The Department for Education is counter-suing a former apprenticeship provider for more than £800,000 after alleging widespread dodgy funding claims – including that public money was unlawfully used to pay apprentices’ wages.
The World of Work Ltd, which focused on the care sector, recently launched a £500,000 High Court claim against the secretary of state for education following a suspension of payments in July 2021 and termination of its skills funding contracts six months later.
But in its defence, the DfE said the “plainly unsustainable” claim was a “misguided attempt” to avoid repaying £825,106 that investigators assert was wrongly claimed between 2017 and 2021.
Ineligible jobs
The dispute centres on apprenticeship contracts The World of Work held from around 2016 that were investigated in June 2021 following whistleblower allegations of wrongdoing.
Payments were suspended and the DfE’s now-closed Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) terminated all of the provider’s contracts in January 2022, citing inaccurate data submissions, missing evidence, apprentices not being in genuine employment, and failures to meet minimum duration requirements.
According to the defence, investigators examined 30 learner files and found 21 apprentices recorded as working more than 30 hours per week for a connected recruitment company, Goodsted Recruitment Ltd, were in fact only engaged for six hours of training per week.
The DfE said this revealed there was “no proper apprenticeship arrangement” in place between apprentice and employer.
The World of Work Ltd’s owner, Myrofora Georgiou, was a director of Goodsted until 2019. Goodsted was also run by a business partner of Georgiou and the pair currently operate a property firm.
DfE officials also allege funding claims were made for learners who never commenced training and were recorded as continuing months after they had exited their programme.
Using a sample audit and its controversial extrapolation method, the DfE calculated an overclaim of £825,106.07 across four academic years, with error rates ranging from 65.7 to 83.8 per cent each year.
The World of Work could have taken the option of a 100 per cent audit of its performance if it “did not wish to accept the use of figures extrapolated from the error rate identified in the sample”.
‘Strong appearance’ of illegal wage payments
One of the most serious findings came after the ESFA reviewed bank statements from both companies.
The DfE said the evidence showed Goodsted was “totally reliant” on funds from The World of Work, leading investigators to conclude that ESFA funding “strongly appeared” to have been used – directly or indirectly – to pay apprentices’ wages.
Using public apprenticeship funding to pay wages is explicitly prohibited under funding rules.
The defence said the conduct of the provider “amounts to a fundamental breach of the contract which is incapable of remedy”.
Provider claim ‘bears no relation’ to reality, says DfE
The World of Work disputes the findings and said it was denied “natural justice”.
In its claim against DfE, the provider argues it was never told the substance of the whistleblower allegations, was not properly allowed to remedy any breaches, and was required to continue training learners after payments were suspended.
It said its delivery model, involving apprentices employed part-time by care providers while also on zero-hours contracts with Goodsted, was known to the ESFA.
The World of Work’s lawyers explained: “For two cohorts of apprentices, from 2019 to 2021, there were some apprentices who already worked part-time in the care sector, but who (with the support of their employer) wished to undertake further qualifications.
“These apprentices continued their part-time work but were also employed on a zero-hours contract by Goodsted Recruitment Limited. Goodsted then arranged for training through the claimant, and seconded these apprentices for work.”
The provider said its individualised learner record data was “incomplete” but only “because the computer architecture did not allow for the provision of the complete data” – that is, the ESFA’s learner entry tool initially only allowed one employer to be nominated for each apprentice.
“All the complete data was submitted to the defendant as part of the investigation. The terse letter, in the same words as the suspension of funding letter, suggests that the defendant did not consider this at all,” The World of Work’s claim added.
The DfE was accused of acting “capriciously”, and its termination of the contracts itself “amounted to a repudiatory breach”.
The DfE countered that the provider’s funding claims were not eligible because “there needed to be a qualifying apprenticeship arrangement between the apprentice and their employer, involving a genuine job allowing for on-the-job training”.
The provider is seeking £500,000 in damages, calculated at £50,000 per month between July 2021 and April 2022, on the basis of “unjust enrichment”.
The DfE strongly disputes the valuation.
Its defence said The World of Work averaged less than £12,500 per month in total funding before the investigation, and had just four apprenticeship learners remaining at termination.
It claimed all eligible training was reconciled and paid in December 2022, and that any unpaid activity was ineligible for funding.
The DfE confirmed it intended to counterclaim for recovery of the £825,106 and is seeking “security for costs” from the court in this legal claim, citing the provider’s negative net assets and minimal ongoing activity.
“The position remains that the claimant has received more than £800,000 in public funding to which it was not entitled,” the department’s defence said. “The claimant’s claim appears to be a misguided attempt to pre-empt a claim by the defendant for the recovery of those funds.”
The proportion of students passing their English language GCSE resits in November increased this academic year, new figures show.
Results published by the Joint Council for Qualifications this morning show 37.5 per cent of English GCSE students who resat the exam in November 2025 in England achieved a pass of grade 4 or above.
This is a 2.6 percentage point increase from November 2024, when 34.9 per cent of English GCSE resitters attained the standard pass.
It also marks a reversal of last year’s 5.4 percentage point drop and surpasses 2019 pre-pandemic levels when the pass rate was 32.3 per cent.
The November 2025 series registered nearly 10 per cent more registrations for English GCSE resits than 2024. A total of 69,973 retook English, rising to 76,601 in November 2025.
It comes months after the government warned, in its recent post-16 white paper, that “too many students are entered into resit exams in the November after their GCSE entry the previous summer, without sufficient additional teaching to enable them to succeed”.
Pass rates for resits taken in the summer exam period sit much lower than the November series. For GCSE English, 20.9 per cent of 175,118 post-16 students achieved a grade 4 pass in summer 2025.
The government mandates students who have not achieved a grade 4 pass in English and/or maths GCSE by age 16 study towards these qualifications as a condition of their post-16 places being funded. Most end up resitting the exams.
Women retaking English GCSE had a higher pass rate than male students. A total of 40 per cent female students overall achieved a grade 4 or above, an improvement from the 36.1 per cent that passed last November.
Male students had a pass rate of 35.5 per cent, a nudge higher than the 34 per cent that passed last year.
Meanwhile, the proportion of students passing maths GCSE resits dropped marginally by one percentage point to 23.2 per cent from last year.
The rate remains behind pre-pandemic levels, when the pass rate was 26.4 per cent in 2019.
The November series also registered 4.6 per cent more entrants, to, 72,321 retook maths GCSE up from 69,139 in November 2024.
Male students did better than females in maths resits but performed poorer than the year prior.
The results showed 23.8 per cent of males secured a pass, higher than the 22.8 per cent pass rate among females. However in 2024, 25.7 per cent of male students achieved a grade 4 or above. Women performed similarly last year, with 22.9 per cent scoring a pass in maths GCSE.
A breakdown of age groups published alongside the overall results also found younger learners did better than all other students in English.
Figures show 41 per cent of 17-year-olds passed their English resit exam, whereas 19-year-olds had the lowest pass rates this year with just 29.6 per cent scoring a grade 4 or above.
In maths resits, the 20 and over age cohort had the highest pass rate of 28.2 per cent, compared with 26.1 per cent of 17-year-olds passing and 17.2 per cent of 19-year-olds gaining a pass.
However, students aged 20 and over saw their performance in maths dip. In 2024, 34.1 per cent of the age cohort achieved a pass, representing a 5.9 percentage point fall in 2025.
The charities watchdog is “engaging actively” with the City & Guilds Foundation following reports that two executives were in line for million-pound bonuses after its commercial awarding body was sold off.
It comes as the foundation’s chair, Dame Ann Limb, has confirmed plans to step down from her role early after being nominated for a peerage. Limb has come under fire in recent weeks after admitting to misleading claims about her educational achievements.
Concern has grown about the charity’s trustees’ decision to sell City & Guilds’ commercial awarding organisation and skills training activities to Greek-owned global certification company PeopleCert in October 2025.
According to a report by The Guardian, chief executive Kirstie Donnelly has been awarded a £1.7 million bonus alongside a £100,000 salary increase to £430,000, while finance director Abid Ismail reportedly received a £1.2 million bonus and 30 per cent salary increase to £300,000 per year.
City & Guilds Limited has not disputed the figures and declined to comment on whether the bonuses were known to the pair ahead of the sale when approached by FE Week. A spokesperson said: “The accounts for City & Guilds Ltd will be published at year end in 2026, as required for private limited companies. Any awards to employees are a matter for City & Guilds Ltd and are guided by commercial practice to ensure talent and expertise is retained.”
A spokesperson for the foundation did however confirm that trustees were “not involved in any pre or post-deal conversations regarding remuneration matters for City & Guilds Limited executives that would apply after the sale”.
The spokesperson added: “This is a matter for the new City & Guilds Ltd owners. City and Guilds of London Institute (CGLI) will publish its accounts as normal in January 2026 and details of pay and renumeration up to the sale will be reported in the accounts in the usual way.
“Bonuses for eligible employees reflecting performance in 2025 are payable in line with CGLI’s remuneration policy.
“No payments outside CGLI’s existing bonus schemes have been paid.”
Donnelly’s bonuses have ranged between £190,000 and £67,000 in each of the last four years, according to City & Guilds’ financial statements.
Regulator wants ‘more information’
The Charity Commission this week confirmed that in response to “recent media reports” about City & Guilds’ sale it is now “engaging actively with the charity to obtain more information to assess and next steps for us as a regulator”.
A spokesperson for the commission told FE Week it was aware of plans to sell City & Guilds to PeopleCert and received assurances about trustees’ decision making.
Selling the charity’s business was a lawful decision for the charity’s trustees and formal permission for the sale was neither required nor provided by the commission, the spokesperson added.
Neil Bates, who sits on City and Guilds’ advisory council, said: “I am concerned about the bonuses that appear to have been paid to Kirstie and the finance director and about the process of governance that was followed or not followed. Both, I think, are deeply concerning.
“What I really want to happen is for there to be full and open disclosure of the circumstances and details of how the decision was arrived at to sell these parts of the business.
“What process was followed to ensure that the charity got best value for the disposal of those assets and that nobody benefitted personally from sale of those assets?”
Charity chair steps down
City & Guilds Foundation chair Dame Ann Limb also this week confirmed that she plans to step down from the charity this year. She became chair in 2021 and her current term was due to end in 2027.
The resignation is understood to have been prompted by Limb’s appointment to the House of Lords last month and was decided in early December.
Mike Adamson, newly appointed interim CEO of the foundation, said recruitment for a new chair and permanent CEO will begin “in the next two weeks.”
Sale ‘secured the long-term future’
At the time of the sale of the 150-year-old charity’s qualification and training business, Limb and Donnelly argued it was necessary to “secure its future” and ensure the operation “thrives for another century and beyond”.
Following the sale, a document published by City & Guilds’ new owner PeopleCert suggested the company plans to cut £19 million from its permanent and short-term staff costs in the next 24 months by making vacant roles redundant or relocating them to Greece. The document was later removed from PeopleCert’s website.
The charity, officially known as The City & Guilds of London Institute, operates as City & Guilds Foundation, while the now privately owned business now trades as City & Guilds Limited.
The foundation plans to continue its charitable functions as an “innovative social investor and change maker” with the proceeds of the sale, which include up to £200 million in “gross assets” and provision of office space for a period of five years.
In response to what it describes as “a number of inaccurate claims” about the sale of City & Guilds, the foundation released a detailed statement on January 2, saying it decided to sell the business amid “instability of political cycles, policy reform and competitive pressures”.
The trustees said they considered five options to protect the future of the institution.
“These ranged from doing nothing, to merger, borrowing funds, and sale,” a spokesperson said.
“After thorough consideration over a 30-month period, supported by extensive input from highly respected commercial and legal advisers, the final decision was to sell the charity’s awarding and training businesses.
“This approach secured the long-term future of the charity while also providing the necessary investment and capabilities for the commercial training and awarding business, which required significant capital to remain competitive in a highly regulated market that is increasingly reliant on technology infrastructure to meet learner demand.”
School leavers will be able to prove their GCSE results to post-16 settings and employers on a government app on their phones from this summer.
The “education record” app is being rolled out nationally after a pilot in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands last year, where only six per cent of invited settings took part.
If taken up nationwide, ministers believe it could save schools and colleges up to £30 million in administration costs, including by eliminating photocopying of documents and reducing manual data entry.
Year 11 pupils will still go into school on results day to meet face-to-face with their teachers and receive their grades, which will later be available on the app. They can then present and share their results digitally with their post-16 setting.
If schools choose to sign up, they will have to link pupils’ data to their mobile devices. The Department for Education populates the records.
While only available for GCSEs, they will get A Level and other qualifications updated in the Learner Record Service in future.
Skills minister Jacqui Smith said no student “should have to rifle through drawers looking for a crumpled certificate when preparing for a job interview”.
“This app will give young people instant access to their results whenever they need them while freeing up teachers and college staff from unnecessary paperwork.”
Only 29 schools took part in regional pilot
When launching the pilot earlier this year, DfE said more than 95,000 young people would get their results via the app. A total of 487 schools and colleges were invited.
But only 29 schools took up the offer, meaning the pilot only involved about 4,000 pupils. The DfE said it was run on an optional basis, and it was not mandatory for schools or pupils to take part.
DfE said it will remain optional this year before they “reflect on findings to look at next steps” for the record.
Schools and colleges will also be able to easily access information on “which students need extra support, including whether they need to continue working towards English and maths GCSEs, have SEND requirements or qualify for free school meals”.
The £30 million cost saving is based on the number of 16 and 17 year old students and the number of courses studied in 2023-24 and 2024-25. They assumed cost estimates of £10 per learner and £10 per course.
Photocopying could be ditched
“Extensive user research” with colleges identified enrolment activities that could be stopped or reduced as a result.
This included getting rid of photocopying of documentation and the manual process of matching emails with applications.
It could also reduce manual data entry and delays linked to pupils not having the correct documentation.
The savings assume that nearly all young people moving from a school into FE and apprenticeships would use the app to enrol at a new setting.
Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, welcomed the move as well as retaining the face-to-face option as it “not only allows them to celebrate with peers and teachers, but also to receive any advice or support they may require regarding next steps”.
He added: “We are sure that school and college leaders will also welcome the administrative savings made possible as a result of this change, although this will only amount to a drop in the ocean compared to the funding pressures they remain under.”
It is almost 30 years since Tony Blair as opposition leader declared his top three priorities were “education, education, education”, back when the political landscape felt very different.
The Conservatives are now tasked with holding Labour’s feet to the fire from the opposition benches through their shadow skills minister Saqib Bhatti, while Ian Sollom holds the skills baton for the Lib Dems.
Reform UK and the Greens are surging in popularity, especially among young voters, but have been relatively quiet on skills and further education issues, and neither party has a spokesperson with those briefs.
Their political priorities reflect the public mood. In a recent PLMR poll, only 8 per cent of voters said they would like the government to prioritise education, compared to 59 per cent for the cost of living and economy.
But at a time when skills shortages are holding back economic growth, skills and education policies have arguably never been more important.
Sollom, skills and universities spokesperson, Liberal Democrats
The Lib Dems are the only opposition party that have put education at the centre of their agenda. And Sollom is well-versed in the FE sector’s challenges. The skills white paper sits open on his Westminster office desk as I enter the room. He proudly claims to have read every page, as well as “putting it into AI” to “probe little bits”.
He answers some tricky policy questions I put to him with relative ease.
But even he admits education is “low down on public priorities” – and “skills is even further down”.
“I’m pulling my hair out thinking, ‘but the economy comes really far up’ – there is a disconnect in people’s heads,” he says.
The movement of skills to the Department for Work and Pensions makes life complicated for opposition skills spokespeople as they must now liaise with both DfE and DWP departmental teams. “The speaker doesn’t necessarily recognise me as a DWP spokesperson”, says Sollom.
He believes that “skills is not getting the attention or the priority” it deserves because skills minister Jacqui Smith sits in the Lords, so cannot be held to account directly by opposition MPs in the Commons.
Many of the Lib Dems’ 2024 manifesto policies, such as replacing the apprenticeship levy with a “broader and more flexible skills and training levy”, developing some colleges as “national centres of expertise for key sectors”, rejoining the EU’s Erasmus+ scheme, and scrapping single-word Ofsted judgments, have since been rolled out by the current government, which Sollom admits has “certainly” been “frustrating” for him to watch from the sidelines.
His party favours boosting lifelong learning, but wants to achieve this through a £10,000 grant rather than student loans, which people could choose how to spend at different points throughout their lives.
Ian Sollom of the Lib Dems, with his copy of the skills white paper
Sollom sees the skills system as being akin to a three-legged stool, with the learner, the education provider and the employer each being the legs and all requiring the right balance of support.
He believes that “governments tend to rush to fix one leg, but if another of the legs is too short, it still falls over”.
Currently, he believes the employer leg is the weakest one; “The long-term decline in investment by employers into training and skills needs to be reversed”.
Sollom is concerned about the decline in SMEs taking on apprentices, and says his party would reverse it by enabling them to create “skills cooperatives” – groups of companies that would “pool the resources and risk” of taking on apprentices. This would mean apprentices moving between companies during their apprenticeships.
“SMEs are a vast pool that you could tap into if you can get the skills system working for them,” he says.
The party’s “ambition”, Sollom explains, is that FE teachers are paid the same as those in schools. He sees FE workforce shortages as “increasingly problematic, as you’ve got an ageing workforce in the FE sector because of the pay issues. And it’s no good putting skills front and centre if you’ve actually got no one to teach them.”
But – ever mindful of previous promises his party broke 16 years ago while part of the coalition government not to raise university tuition fees – he adds: “I don’t want us to make promises we can’t keep, and I’m aware of the constraints that the Treasury would likely place on us”.
The Lib Dems also support the Association of Colleges’ recent campaign to extend the pupil premium to disadvantaged 16-18 year olds.
Sollom is critical that Skills England is being “run by the civil service” (it’s joint CEOs are both ex-DfE directors) despite the government’s first King’s Speech “heavily implying” it would be put on a “statutory independent footing”.
Current polling indicates that the closest chance the Lib Dems could have to gaining power would be to form a coalition with other left-of-centre parties against Reform – in which case, their general alignment with many of Labour’s own education policies may be an asset.
“The Lib Dems have shown in the past that they’re prepared to be grown up in those circumstances,” Sollom says. “But ultimately, we’ve got to look at what we think is the best way of delivering the best outcomes for people.”
Saqib Bhatti, shadow education minister
Saqib Bhatti, shadow education minister, Conservative Party
Unlike Sollom, who is not a keen Ticktocker, Bhatti is trying hard to build up a following on the platform, although he has not been using it to discuss FE issues. His top-pinned video uses a filter to show Kemi Badenoch mocking Rachel Reeves while wearing scribbled-on sunglasses, to the tune of a Snoop Dogg song.
His most successful post to date was one claiming the post-Covid shortage of lorry drivers was not down to Brexit, as the US and Poland faced a similar recruitment challenge. To his surprise, it got a quarter of a million views.
“You just never know what interests people,” he muses.
Bhatti sits to the right of the party. He supported Liz Truss’s party leadership bid in 2022 and saw her as a “very effective” international trade secretary while he served as her parliamentary secretary.
But he also sees himself as a “collegiate politician”, which he says he learned from Sajid Javid, whom he served as a private parliamentary secretary when Javid was health secretary, and who dealt with trade unions in a constructive way.
Bhatti is now offering education unions an “open door” to come to him with their ideas, because “it doesn’t matter where our politics are, ultimately we all have the same aim”.
Bhatti is an accountant by trade who “never planned to be in politics”; the prospect of the UK leaving the EU galvanised him into it.
I meet Bhatti and his two advisers outside Westminster tube station. To reach his favourite café from there, we must navigate our way past some rather rowdy protestors campaigning to rejoin the EU.
Little do they know that Bhatti is their political nemesis. He sat on the ‘Vote Leave’ board and founded Muslims for Britain campaign, helping persuade 800,000 Muslims to vote for Brexit by arguing that doing so would create a “fairer landscape” for those coming over from the Indian subcontinent.
“I was reticent to put my head above the parapet on political issues, but I just thought this was so important around Brexit. Being a British Muslim, I wanted ethnic minorities to have a voice in the campaign,” he says.
Like Labour, the Tories have put apprenticeship growth at the heart of their skills mission and, as ever with politicians, they are keen to show they have walked the talk.
Kemi Badenoch at the Conservative party conference
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claims to have taken an apprenticeship in software engineering, although her office has not responded to multiple queries from FE Week as to whether she completed it. Bhatti studied law at the London School of Economics but says “it’s very possible” that he would take an apprenticeship if given the chance again, in “something techie”.
At this year’s party conference, Badenoch unveiled proposals to double the apprenticeships budget to £6 billion a year by slashing enrolments onto “poor value” university courses, and directing “savings” towards apprenticeships and “worthwhile” courses.
The Tories are continuing to throw their support behind the T Level qualifications they introduced, despite their lacklustre take-up. Bhatti derides new V Level qualifications proposed in the skills white paper as “insulting, lower-level qualifications that reinforce a soft bigotry of low expectations for working-class students”.
He believes that cutting funding to level 7 apprenticeships will do “huge amounts of harm”, as those who “benefit” from them are “proportionally more the poorest in society”.
When it comes to skills, Bhatti discovered in his former role as president of Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce how “very convoluted” the sector is. He helped campaign for fellow Conservative Andy Street to be the first mayor of the West Midlands.
However, these days he is more reticent about the benefits of devolution, fearing that combined authorities are becoming “super bureaucracies”.
Like Sollom, Bhatti believes that not establishing Skills England as an independent body was a “missed opportunity”, thereby “taking away the business voice”.
Bhatti also criticises the government for cutting adult education funding, an issue “we have to fight hard for” which “matters incredibly,” given rising unemployment.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage
Reform UK: No spokesperson for education in post
Reform UK is storming the polls, with one recently predicting it would win 293 seats if a general election were held tomorrow, with Labour trailing on 191. But its leader, Nigel Farage, knows his rhetoric has made him unpopular among teachers. He predicts the entire UK teaching profession, who are “poisoning our kids”, would go on strike “very quickly” if Reform wins the next general election.
He believes that the “Marxist left” is “now in control of our education system” which requires an “absolutely herculean” job to turn it around.
Farage made these remarks during a recent visit to Hillsdale College, a small private Christian college in America which offers free online educational courses including The Genesis Story: Reading Biblical Narratives, Ancient Christianity and The American Left: from Liberalism to Despotism, and is affiliated with Regent’s University London.
Farage made a “commitment” to “help Hillsdale in the United Kingdom garner hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young people to your online courses”.
Reform has so far revealed few details about its wider education and skills policies. But its politicians have indicated their support for the apprenticeships system.
The party’s policy papers say it would impose a higher national insurance rate (of 20 per cent) on foreign workers, which “could raise more than £20 billion over five years to pay for apprenticeships and training for young Brits”.
Reform also indicates that it would provide tax relief for businesses that take on apprentices.
But some other Reform policies could have undesirable knock-on effects for young people in FE. Its proposal to “front-load” the child benefit system in support of those with the youngest children would mean less money for college-aged offspring. And many ESOL learners would struggle to cope with its proposed requirement for five years in residency and employment before claiming benefits.
The party is already moving to cut ESOL provision in some areas where it holds power, including Greater Lincolnshire, Kent and Derbyshire.
3CJ5WDP Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Dame Andrea Jenkyns singing at the Reform UK annual conference at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. Picture date: Friday September 5, 2025.
UK universities have good reason to fear the prospect of a Reform government; the party says it would withhold funding to universities that undermine free speech, and shorten degree duration to two years.
Reform has set up a working group to come up with a SEND policy paper, chaired by Greater Lincolnshire mayor and former Conservative skills ministerDame Andrea Jenkyns.
Whereas others in the party have taken a more hardline approach to SEND spending (deputy leader Richard Tice has said it was “being hijacked” by too many parents “abusing the system”), Jenkyns has a more nuanced perspective as she is neurodiverse herself and has a son with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Tice has suggested that redundant church buildings could be used to teach children with SEND closer to home, and has criticised the excessive profits of independent special schools run by private equity companies. But his party shares the Tory aversion to VAT on independent school fees.
As part of its ‘war on woke’, for schools, Reform has pledged a “patriotic curriculum”, a ban on “transgender ideology” and the permanent exclusion of violent and disruptive pupils.
Reform would also “reopen high-intensity training camps for young offenders to teach basic education, teamwork and values”, to “tackle youth crime”.
The party’s only reference to adult education is to say it would provide free education to military personnel both during and after service.
Green party leader Zack Polanski
The Green Party
The Greens are also riding high, having overtaken the Lib Dems in polls. They have the support of over 40 per cent of 18-24 year olds, with the largest youth and student wing of any political party. But the party has no discernible policies around further education or skills, and did not respond to repeated requests for comment and information from FE Week.
Their school policies include abolishing Ofsted, ending “high-stakes testing”, increasing school funding and teacher pay and extending free school meals to all school children. They have also pledged to restore university grants and end tuition fees.
The party’s education spokesperson since 2016 is Vix Lowthion, an Isle of Wight history, geology and classicsschoolteacher who has built relationships with the teaching unions but has said very little publicly on education issues in recent months.
Green party leader Zack Polanski says he wants to create a country “where education is free and entirely about the joy of learning”. In his role as a London Assembly member, he recently called on Sadiq Khan to “review” adult skills funding cutbacks and provide support to struggling Morley College London.
Those who work in FE and skills have long understood and recognised the sector’s ability to transform lives.
We know that FE and skills provision equips individuals with the qualifications and confidence to progress, strengthens local economies, and fosters inclusive, sustainable communities by forging local partnerships and strengthening social ties.
Yet, despite this profound impact, FE’s contribution to social value – encompassing social, economic and environmental wellbeing – remains under-measured and under-recognised.
Following the publication of the post-16 education and skills white paper – with its vision for a unified tertiary system, a reformed qualifications landscape and a renewed focus on workforce development – we have a strategic opportunity as a sector.
As set out in the Education Training Foundation’s (ETF’s) new Achieving Social Value in Further Education and Skills report, if we are to deliver on this vision we must move beyond anecdotal evidence and establish a shared framework for measuring social value.
Without robust data, the sector’s full contribution to national ambitions risks being overlooked, and with it, the opportunities to scale impact and guide investment effectively.
What do we mean by social value?
In FE and skills, social value manifests at multiple levels.
For individuals, it might be confidence gained, skills acquired, and doors opened to meaningful employment.
At community level, it encompasses partnerships forged, local skills gaps filled and civic engagement strengthened.
At a societal level, social value broadens to include the downstream impact on economic growth, sustainability and equity.
From green skills programmes to outreach initiatives for disadvantaged learners, the sector delivers wide-ranging benefits that ripple far beyond the classroom.
Take one learner with additional needs who joined Blackpool and The Fylde College to study construction. With tailored support, he progressed to a plumbing apprenticeship, developed his independence, and now volunteers in his community.
Or East Norfolk Sixth Form College, which runs many programmes to increase social value, including holiday schemes for children on free school meals.
These stories featured in our report illustrate the sector’s transformative power, but they also highlight a challenge. Too often, our understanding of impact rests on isolated case studies rather than systematic evidence.
Why now?
The white paper’s emphasis on evidence and workforce excellence offers an opportunity to embed social value into the fabric of FE and skills. A shared measurement framework would allow providers to demonstrate impact consistently, informing smarter investment decisions, and strengthening the sector’s voice in national policy debates.
It would also help us identify what works best, for whom, and under what circumstances, enabling us to scale success.
Currently, longitudinal data capture in FE and skills is rare. While some organisations, such as Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, have quantified social value, these examples are exceptions.
We need sector-wide collaboration to develop common metrics, improve data collection, and build a national knowledge base. This is not about adding bureaucracy; it is about ensuring that the sector’s contribution is visible, valued and resourced.
A shared framework
ETF is committed to working with providers, practitioners and policymakers to make this happen. By embedding social value into institutional planning, workforce development and funding decisions, we can ensure it becomes a deliberate outcome of how we operate, rather than just a welcome consequence.
Aligning this approach with a national workforce strategy will be key to recruiting, retaining and developing the professionals who deliver this impact every day.
The FE and skills sector is an engine for inclusive growth and innovation. But to realise its full potential we must move from inspiring stories to a robust, systematic understanding of our impact.
In doing so, we can ensure the sector is widely, and rightly, recognised not just for the qualifications it delivers, but for the lives it changes, the communities it strengthens and the national ambitions it supports.
For decades, the path from classroom to university has been well-trodden. Teachers are measured against progression targets, schools celebrate UCAS offers like sporting triumphs, and parents seem to know instinctively how to guide their children through the process, because they’ve probably been through something similar themselves.
At every turn you will find structure and widespread social reinforcement.
The route to apprenticeships, however, is somehow still shrouded in mystery. It is split across different providers, regions and funding schemes. Young people who might thrive in applied learning or technical disciplines are left navigating acronyms and eligibility criteria, often without the same encouragement or guidance that accompanies more “traditional” academic routes.
This has shaped how the country defines success, how schools allocate resources, and how society values different kinds of intelligence and learning styles.
When the system’s default is built around university entry, it’s no wonder that apprenticeships are still perceived as the “alternative” rather than an equal choice.
But in a labour market defined by technical skills shortages and economic uncertainty, is that perception holding us back?
Shifting policy to change perception
Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer recently moved away from the 50 per cent university target, replacing it with a broader ambition that includes apprenticeships and higher technical education.
The move is a statement that says success should no longer be measured by lecture halls and mortar boards, but by the diversity of skills that fuel national growth.
Part of the government’s more nuanced goal is that 10 per cent of young people undertake higher technical qualifications or apprenticeships by 2040. While that may seem modest on paper, it acknowledges that Britain’s prosperity depends on more than one learning pathway.
Changing entrenched perceptions will take more than a shift in targets, however. For decades, university has been presented as the “safe” or “smart” choice, while apprenticeships have been cast as vocational detours or lesser alternatives.
That stigma has lingered, even as employers increasingly value hands-on experience and applied expertise over theoretical knowledge alone.
To rebuild public confidence, apprenticeships need the same narrative and institutional visibility that universities have enjoyed for generations. Policy may open the door, but public perception determines who walks through it.
Despite the Baker Clause making it a duty for schools to promote apprenticeships, experience shows the reality is inconsistent and often tokenistic. Apprenticeships providers may engage with schools across the country, but the encounters tend to be isolated talks rather than part of a joined-up careers strategy.
Without strong links between schools and employers, students rarely see how apprenticeships connect to real career opportunities.
Employers, meanwhile, operate on different timelines; they need talent immediately, not months down the line. That disconnect undermines apprenticeships’ potential to drive social mobility and respond to genuine labour market needs.
Breaking educational walls
If university is a straight tarmac road, apprenticeships are still a patchwork of cobbled side streets. Most young people could name a dozen universities by the time they sit their GCSEs, but would probably struggle to name even one apprenticeship provider in their region.
Careers advisers are overstretched, teachers are rarely trained or incentivised to champion work-based learning, and the digital infrastructure simply isn’t there to make discovery easy.
UCAS offers a single, seamless gateway to higher education. But for apprenticeships, no equivalent platform exists at scale (at least, not yet). Young people can’t choose what they can’t see.
UCAS reforms were meant to fix this by placing apprenticeships alongside university options, but the change hasn’t shifted the culture. Careers professionals still view higher education as the “safe” or more prestigious choice, and many lack the understanding or confidence to advocate for vocational routes.
Fixing this requires more than a marketing push. We need systemic change and “pathway parity”.
Schools should be supported, and held accountable, for presenting apprenticeships as a genuine first choice rather than a fallback option.
Careers advisers and teachers need the same clarity of process and data that UCAS provides for university placements.
Employers, too, have a role to play by making their opportunities easier to navigate and aligning entry requirements with modern skills rather than outdated academic benchmarks.
Until that happens, the apprenticeship system will remain a dimly lit network of cobbled streets – rich in potential, but almost impossible to navigate.
The government’s mission to simplify post-16 qualifications through T Levels and the new V Levels is well intentioned. Clarity, parity, and coherence across technical and academic routes are ambitions most of us support.
But simplification can come at a cost, and the cost, if we’re not careful, could be paid by our most vulnerable learners.
Because here’s the reality: T Levels and V Levels will not fit everyone. Thousands of young people – bright, capable, ambitious – will fall through the cracks unless the Department for Education builds flexibility into the system.
Across the country, independent training providers (ITPs) are already showing what works. Our study programmes deliver strong outcomes from entry level to level 3.
They don’t just tick qualification boxes; they build confidence, skills and aspiration. They take young people who’ve struggled in traditional education and give them a pathway often into apprenticeships, work, or further study.
Ofsted sees it. The data shows it; ITPs consistently achieve high destination rates, especially for learners who face social, emotional or financial barriers. These are programmes built around the learner, not the other way around.
So why dismantle what’s working?
Under the current reform plans, the qualifications that power these programmes are at risk. The new framework feels designed for large institutions, not agile, employer-connected providers. The danger is a two-tier system, one that leaves ITPs fighting to keep their learners engaged, while colleges are expected to stretch to fit everyone else.
If the government genuinely wants to reduce NEET (not in education, employment or training) numbers, then one-size-fits-all cannot be the answer. It never has been.
Talk of “transition” or “foundation” pathways is encouraging, but so far details are sketchy. How will they be funded? Who can deliver them? And will they hold the same value in the eyes of employers and universities?
Without clear answers, providers are left uncertain, and young people are left exposed.
Let’s be honest: quality should be judged by impact, not institution type. The DfE’s data shows that independent training providers play a vital role in supporting strong progression into employment and further learning. So rather than dismantling what works, let’s build on it across the system.
We’re innovators, not outliers
And another thing, ITPs are not just the safety net for the so-called “hardest to reach”. They’re a launchpad for driven, capable young people who crave hands-on, industry-led learning. Many thrive in high-energy, commercial settings where they can showcase talent and connect directly with employers. These are learners who don’t want to sit in classrooms; they want to be in the shop window of the labour market.
That’s why the DfE should see ITPs as innovators, not outliers. Let’s bring awarding organisations such as Gateway Qualifications to the table and co-create V Levels that are project-based, employer-shaped and relevant to the world of work our young people are entering.
We all want a system that’s simpler and stronger. But simplicity can’t come at the expense of inclusion. If we strip out the pathways that work for thousands, we’ll drive up NEET figures, undoing years of progress made by ITPs in attempting to tackle educational disadvantage.
The future of technical education must be built on inclusion, not elimination. Let’s shape reform that celebrates diversity of provision and protects every young person’s right to succeed.
I recently bought my first pair of off-the-peg reading glasses. I have now reached peak middle age. My adult daughter, however, has suggested that won’t fully arrive until I attach the glasses to a cord around my neck. From then on, there’ll be no looking back.
I now stand at a clear two generations’ distance from my students. Firmly anchored in the glories of Generation X, I am surrounded by colleagues who are millennials, together facing students from the far shores of Gen Z.
In another few years it’ll be Generation Alpha kids in our classrooms. There will then be three generations separating me from my students. That’s a lot. I have learned the hard way that the generation gap is real and very much alive in my life.
There’s a saying that teaching keeps you young and in a way it does, no doubt. But it can also make you feel very old indeed.
I have to admit the scale of the generation gap. When life is changing as dramatically as it is today, we must ask some serious questions about what we are about.
An education revolution which most teachers haven’t even begun to spot is already racing towards them. Some of us are like the dinosaurs who were blithely grazing within the growing shadow of the meteor that was hurtling towards them.
I don’t think the coming change is necessarily all about the STEM drive which recent years have seen. Or not primarily so, at least. Rather, what is ahead may well involve a complete change to the social world and the world of work far more profound than anything which was faced by previous living generations.
So we may soon be forced to consider if our inherited categories even work anymore. The traditional subjects might have had their day and we may soon have to consider which subjects to continue with and which will best equip our students for the coming AI-led workplace.
Supply and demand will do some of that. Some traditional subjects may be facing a significant change. But for those subjects that the AI revolution leaves behind – humanities, arts, languages, et al – there may still be cause for considerable hope.
I for one recall the forlorn promises that advances in technology would free us all up, releasing time from tedium and providing leisure opportunities for everyone. If such a situation were to be realised, then perhaps the more academic, abstract or ethereal of subjects might enjoy a resurgence, embraced once again not for any apparent utilitarian gain but simply for the sheer love of learning and its edifying influence on the human soul. One can dream, at least.
Before all this change hits home, there will be some serious and unpleasant upheaval for us all.
I may think I can advise students on future progression routes simply because I have done this job for so long. That’s the point of professional experience, after all. But maybe I have to admit that I am not seeing things so clearly anymore.
The world I think I understand is not the world my students are going to live in. They are entering a workplace that is still in the tumultuous process of being born.
So I’ll be doing them a disservice if I don’t admit I’m short-sighted here. I can see that clearly now. I have to admit the lenses I used to see through may need to dramatically change. My view of the future is rooted firmly in my own past.
Forget the rose-tinted spectacles. In a time of such change as we face today, I may just as well be blind.
Around college buildings all over the country you will often find posters which proudly list all the jobs particular courses could lead people to. But I do not know if those jobs will even exist in 10 years’ time.
So we educationalists have to think it all up from scratch, and do so soon.
I’m starting to get used to my new glasses. I can pop one extended arm thoughtfully between my pursed lips as I ponder.
