral support some recruits require, particularly smaller businesses that may not have the resources to provide it.

For employers, this can create a difficult balancing act. A recruit may have the potential and qualifications to do a job, but can need time to build confidence, understand workplace expectations or manage a health condition alongside work. That means that successful workplace integration may require more support than it once did.

Our ‘Bridging the Gap’ research suggests managers see significant gaps in some of the workplace skills new recruits need to develop, including resilience, professionalism, communication and the ability to receive and act on feedback. Almost half of managers have encountered recruits who lack an understanding of workplace-appropriate behaviour, while four in ten have seen a mismatch between academic knowledge and the practical requirements of the job.

These are all skills that can be developed through experience, coaching, feedback and opportunities to practise. The question is therefore not simply whether someone is “work ready”, but whether the workplace is ready to help them become work ready.

For someone entering employment for the first time, the workplace can be full of questions they have never had to ask before. How do I speak up in a meeting? How do I respond when someone tells me I have got something wrong? When is it appropriate to ask for help?

A good manager can turn those moments into opportunities to learn. In a hybrid workplace, where many of those lessons no longer happen naturally through sitting alongside experienced colleagues, that role matters even more.

And the quality of that first management experience can have consequences. Our research found that almost one in three people have left a job because of a negative relationship with their manager, while workers with ineffective managers are more than twice as likely to say they plan to leave their organisation within 12 months.

For those who may already face barriers to employment, a poor early workplace experience can make staying in work harder still. If we want to move people from inactivity into sustainable employment, the first few months demand forethought and investment, not an afterthought.

Managers need time and training to onboard inexperienced recruits, provide regular feedback, create opportunities to learn from colleagues and help new starters navigate the workplace. Our research found that 66 percent of managers see regular check-ins and feedback as one of the most effective ways to integrate new starters, while 89 per cent of managers who have received formal leadership training say it has improved their ability to develop younger employees.

There is a wider economic argument too. When organisations fail to retain and develop early-career employees, they lose the investment made in recruitment and onboarding, while weakening their future talent pipeline. Good management is not a soft add-on to employment policy; it is part of the infrastructure that makes employment sustainable.

The answer is not to tell those who are NEET that they are not “work ready”. Nor is it to assume that a health condition or lack of experience means someone cannot contribute. It is to recognise that readiness for work is developed, and that successful participation depends on the conditions around the individual as well as their own skills and ambition.

Those ambitions are clear. Sixty-four per cent of young people told CMI they want to become leaders at work. We should be asking how we help them realise that potential, rather than allowing a lack of experience to become a permanent barrier. We need to prepare people for work, but we also need to prepare workplaces for them. Management is the bridge between the two.

V Levels must earn trust A Levels built over generations

The level 3 landscape is entering a period of significant change. Alongside A Levels, T Levels are becoming more established, while proposed new V Levels are intended to create clearer pathways for young people after 16.

The ambition behind these reforms is understandable. For decades, governments have sought to address the challenge of achieving genuine parity of esteem between academic and technical education. As ASCL has argued, the deeply ingrained perception that academic routes carry greater status than technical and vocational routes must shift if we are to achieve that goal. Without this change, efforts to build the skills base the country needs are undermined and the talents of many young people risk not being fully recognised or developed.

However, parity of esteem cannot simply be created through qualification reform. It must be earned over time through confidence, credibility and sustained support from employers, universities, schools, colleges, learners and families. If policymakers are serious about creating qualifications with lasting value, there is much they can learn from the enduring success of A Levels.

As principal of St Dominic’s Sixth Form College, a high-performing specialist A Level provider, I see first-hand the continuing demand for academic study. My commitment to A Levels is unwavering. They remain one of the most respected qualifications in the world and continue to be the gold standard of academic study before higher education.

A key reason for their enduring popularity is the flexibility they offer. A Levels allow young people to pursue subjects they find intellectually stimulating while delaying specialisation until they are more certain about their future direction.

It is a rare opportunity for a student to combine physics, classics and mathematics, or music, geography and sociology, simply because those subjects interest them. One of the great strengths of sixth form education is the ability to accommodate ambitious and sometimes unconventional subject combinations. In an education system increasingly focused on specialisation, that freedom retains enormous value.

A Levels are also respected because they are rigorous. The sustained application of knowledge and skills over two years develops intellectual depth, independent learning and critical thinking. Their reputation has been built over decades through consistent standards and a clear purpose. Any qualification seeking similar levels of public confidence will also need to establish a reputation for rigour, reliability and quality.

Perhaps most importantly, A Levels help young people develop attributes that will serve them throughout their lives. Success requires resilience, determination, self-discipline and commitment. These qualities matter enormously in a labour market being reshaped by technological change, artificial intelligence and economic uncertainty.

None of this diminishes the importance of technical and vocational education. High-quality technical pathways are essential if we are to meet future workforce needs and provide opportunities for young people with different talents, interests and ambitions.

However, there should be caution about the pace at which new qualifications are introduced. If V Levels are to succeed, they will need more than a place within funding systems, performance measures or UCAS tariff tables. They will need genuine brand recognition.

A Levels are recognised and understood by virtually every parent, employer and university. Young people know what they represent and the opportunities they can unlock. That recognition was not created overnight. It has been built over generations and is a major reason why the qualification continues to command such confidence and esteem.

The experience of T Levels illustrates how challenging this process can be. Although they offer considerable strengths, it has taken years to build awareness and understanding among learners, employers and the wider public. Establishing a trusted qualification brand takes time.

For that reason, there is a risk that the introduction of V Levels is being rushed. A longer lead-in period could have helped schools, colleges, employers and universities develop a clearer understanding of their purpose and value. If parity of esteem is the goal, policymakers must recognise that esteem is built gradually through consistency, quality and trust.

The future level 3 landscape should see A Levels, T Levels and high-quality vocational qualifications sitting alongside one another. But if V Levels are to enjoy the same confidence that A Levels command today, they must be given the time needed to establish their identity, earn trust and build a reputation that endures. That is perhaps the most important lesson that the success of A Levels can teach us.

Innovate Awarding fined £185k after centre certificated learners in 24 hours

An awarding body that failed to investigate suspected malpractice at a training provider until it registered and certified more than 100 learners in less than 24 hours has been fined £185,000 by Ofqual.

Innovate Awarding has now revoked almost all of the 851 level 3 business administration certificates issued to learners at one of its centres between 2023 and 2024, following a probe by the qualifications regulator.

Ofqual said Innovate failed to carry out adequate approval checks, monitoring or investigations, and did not review certificates already issued despite evidence the centre had been registering and certificating learners improperly for “many months”.

FE Week understands the centre, which Ofqual names only as ‘centre A’ in its notice of fine today, is EPIC Graduate School Ltd, based in east London. The company has not responded to requests for comment.

Innovate first raised concerns about the centre on 18 January 2024, after 130 learners were registered and certificated within a day, and removed its direct claim status. The qualification has 580 hours of total qualification time.

Innovate later sanctioned the centre, ended its relationship with it and closed its investigation, after the centre said on 31 July 2024 that 108 learners awaiting certification had been withdrawn.

But that investigation looked only at the 108 learners and did not consider the 851 already certificated through the centre, Ofqual said.

Innovate only widened its inquiry to those learners after discussions with Ofqual in February 2025. It completed the revocation of 847 of the 851 certificates, which Ofqual said were “wrongly awarded”, in August 2026, more than two years after concerns first emerged.

Innovate will also pay £15,000 of Ofqual’s costs on top of the £185,000 fine.

EPIC Graduate School, based in Forest Gate, east London, is a training provider set up in 2021. According to the company’s website, it offers privately funded courses in business administration and emergency first aid at work, alongside testing for door supervision and CCTV operatives.

‘Reckless rather than merely negligent’

According to the penalty notice, issued today following a final decision by Ofqual’s enforcement panel on 2 October, Innovate Awarding missed “numerous opportunities” to prevent the centre’s malpractice and showed a “reckless” disregard of its own controls for preventing potential qualification fraud.

But by the time a wider inquiry was launched in March 2025, after Ofqual flagged concerns about the initial investigation, learner records and contact information were “unavailable” and the opportunity to gather evidence “had largely been lost”.

In its comments on aggravating features of the case, the exam regulator said Innovate Awarding could “easily” have avoided the breaches by taking basic steps before approving the centre, when monitoring it, and after indications of malpractice came to light.

It added: “There were widespread system and controls issues, and a disregard of established processes and policies which appeared reckless rather than merely negligent.

“Although there were flaws with [Innovate Awarding’s] policies at the time, it appears likely that adverse effects would have been avoided had it followed those polices.”

‘Large scale’ impact

Innovate Awarding’s failures to identify malpractice also had a “large scale” impact due to more than 800 certificates which can be used as evidence of English language competence remaining valid for a “prolonged period” before being revoked.

Ofqual said the awarding business breached several of its own policies, including awarding the centre direct claims status, which allowed the centre to claim certificates without external quality assurance approval, after only 30 working days and samples of four learner portfolios.

Innovate’s own policies required at least 12 months of monitoring before awarding this status, and a review of ten learner portfolios.

The centre’s approval was also given “without adequate independent verification” of evidence, which included external quality assurance reports that contained “clear anomalies”, and limited assessment of risk indicators such as “links to sanctioned centres, phoenix organisations or connected businesses.

Innovate Awarding failed to recognise or escalate “significant warning signs” including an April 2024 external quality assurance report that identified learner evidence that appeared to be “several years old”, was “lacking authenticity”, used incorrect names, and “redacted” documents, Ofqual said.

The centre exceeded its annual learner registration forecast of at most 250 within about four months and “frequently” registered and certificated within one or two days, despite the business administration qualification requiring 580 hours.

Ofqual said Innovate Awarding did not routinely monitor its registration data and only escalated concerns about the centre when “exceptionally high” learner volumes appeared in January 2024.

‘No concerns’

During the investigation, Innovate said it had “no concerns” about the centre because it “responded promptly to requests and made payments on time”, according to the notice.

Ofqual also found “weak data management, record keeping and oversight”, including a lack of accurate and auditable records.

Amanda Swann, Executive Director for Delivery at Ofqual, said: “The value of qualifications depends on public confidence that they are awarded fairly and earned legitimately.

“Innovate Awarding failed to respond effectively to serious concerns raised about qualifications delivered through one of its centres. Weak controls increased the risk of qualification fraud and allowed certificates to remain in place despite doubts about whether some learners had genuinely met the qualification’s requirements.

“These are significant failings that undermine trust in qualifications and warrant a substantial financial penalty.”

Rob May, managing director of Innovate Awarding, said the company acknowledges Ofqual’s notice about “historical compliance matters from 2024”.

He added: “When concerns were raised, Innovate took action to investigate the matter, reported it to Ofqual and cooperated fully throughout the regulatory process. We are no longer working with the training provider concerned.

“Since the issues were identified, we have implemented a range of enhancements to our compliance, governance and quality assurance processes to strengthen oversight across the organisation.

“Our priority remains delivering high-quality services and maintaining the confidence of our learners, customers and stakeholders. We are committed to continuous improvement and meeting the standards expected by the regulator.”

Colleges, don’t wait for all the answers on qualification reform

One year on from the skills white paper, the question for colleges is shifting from what new qualifications will look like to how we make them work for learners.

With V Levels, Foundation and Occupational Certificates and further T Level growth planned from September 2027, colleges cannot wait for every detail before preparing.

At Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group (NSCG), we’re testing the implications for learners and delivery. As a DfE qualification pioneer, we’re contributing to reform development, identifying gaps and highlighting support needs.

Start with learners, not qualifications

I recently shared our lessons with nearly 1,000 colleagues at a DfE webinar. My message was simple: don’t start by asking what replaces the BTEC. Ask what your learners need.

At NSCG, we support around 11,500 learners across three campuses, including 7,500 aged 16–18. We’ve mapped level 2 and level 3 provision against reform and defunding timelines, distinguishing confirmed changes from those awaiting clarification, alongside data on starting points, English and maths, barriers and progression.

At level 2, over 70 per cent of our learners need further English or maths study, while around 60 per cent progress to level 3 vocational programmes.

At level 3, vocational learners average 4.2 GCSE points on entry, compared with 4.9 for T Levels and 6.4 for A Levels. Across our learners, 69 per cent have an identified barrier to learning. These differences matter. Learners on substantial vocational programmes won’t necessarily fit new pathways without appropriate support.

We’re modelling how V Levels, A Levels, T Levels, remaining alternative academic qualifications and new level 2 routes might work together, particularly for learners not yet ready for T Levels, those benefiting from broader vocational study or whose ambitions change.

How do we maintain flexible pathways into further study, apprenticeships, employment or higher education? A 16-year-old’s aspirations can change. Our planning must allow for that.

What growing T Levels has taught us

We’ve delivered T Levels since the early stages, growing from 24 learners to around 825. What works for 24 doesn’t necessarily work for 825!

Growth requires employer capacity, specialist staff, facilities and learner support. For example, before increasing health numbers, we check NHS placement capacity and identify gaps before enrolment.

We’ve restructured our employer partnerships team: employer partnership officers secure opportunities and build relationships, while learner industry placement officers prepare, match and support learners.

Flexible placements, including block weeks with the Ministry of Defence for engineering learners and weekly placements with digital employers, respond to operational needs while maintaining accessibility for learners with different circumstances.

We’re looking beyond placement hours, using employer relationships to build confidence, develop employability skills and create progression into apprenticeships and employment.

Successful growth depends on the infrastructure around qualifications, not simply the qualifications themselves. We’re applying this lesson to wider reform.

Five things college leaders can do now

I’d recommend five practical actions.

First, make reform a whole-college priority, with leadership, governor oversight and joined-up planning across curriculum, finance, workforce, estates, careers and learner support.

Second, map provision against learner data to identify starting points, barriers, progression routes and gaps

Third, plan whole study programmes, not just replacement qualifications. Test A Level, V Level and other pathways against staffing, timetabling, assessment, support and progression.

Fourth, prioritise delivery risks. We’re using readiness assessments, RAG ratings and protected planning days to test scenarios, identify capacity challenges and agree actions.

Finally, engage beyond the college doors. The September 2027 cohort is already in school. Learners, parents, teachers, employers and progression partners need to understand their options.

Plan with what we know, remaining flexible as guidance develops.

Preparing together for what comes next

Implementation requires collaboration between government, providers, awarding organisations, employers and progression partners. Timely clarity on specifications, assessment, funding and transition arrangements, alongside workforce and employer support, will help colleges plan.

Providers start from different positions. NSCG’s breadth of A Level, vocational, T Level and apprenticeship provision gives us flexibility others may not have.

Through our qualification pioneer role and the West Midlands Technical and Vocational Education Hub, we’re testing approaches, sharing learning and supporting sector readiness.

My message is simple: don’t wait for the perfect plan. Start with your learners and test what delivery will involve.

Ultimately, success shouldn’t be measured by qualifications introduced, but by whether young people can access suitable programmes, overcome barriers and progress into further study, apprenticeships, employment and higher education.

That’s the real test of reform, and it’s the one we should be preparing for.

£120k boost for post-16 pupil premium campaign

Campaigners calling for the pupil premium to be extended to disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds have secured £120,000 for research to strengthen their case.

Tutoring charity Get Further won the grant from the Santander UK Foundation to investigate the funding gap facing disadvantaged learners and bolster their calls for a post-16 student premium.

Learning and Work Institute will look into what happens to disadvantaged learners after pupil premium funding ends at age 16. Public First will use that evidence to build an economic case to the government for targeted per-student funding.

Get Further has convened the Student Premium Coalition, whose 20 members include the Association of Colleges, Association of Employment and Learning Providers, the Sixth Form Colleges Association and the Association of School and College Leaders.

It wants ministers to introduce an estimated £430 million a year from academic year 2027-28 for colleges, sixth forms and training providers, matching the projected secondary-school pupil premium rate of £1,122 per eligible learner.

Eligibility would be based on whether a learner currently receives, or has previously qualified for, free school meals.

The funding could pay for extra English and math tuition, mentoring or student support initiatives to improve attendance and progression on top of existing disadvantage funding.

Santander UK Foundation, established in 1990, has recently relaunched with a new strategy focused on disadvantaged 16 to 19 year olds in further education. Its priorities include attainment, enrichment and transition into and out of FE.

Years of calls

The pupil premium was introduced by the coalition government in 2011 to improve attainment for disadvantaged pupils. Over the years there have been numerous calls for successive governments to extend the premium, which currently stops at 16.

Those calls have been consistently rejected, with ministers arguing that disadvantage funding is provided through the 16 to 19 funding formula.

In July 2024, the Education Policy Institute estimated that funding targeted at disadvantaged young people was nearly £1000 lower per learner in post-16 education than in secondary schools.

The following year, September 2025, parliament’s education committee urged ministers to introduce a student premium.

The government declined the committee’s recommendation, arguing the funding formula already provided support for disadvantaged learners and those with low prior attainment.

It cited £776 million in disadvantage funding allocated for 2025-26, alongside £245 million for English and maths and around £195 million in bursaries.

In a written parliamentary answer in April, children and families minister Josh MacAlister pointed to an expected 10.5 per cent rise in average post-16 funding per learner between 2024-25 and 2026-27.

The coalition argues these arrangements still leave no direct equivalent to the school pupil premium.

‘Clear-cut case’

Alice Eardley, Get Further’s interim chief executive, said: “The strongest predictor of long-term NEET status is leaving education without good qualifications, yet targeted support for underserved young people falls away at precisely the point when gaining those qualifications matters most for their future prospects.”

Alice Eardley

She said the research would give ministers a “clear-cut case” for extending support beyond 16.

Eardley is also a trustee of Santander UK Foundation, having joined its board in February 2026 before becoming interim CEO of Get Further. She said she was kept removed from the process of awarding the grant.

The first research report is expected later this autumn.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said: “We know that the 16 to 19 education phase shapes so much of what comes next, but a large attainment gap between young people based on their background represents a waste of potential for both them and the economy.

“We are delighted to be supporting the coalition with research to help change that and give policymakers and practitioners a clearer picture of where to act.”

FE Week is a member of the Student Premium Coalition.

Job cuts loom as PeopleCert integrates four City & Guilds training providers

More jobs are at risk across City & Guilds after new owner PeopleCert announced plans to integrate its four training providers under a single division.

Gen2, Intertrain, TradeSkills4U and The Oxford Group will be brought together under PeopleLearn, a new division that will seek to reduce duplication through a “more integrated operating model”.

More than 350 people work across the four businesses, but PeopleCert has refused to say how many roles could be lost.

The providers have been owned by PeopleCert since it acquired City & Guilds’ awarding body business in October 2025. It remains unclear whether they will be merged into a single company or continue operating under their existing brands.

FE Week understands staff were told on 15 October that “some roles” may be affected by the proposed changes. Management cited the loss of skills bootcamp revenue and difficult trading conditions as factors behind the restructuring.

Interim CEO Andy Moss said the businesses had suffered a 22 per cent fall in revenue in the nine months to September compared with the same period last year, alongside “significant combined operating losses”.

Moss also told staff that PeopleLearn would pursue opportunities for growth through new products, technology investment and, over time, “targeted acquisitions”.

It comes as hundreds of staff at City & Guilds formally ballot for strike action over plans to require them to work from the office at least two days per week. They follow a separate redundancy round earlier this year, when 75 roles were put at risk, prompting threats of legal and industrial action from the union. A total of 64 redundancies were ultimately made.

In a presentation to investors that was leaked last year, PeopleCert said it hoped to cut £19 million from its staff costs by 2027 through “personnel cost synergies”.

‘No final decisions have been made’

Confirming the PeopleLearn division, a PeopleCert spokesperson said: “We are bringing together Gen2, Intertrain, TradeSkills4U and The Oxford Group under PeopleLearn, a new division with the ambition of becoming a leading provider of workforce development and professional learning in the UK.

“This represents an important opportunity to combine the strengths of our training businesses as part of a coordinated programme of investment and transformation across PeopleCert and City & Guilds. Alongside significant investment in our assessment and qualifications business, we are investing in technology, innovation and operational capability to strengthen services for learners and employers, and create a stronger platform for sustainable, long-term growth.”

They added: “As part of establishing PeopleLearn, we are proposing a more integrated operating model, including the consolidation of some functions and the streamlining of operations across the businesses. These proposals respond to challenging trading conditions and are intended to create a more sustainable foundation for future investment and growth.

“Some roles may be affected by the proposed changes. No final decisions have been made, and we are committed to consulting openly and respectfully with colleagues before any decisions are reached.”

Gen2, based in Cumbria, was bought by City & Guilds in 2017 and had about 1,300 apprentices and a smaller number of adult learners during its most recent Ofsted inspection in 2024.

In 2025, it had a £13 million turnover and made a £1.2 million profit, following losses of £1.8 million and £1.9 million in the two previous years.

A PeopleCert spokesperson said: “Gen2 will remain an important part of the new division, continuing to support employers and learners across Cumbria and the wider region.

“We recognise the vital role Gen2 plays in developing the specialist technical skills needed by UK industry, particularly the nuclear sector, and remain committed to supporting these capabilities.”

City & Guilds bought railway skills training provider Intertrain in 2019 for an undisclosed sum. The company had about 429 learners when it was Ofsted inspected in March this year and made a profit of £408,000 on a turnover of £17.7 million.

Two weeks ago, its executive director Alex Pond confirmed he will leave the business in January “to pursue a new direction”.

TradeSkills4U, which specialises in electrical apprenticeships and privately funded courses, made a loss of £1 million in 2024 and £400,000 in the previous year. City & Guilds bought it from private equity firm Palatine in 2022.

The Oxford Group has been part of City & Guilds since 2015 and delivers unregulated leadership and management training.

It declared a £1.2 million profit on an annual turnover of £9 million in 2024-25, down from £1.5 million the previous year.

South Devon College principal Laurence Frewin to retire in 2027

Laurence Frewin will retire as principal of South Devon College at the end of the 2026-27 academic year, following 17 years at the college and eight years leading it.

It was announced today that Frewin will remain in post until summer 2027, with the college’s board of governors now preparing to appoint his successor.

He joined the college in February 2010 as vice principal for corporate services, becoming deputy CEO in 2015 before taking over as principal and CEO in September 2019.

Announcing his retirement, Frewin said personal and family changes over the past year had prompted him to reflect on his priorities for the years ahead.

“This has been an incredibly difficult decision for me,” he said. “The past year has brought some significant changes for my family, alongside some happier milestones, and these have caused me to reflect carefully on my priorities for the years ahead.”

Frewin said he remained committed to leading the college through his final academic year.

“Although I have announced my retirement, I am definitely not winding down. We still have an important year ahead and much that we want to achieve together. I remain completely committed to leading the college with the same energy, passion and determination until my last day in post.”

He added that it has been the “greatest privilege” to serve as the leader of South Devon College.

Martin Foulger, chair of the board of governors, said Frewin’s “passion” for South Devon College and its communities “is evident to everyone who knows him”.

“He is a highly respected and valued leader, and his commitment to the college, its students and its staff has been unwavering,” Foulger said.

He added: “While we are naturally saddened by his decision, we fully understand the personal reasons behind it. We are grateful that Laurence will continue with the same energy to lead the college throughout the academic year and will work with the board to support a smooth transition.

“The board will now begin the process of appointing Laurence’s successor.”

South Devon College teaches thousands of students across Torbay and South Devon and employs more than 600 staff.

It was judged ‘good’ by Ofsted in 2024. The college is currently in financial intervention but leaders plan to exit intervention by no later than July 2027, according to its latest set of accounts.

Defining antisemitism won’t silence debate on Israel

We need to be plain about what antisemitism is.

Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges spotlights the scale of the problem we face. 51% of Jewish teachers surveyed experienced antisemitism in school in the past year. One in five 16-19 year olds surveyed witnessed or experienced antisemitism, the number rising to three in five for Jewish students. 40% of school teachers surveyed who teach about the Holocaust reported encountering antisemitism in these lessons.

Fixing this requires action on a range of fronts. But it starts with defining antisemitism clearly, in a usable way. That is why the government is expecting schools and colleges to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The working definition must be adopted in a way that means that schools and colleges can meet their legal duties, including on equality and free speech.

This is the first of the 27 recommendations from Sir David’s review. We have accepted his review in its entirety, and we will start to implement it immediately.

Despite the report being published only days ago, I have already seen misleading suggestions that adopting the IHRA definition will prevent discussion of Israel or suppress legitimate political debate. That is simply not true.

The IHRA definition has been adopted by 47 countries, and countless public bodies. The working definition spotlights the insidious and often subtle form that antisemitism can take, and provides a practical framework that helps teachers and pupils spot and tackle it.

It opens up, rather than shuts down, essential conversations. It also explicitly states that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

The examples included in the definition cover denial of the Holocaust, making stereotypical allegations about the power of Jews as a collective, and questioning the loyalty of Jews to their own nation.

It also includes an example worth defending: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” Throughout history, Jewish people have been denied agency stemming from antisemitic ideas that they are an untrustworthy or malicious minority. The founding of the State of Israel, following the Holocaust and endorsed by the UN came following extreme global persecution.

Those who find this example uncomfortable should reflect on how denying a different minority group their right to self-determination would be experienced by that group. Worse still, what are the ideas that would lead one to label this right to self-determination itself as “racist”?

This example in the working definition in no way limits criticism of the State of Israel. The UK government itself has criticised recent action by the Israeli government in Gaza, and it is perfectly possible to do this without denying Jewish people’s right to self-determination. The claim that the IHRA definition makes criticism of Israel impossible is a lazy misrepresentation.

I know that the conversations teachers are navigating in light of political events in the Middle East and with the backdrop of hate spread online are not easy. I was a citizenship teacher myself and I have had to navigate these very same conversations. The definition will give teachers the confidence to protect legitimate political expression and tackle antisemitic behaviour.

Education is the most powerful disinfectant against the disease of antisemitism. Acting on Sir David’s review is a task for all of us. And it starts with being plain about what antisemitism is. Only then can we work together to root it out.