Latest news from FE Week

A Level results 2026: 2.1% rise in A* grades

The proportion of A* grades achieved by A Level students in England has risen by 2.1 per cent in a year, with regional and gender gaps widening.

This year 9.6 per cent of grades were A*, up from 9.4 per cent in 2025, data published by the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) shows.

Overall, the proportion of top grades also rose. This year 28.3 per cent of grades were an A or A*, up from 28.2 per cent last year.

These figures have been climbing since 2023, when grading was adjusted to bring results nearer to pre-pandemic norms.

Sir Ian Bauckham, the chief regulator at Ofqual, said the qualifications “open doors” for students because they were so widely recognised and trusted.

“A Levels are trusted because they are awarded to rigorous and consistent national standards. Universities, employers, and students can have confidence that an A Level grade represents what students know and can do.”

Read our handy round up of the key trends.

Gaps grow

A number of gaps have widened. The gender gap in top grades now favours boys, who outperformed girls last year for the first time since the pandemic.

However, girls make up 54 per cent of A Level entries, so the overall number of top grades issued to girls is still higher.

The gap between the best and worst-performing regions has also widened to 9.6 percentage points.

London continues to have the best results, with 32.7 per cent of grades at an A or above, up 0.6 percentage points.

The East Midlands now shares the bottom spot with the north east, following a 0.7 percentage point drop in top grades to 23.1 per cent. There was also a slight fall in top grades in the east of England and north west, bucking the national trend.

‘Significant disparities’

Pepe Di’Iasio, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, noted that while the year-on-year results were largely consistent, “this also means that very significant disparities continue to exist between the English regions in terms of top grades.

“These results are clearly affected by relative levels of socioeconomic disadvantage and reflect the structural inequalities that exist in our nation.

“Every year we say that we cannot go on like this and that as a society we must do more to support communities that often feel abandoned and neglected. When will we actually do that?”

He said the results were a “culmination of a great deal of hard work, and everybody involved deserves enormous credit for their commitment.

“It is important to remember that today is not only about celebrating A Levels, but that many thousands of young people take a range of equivalent qualifications in technical and vocational subjects that are vital both to their progression and to providing the skills base of the nation.”

Will we see an ‘Odyssey effect’?

As revealed earlier this year, there have been big rises in the number of entries to politics, law, economics and further maths. Entries dropped in English literature, drama and classical subjects.

Myles McGinley, the managing director of exam board Cambridge OCR, noted that economics was “surging in popularity”.

“The students getting their A Level results today were born around 2008: they are children of the financial crisis and many have been gripped by the more recent economic events that shape their world.”

Classics entries were down “but we expect that to change” following the release of Christopher Nolan’s film adaptation of Homer’s epic The Odyssey.

“We’re already hearing from teachers and students about ‘The Odyssey effect’. This year has shown the classics can be interesting to everyone.”

Drop in first-choice uni place success

Data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) shows that as of this morning, 78.3 per cent of England’s 18-year-olds have got a place at their first-choice university, down slightly from 81.5 per cent last year.

The proportion getting a place at one of their back-up choices rose from 11.6 to 13.6 per cent.

UCAS chief executive Jo Saxton, a former Ofqual chief regulator, said that today’s school leavers “were just starting secondary school when the pandemic interrupted their education.

“Given the significant disruption they faced at such a formative stage of their learning, it is wonderful to see so many young people getting a place at university or college. I’m delighted to see them backing themselves and choosing to invest in their education.”

This story has been updated. It previously incorrectly reported that the proportion of A* grades had risen by 3.2 per cent.

T Level results 2026: Top grades rise

The proportion of top T Level grades achieved by students has risen to 18.1 per cent this year – and the drop out rate is continuing to fall.

Of the 19,665 learners picking up results today for the two-year technical qualifications, 3,565 received distinction or distinction*.

This is a 2.4 percentage point rise on the previous year when 15.7 per cent – 1,872 of 11,909 total students – achieved the feat.

Starts data from the Department for Education shows that 25,508 young people started a T Level in 2024-25. As 19,665 students received T Level results today, it suggests 23 per cent left the course early.

The drop out rate sat at 27 per cent in 2025, 29 per cent in 2024 and 34 per cent in 2023.

The dropout rate for those who took three A Levels last year was 10 per cent, and for large vocational and technical qualifications the rate was 20 per cent.

Be wary of comparisons

In an Ofqual press briefing, Phil Le Feuvre, chief operating officer of T Level awarding body NCFE, said it was “really positive” to see students achieving the top grades as these are “challenging qualifications”.

However, he warned that caution should be taken when comparing previous results.

“There can be limited value in comparing directly year-on-year results because the number of subjects and students are increasing as those T Levels are rolled out,” he told FE Week.

“Variances in cohort sizes and in the subjects mean that those comparisons between years can be misleading.”

T Levels were introduced in 2020 as the government’s new “gold standard” qualifications that are meant to be the technical equivalent of A Levels.

A T Level has three parts – a core component involving an exam and employer set project, an occupational specialism where practical skills are tested and a minimum 315-hour, or 45-day, industry placement – and students must achieve all three to pass the overall qualification.

This is the fifth year T Levels have been awarded. Results data now covers 21 individual T Levels, three of which have been awarded for the first time – animal care and management; craft and design; and media, broadcast and production.

The number of students completing T Levels this summer increased by 65 per cent, from 11,909 in in 2025 to 19,665 in 2026, while the number of schools and colleges offering T Levels rose from 255 in 2025 to 307 in 2026 (a 20 per cent rise).

This year’s overall pass rate hit 92.6 per cent, up from 91.4 per cent reported on results day 2025. However, the Joint Council for Qualifications said the 2025 results have now been revised as part of “standard statistical updates” to include late completion of industry placements, and outcomes of remarking/moderation. The pass rate for this cohort is now 93.5 per cent.

The proportion of students achieving a pass this year was 23.7 per cent compared to 26.1 per cent last year, while merits were handed out to 50.8 per cent compared to 49.6 per cent.

Distinctions were received by 17.8 per cent of this year’s cohort compared to 15.6 per cent last year, and distinction* was handed out to 0.4 per cent this year compared to 0.2 per cent last year.

And 7.2 per cent of students received a “partial achievement” this year – which is where a learner attempts all elements of the T Level but does not achieve them all – down from 8.3 per cent in 2025.

The Joint Council for Qualifications only releases partial T Level data to journalists before 9.30am on results day, unlike A Levels which benefit from a full analysis.

The Department for Education will publish full T Level data later this morning, which includes breakdown by gender, region and other granular data including industry placement completions.

A VTQ ‘first’ for JCQ

Around a third of young people receiving results today would have completed other vocational and technical qualifications including BTECs and Cambridge Technicals.

Margaret Farragher, JCQ’s chief executive, said today marks a “milestone” as it is the first time the council has published data for 300,000 results from across 421 VTQs by JCQ’s awarding organisations alongside results for AS and A Levels.

It comes as the government prepares to replace VTQs with V Levels, which are being introduced from 2027.

Farragher said she hopes that by introducing VTQ results to its data release this year that it brings “better transparency of the full range of qualifications schools and colleges oﬀer to support students progress into work, apprenticeships or higher and further education”.

JCQ’s VTQ data covers the whole of the UK. The number of top grades was 28,390 out of 271,615, about 10.5 per cent of the total.

The most popular subject areas were business, administration and law, with 53,756 grades issued, followed by leisure, travel and tourism, which had 47,273 grades issued, the council said.

Ofqual chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham said VTQs are “equally important” to A Levels.

“They help students develop the knowledge and skills needed for apprenticeships, employment, and further study,” he added.

“When an employer or university sees these qualifications, they can be confident they demonstrate students’ genuine achievement.”

National employment support works better than postcode lotteries

The new prime minister’s ambition to bring employment support closer to local communities is understandable. Local authorities know their areas, understand local labour markets and often have strong relationships with employers and community organisations.

In theory, devolving greater control over employment support should create services that are more responsive to local needs. In practice, however, the evidence suggests the opposite. If the goal is to help more people into sustainable work, the government should resist further fragmentation and instead strengthen a nationally commissioned employment support system.

Recent experience provides a clear warning. The rollout of the Department for Work and Pensions’ Connect to Work programme has exposed significant variations in the speed and capability of local commissioning. Some authorities have moved quickly to establish procurement processes and delivery partnerships, while others have struggled to mobilise services. These differences are not driven by levels of unemployment or economic inactivity. They are driven by differences in institutional capacity. As a result, access to support risks becoming determined by where a person lives rather than the barriers they face.

This creates the danger of a postcode lottery in employment support. A jobseeker with a health condition in one area could receive high-quality, coordinated assistance, while someone with identical needs elsewhere encounters delays or limited provision. National programmes commissioned by DWP provide consistency, common standards and clear accountability. They help ensure that citizens receive a broadly comparable service regardless of geography. Fairness should be a fundamental principle of public policy, and that principle is weakened when support varies significantly between local areas.

There is also a practical question about whether local and (in devolved areas) strategic authorities are best placed to commission large-scale employment programmes. Local authorities perform a vital role and are already under immense pressure. They are responsible for social care, housing, public health, local infrastructure and a range of other essential services.

Employment support, particularly for people facing multiple barriers to work, requires specialist expertise in procurement, contract management, labour market engagement and performance monitoring. These are highly specialised functions that many councils have had limited opportunity to develop, especially after years of financial constraints and workforce reductions.

That is not a criticism of local government. It is an acknowledgement that employment support is a specialist discipline. The organisations that deliver successful employability programmes have often spent years building employer networks, developing intervention models and refining approaches based on evidence. Attempting to recreate this expertise within every local area risks duplication, inconsistency and wasted resources.

The challenge is greater in areas without elected mayors or established combined authorities, where governance structures are often less mature and depend on collaboration between multiple councils. Decision-making can be slower, accountability less clear and strategic leadership more diffuse. Devolving major employment support budgets into such environments risks creating additional complexity without improving outcomes for jobseekers.

This does not mean local authorities should be excluded from employment support. On the contrary, they have an essential role to play. Local leaders understand employer demand, economic priorities and community challenges. Their insights should help shape programme delivery. But influencing employment support is different from commissioning it. There is a strong case for a model where the DWP retains responsibility for programme design, contracting and performance management, while local stakeholders help tailor delivery to regional circumstances.

Such an approach offers the best of both worlds. National commissioning provides consistency, economies of scale and accountability for public spending. Local partners contribute intelligence, help coordinate services and ensure programmes reflect local realities. Instead of building multiple commissioning systems across the country, policymakers should focus on creating stronger mechanisms for local influence within a national framework.

Jobcentres already demonstrate how this balance can work. Through the flexible support fund, local managers can address specific barriers to employment, fund targeted interventions and respond to local labour market conditions. Although these budgets are relatively modest, they provide a degree of flexibility while maintaining national oversight. Expanding and refining such mechanisms would be a more sensible path than wholesale devolution.

The debate should not be framed as a choice between national control and local involvement. Effective employment support requires both. National government should set objectives, commission major programmes and ensure consistency. Local partners should shape delivery and integrate services around community needs.

The lesson from recent experience is clear: devolving responsibility does not automatically improve outcomes. What matters is capability, accountability and consistency.

If the government is serious about reducing economic inactivity and helping more people into sustainable employment, it should build on national strengths while harnessing local knowledge. A nationally commissioned system with targeted local flexibility is not only the most practical solution, it is also the fairest.

AI is our industrial revolution and FE must lead it

Some compare AI to the arrival of the internet, smartphones or cloud. I’m not convinced those comparisons go far enough. AI represents something bigger. In fact, I think we’re witnessing the biggest true revolution of the Information Age.

When we look back at the industrial revolution, we see a period where machines took on tasks that had previously relied on human labour. Industries evolved and workers had to develop new skills to remain relevant in a changing economy.

Importantly, society didn’t respond by pretending the machines didn’t exist. We taught people how to operate them.

Previous technological revolutions largely transformed physical labour or access to information. Even the digital revolution was primarily about giving people better access to information. Computers helped us process data faster, the internet helped find information more easily, and smartphones let us carry that around in our pockets.

Take the launch of the iPhone, which at the time felt revolutionary. Industries emerged around mobile applications, social media accelerated, and organisations had to rethink how they engaged with stakeholders.

But despite their impact, smartphones didn’t change the nature of work itself.

They changed where work happened, and how we communicated. They gave us constant access to information and services. Yet the tasks remained the same and decisions still had to be made solely by people.

That’s why I believe the comparison with the industrial revolution is more appropriate

than comparisons with smartphones or even the internet. Previous digital technologies helped us find and share information more effectively. For the first time, technology is not simply helping us access knowledge; it is helping us generate it. And it’s beginning to affect the very thing that office-based jobs are built upon.

The question is no longer whether today’s learners will use AI at work, but whether they’ll know how to use it critically, ethically and effectively.

When people hear the word “automation”, they often think about production lines and robotics. Yet AI is bringing automation to parts of the economy that have been considered safe. Admin, reporting, communications, planning, and countless other activities are already changing.

I don’t believe this means people become less important. The skills that make us human, like creativity, empathy, ethics, leadership and critical thinking will become more valuable. However, the way we apply those skills is likely to change.

People who succeed won’t be those who manually battle against AI. They’ll be the workers who know how to work effectively with it, understand its strengths, and use it to amplify their own capabilities.

That’s where further education comes in.

Further education has always adapted to meet the needs of employers by responding to new industries or changing skills requirements. AI presents perhaps the biggest of those challenges.

Across the sector there’s some excellent work taking place. Colleges are investing in AI tools, experimenting with new approaches, and developing guidance around responsible use. At City College Plymouth, we’ve introduced technologies including Google Gemini and Bodyswaps to enhance AI skills.

However, the pace of AI means further education could, and should, lead. If AI is going to become as commonplace in the workplace as spreadsheets and search engines, then understanding how to use it should become a core digital skill, regardless of the subject a learner studies.

Too much of the conversation around AI in education focuses on how we stop learners from using it. Academic integrity matters, and there are genuine concerns around misuse and bias. But if our primary response is restriction, we risk preparing learners for a workplace that no longer exists.

A more important question might be: if AI is going to become a tool in almost every profession, why wouldn’t we teach learners how to use it?

That means going far beyond showing someone how to write a prompt. Learners need to understand where AI adds value and where human judgement remains essential. They need to know how to verify information, recognise bias, protect sensitive data, understand ethical implications, and use these technologies responsibly.

During the industrial revolution, education evolved because the workplace evolved. AI demands the same response. If further education prepares learners to work confidently, critically and responsibly alongside AI, it won’t simply keep pace with technological change. It will help shape the workforce that emerges from it.

Why are we still scared of tattooed teachers?

I was shocked recently by a photograph I took with my two grown-up children. Let’s get in the natural daylight, I said. That will be good. They both looked great – they always do. But I looked washed-out, pale, wrinkled, anaemic, baggy-eyed and, quite frankly, very very old.

It was the end of the college year so I excused myself from responsibility for the mess I saw before me on the grounds of academic enervation. Still, I must admit I carry the marks of a lifetime in my face these days; crow’s feet, worry lines and forehead wrinkles marking me. I stand a marked man.

It interests me how we mark ourselves. I have no tattoos, but it intrigues me that so many people do. What aspect of my inner self or being would I ever want to translate to my outer surface skin to display to the world? A tea cup, perhaps, since I am sure I am actually 80 per cent tea.

I know some tattoos are frivolous and meaningless, simple silly fun, but others have a profound resonance for people, reminding the bearer of a significant time in their life, a moment they want to recall. Or something they’re afraid to forget.

A college I know recently circulated a draft staff code of conduct for consultation, with a clause about staff tattoos. ‘Where possible’, it said, they needed to be covered up while at work. ‘Where possible’ is a tricky phrase, as it’s always technically possible. You can cover even bold facial tattoos with the judicious application of a medical mask, sunglasses, earmuffs and a broad-brimmed hat. But it might make teaching tricky. Don’t ask how I know.

The clause was finally removed and objections dropped.

A long time ago, I worked with a colleague who had a full-body tattoo. She regularly displayed her inked body as a photographic model. Good to have a side hustle, I suppose. Her students discovered this and although attendance at her classes increased, so did distraction levels as photos found online became currency.

Tattoos are an increasingly common part of British life. Gone are the days when a tattoo told the world you were a salty old sea-dog home on shore leave, or a street-toughened thug with a rap sheet as long as your needle-inked arm. Beneath those demure business suits all across the land, a whole host of inks now nestle. In America, Australia and the UK, around a third of people now have a tattoo. They are considerably more common amongst women than men. This is clearly not the tattooing your grandmother warned you about.

So what does this mean for any dress codes in teaching? Are tattoos really to be subtly sidelined, tucked away in shame, covered over like something which should be forgiven, a bad example being set to the impressionable youngsters in our care? Of course, working in the 16-19 sector, many of our students have tattoos too. And their parents often do. Asking a teacher to cover theirs up seems anomalous. Tattoos are clearly not what they were. Unless they signify some extreme political position or adherence to the yakuza, what are we really covering them up for?

But there is sometimes still a stigma surrounding ink. Tattoos are for the arty, the hipster, or – still this is sometimes thought – someone with bad judgement or a regrettable past.

I do not have any tattoos and I never will. But I’ve worked with talented, committed, professional and able teachers who have enriched students’ lives and changed their futures for the good, all while sporting a full sleeve or having some other uncovered imagery on show. It has not scandalised, disturbed or distracted anyone.

We need teachers from a range of backgrounds. We need teachers with backstories on which to draw. That is FE’s strength. And that might mean the drawing is there on the surface to be seen. Because sometimes we allow what has marked us to show. And in that there can be a lesson.

So I am left wondering what is more offensive to a student: a tattooed rose on the forearm of an art teacher or my heavily wrinkled weary old face? Personally, I know which I find more disturbing.

Colleges need students, not comms teams, running their TikTok

Sit next to any young student deciding where to go next and watch what actually happens. They don’t open a prospectus; they open TikTok, type the college’s name into the search bar, and see what comes up. Call it a vibe check. What surfaces isn’t a prospectus tour; it’s whatever students have posted. That’s the open day now, weeks before anyone books an actual slot.

Meanwhile, the official account has no idea and keeps doing what it’s always done: the principal presents a certificate or the science teacher demonstrates a mildly entertaining experiment. It’s fine. It’s also invisible to the people making the decision because a 16-year-old running that search has already correctly worked out that a comms team’s version of college life isn’t college life.

This is not a taste problem. It is a trust problem, and it is measurable: Ofcom’s own research finds that virtually every 13 to 17-year-old in the country is on social media, with TikTok and Instagram chief among them. These are not niche channels. They are where the decision gets made, long before anyone fills in an application form.

But being a real student is not enough on its own, and this is where colleges will get it wrong. I have the privilege of having a fourteen-year-old brother. Most of what he watches on TikTok has nothing to do with education; it’s gaming clips, pranks and whatever sound is trending.

We talk a lot in marketing about ‘stopping the scroll’, and a sincere but flat video of college life doesn’t stand a chance. The students worth backing already speak the platform’s language, the pacing, the humour, the trends, pointed at their own college life. Get that right, and it beats your polished prospectus video, because the audience trusts the person, not the institution.

There’s a money argument too. Recruitment keeps climbing faster than funding does: colleges are absorbing thousands more 16 to 18-year-olds every year than the funding model was built for, and every place has to be fought for against neighbouring providers, sixth forms and apprenticeships chasing the same cohort. Spending on generic content that nobody watches isn’t just wasteful; it burns through the budget while a trusted alternative sits unused.

One wrinkle worth noting: ministers announced in June that anyone under 16 will be legally barred from holding an account on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and the rest, with the rule pencilled in for early 2027. However, if you think teenagers under 16 won’t find a workaround to the ban, I have some magic beans to sell you.

You may be reading this and thinking – “but what about safeguarding?” I would hope you don’t think I am suggesting you hand a phone to a 16-year-old and hope for the best. It obviously requires some level of process: written consent from parents and students, a clear line on what can’t be filmed or named, and a staff member who signs off before you hit ‘post’. That structure isn’t the enemy of authentic content. It’s what lets a student sound like themselves rather than a press release.

If I were in charge of a college (heaven forbid), I would speak with my media studies department and ask them to build some sessions on creating social media content that feels native to the platform where it will be posted and give them the opportunity to make things.

None of this means abandoning your own channels entirely. The job changes: instead of producing content, the marketing team’s job becomes finding the students who already do this well, giving them a bit of kit and a lot of trust, then getting out of the way.

Colleges spend a huge amount of energy worrying about Ofsted, funding rates and league tables, and perhaps rightly so. But the decision that determines whether any of that matters happens earlier, in a bedroom, on a phone, at eleven at night. Whoever is trusted and passes the vibe check in that moment wins the enrolment. Right now, for most colleges, that is not them.

FE must adapt to a new era of safeguarding

The latest guidance that the Department for Education issues for schools and colleges on safeguarding and safer recruitment, Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) 2026 raises the bar for safeguarding across the sector. But its implications for further education need particular attention.

FE colleges support a high proportion of learners who have not completed formal education, or who have come through alternative pathways such as pupil referral units, alternative provision or exclusion. That makes the renewed focus on violence prevention especially important for the sector.

This year’s guidance reflects the way that safeguarding risks are changing. The explicit inclusion of deepfakes and AI-generated nude imagery shows how seriously digital harms now need to be treated. Stronger language on misogyny and harmful sexual behaviour, alongside the recognition of cybersecurity as a safeguarding issue, also makes clear that online and offline risk can no longer be looked at separately.

For FE leaders, these changes are not abstract. They overlap directly with the realities of their students. Young people with disrupted education, previous offending or a history of being outside mainstream settings are already known to be at higher risk of carrying a weapon or becoming caught up in violent conflict. FE colleges are often where those risks become visible.

Recent national conversations around the Southport Inquiry and the introduction of Martyn’s Law, underline why this matters. Colleges are publicly accessible, community-facing spaces. They need to be able to demonstrate that they are prepared for serious incidents, with clear policies, practical response plans and staff who know what to do if concerns arise.

At the same time, the rise of extremism and casual violent ideation online is making the picture more complex. Social media and gaming spaces can expose young people to content that blends grievance, misogyny, gender-based violence and casual references to harm. For some learners, particularly those who feel disconnected or resentful, these narratives can become part of everyday digital life.

This creates a very practical challenge for FE safeguarding teams. The line between terrorism, extremism, criminality and harmful behaviour is becoming harder to define. Risk may show up through disengagement, resentment, sudden changes in a young person’s social circle, increased secrecy online, fixation on particular narratives or shifts in digital behaviour. These are the signs staff need to feel confident spotting and escalating.

In this context, staff training needs to be precise. Colleges should review whether safeguarding training reflects the realities set out in KCSIE 2026, and whether staff understand how these risks connect.

But there is also a hopeful message here, and it is one that feels specific to FE. Colleges are deeply embedded in their communities. They are often the place where young people find a route back into learning, purpose and belonging after difficult or disrupted experiences. That puts them in a strong position to offer effective early intervention.

Effective safeguarding in FE is therefore not only about identifying risk. It is also about creating the conditions for positive engagement. Programmes that build skills, confidence and peer support can reduce vulnerability, while trusted staff relationships can help learners feel seen before concerns escalate.

FE is often the last structured opportunity to intervene before risk becomes consequence. For many learners, it is the final point at which an education setting can influence behaviour, challenge harmful attitudes and support safer digital habits. That makes the role of FE in safeguarding not just preventative, but pivotal.

KCSIE 2026 reinforces the idea that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. In FE, that means every part of the college community has a role to play, from teaching teams and support services to senior leaders and employers. The response needs to be joined up because the risks young people face rarely sit neatly in one category.

The message for FE is clear. Safeguarding must evolve in line with the world young people are growing up in. Colleges need strong policies, confident staff and clear routes for action. But they also have a unique opportunity to offer belonging, purpose and support at the point it can make the greatest difference. Done well, FE can play a crucial role in preventing harm and helping young people build safer, more positive futures.

Government blocks Reform mayor’s residency rule change for adult education

The government has blocked Reform UK mayor Andrea Jenkyns’ planned introduction of a three-year residency rule for adult learners in Greater Lincolnshire.

Last month, skills minister Jacqui Smith ordered all mayors with devolved adult skills policy powers to fund any student who is resident in the UK from their first day of learning.

The order overrode Jenkyns’ decision to change funding eligibility for Greater Lincolnshire adult learners to at least three years from August 1, when the Reform UK mayor took control of adult skills for the first time.

It appears to be the first time since adult skills devolution began in 2019 that central government has taken steps to stop a mayoral authority’s policy.

The Greater Lincolnshire mayor also plans to cut funding for English language lessons aimed at migrants from next year and instead fund literacy and numeracy courses aimed at “native” Lincolnshire residents. The residency rule order does not impact this change.

On July 7, Smith issued a ministerial direction to all 17 mayors with devolved adult skills in the 2026-27 academic year, requiring them to adopt the same residency eligibility criteria as the Department for Education (DfE).

Ministers have the power to issue mayors with directions on what rules of eligibility they must adopt under the apprenticeships, skills, children and learning act 2009.

Smith wrote that the move is needed to ensure “a single consistent approach” to adult education eligibility is taken across England.

It comes only a year after the government itself dropped the three-year residency eligibility rule for adult education learners who applied to non-devolved areas, which appears to have been in place for more than ten years.

All authorities with devolved adult skills appear to have voluntarily adopted the same residency requirement as the government by the start of the 2025-26 academic year.

FE Week understands that a similar ministerial direction was last issued in 2019, requiring devolved areas to only fund training for learners who had been resident in the UK for at least three years.

The Greater London Authority was the first to drop the three-year residency requirement from the 2022-23 academic year, on the basis that access to training can “support social integration from their first day settling within the capital”.

FE Week contacted Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority for comment.

Steve Hewitt, adult education funding expert and trustee of ESOL-focused charity the Ruth Hayman Trust, said that before the DfE rule change in 2025, few adult learners were excluded from public funding due to the various exemptions, including for refugees and specified family members. Greater Lincolnshire planned to apply similar exemptions.

He said that while the move to retain the national residency rule was positive, he fears the government’s intervention could set a precedent for greater control over devolved authorities’ decision-making.

Hewitt said: “Although this change is a positive, if minor, change for the people of Lincolnshire, it worries me that the secretary of state is making directions towards strategic authorities.

“It’s this now, but what will it be next? We’ve had seven years of ‘it’s your money, get on with it’.

“There are so many eligibility differences up and down the country. Some would like there to be more consistency, but that’s not how devolution works, is it?”

Skills and devolution policy consultant Gareth Thomas added: “It’s important that legal entitlements are protected, but also that people are supported to move into the labour market as soon as possible.

“Making people wait three years to access English language training could increase their benefit and public service costs, which is surely something the government wants to avoid.

“I think local areas should still have control over what they fund, and the ability to align provision with market and societal need.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “The adult skills fund is designed to give people the skills they need for sustainable employment or further education.

“We recognise local leaders understand the skills needs of their residents and businesses and are committed to providing them with the powers they need to enable growth.

“The legislation sets out the parameters that strategic authorities should operate within, and the eligibility requirements for combined county authorities have been consistent for some years.”

Last month, new prime minister Andy Burnham announced that mayors will be handed control of 16-to-19 funding and a say on 14-to-16 technical pathways in a major shake-up of post-16 education.

Previously, ministers had resisted calls for such a move from mayors, arguing that such a move would lead to more “bureaucracy” and inequalities.

Further details on how the powers will be transferred are due to be confirmed in a white paper to be published alongside the autumn budget.

Eden College fights to keep adult learner loan contract after ‘urgent improvement’ rating

An east London training provider is fighting to keep its adult learner loan contract after receiving an ‘urgent improvement’ Ofsted judgment.

Adult training centre Eden College of Human Resource Development and Management Studies Limited, based in Romford, received the lowest possible grade for its leadership and governance in a report published on July 24, which described “overwhelmed” senior leaders and learners falling behind.

Staff, including middle managers and tutors, did not keep accurate records, leaving leaders and governors without a precise understanding of the provider’s strengths and weaknesses, inspectors found.

Days after the inspection report was published, Department for Education (DfE) officials sent the company a ‘notice of intention to take contractual action’.

The training provider has now asked the DfE to monitor its improvement in the coming months instead of immediately terminating its contract.

FE Week understands the provider has already suspended new starts while it waits for a response from the department.

DfE guidance on intervention at ITPs which have been assessed as ‘urgent improvement’ by Ofsted says the department will “typically terminate” their contracts after offering an opportunity to make representations.

But officials may issue “strict contractual conditions” where there is evidence that “rapid and robust” quality improvement can be made.

According to advanced learner loan funding and performance management rules, the department’s policy may include reducing or removing a provider’s allocation if an Ofsted grade is ‘inadequate’.

In the 12 months from the introduction of the new Ofsted inspection framework in November 2025, which removes overall headline grades, officials will “evaluate each case according to its own circumstances”.

‘Leaders feel overwhelmed’

In Eden College’s Ofsted report, inspectors said learners were falling behind due to insufficient management oversight of progress, attendance and achievement.

The report said: “Key management responsibilities are concentrated among a few staff, and middle managers and administrative staff lack the confidence and skills to analyse and report information accurately.

“As a result, senior leaders feel overwhelmed and unable to monitor the provision effectively or drive sustained improvements quickly.”

A spokesperson for Eden College said management has reflected on the inspection findings and is “committed to implementing all recommendations” to improve its provision.

These include “strengthened” procedures around attendance monitoring, governance arrangements, and teaching oversight.

The spokesperson added that the owner found the inspection process “very difficult”. The inspection was paused on day one, and resumed three days later.

At the time of the inspection in June, Eden College had 114 adult learner loan-funded students across England, training in childcare and health and social care, at levels 3 to 5.

Other students were studying level 3 diplomas in gym instructing and personal training, alongside level 3 awards and courses in special educational needs, and beauty and micropigmentation.

The provider opened more than 25 years ago and is owned by Freda Jacobson, who also runs Edenberries Day Nursery and Pre-School on the same site. The nursery’s provision was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in February last year.

Ofsted graded Eden College’s teaching as ‘expected standard’, noting its “carefully planned” curriculum, knowledgeable tutors, and good preparation for their professions.

‘Too many’ missing learning

However, inspectors also rated achievement, participation and development, and inclusion as ‘needs attention’.

At the time of the visit, almost three quarters of learners were “behind with their studies” and a few learners had made “only limited progress” several months after their expected completion dates.

Leaders did not set high expectations for attendance, with “too many” missing learning and making slow progress, the inspectorate found.

While staff generally understood the needs of individual learners, extra support for learners with barriers was implemented inconsistently, with one group of beauty skills learners not receiving the additional English language support they needed.

However, learners studied in “supportive and welcoming” environments, valued tutors’ personal support, and spoke positively about the flexibility of training programmes.

Eden College was last inspected by Ofsted in 2024 when it was downgraded from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’ over “significant disruption” to some learners’ studies and poor tracking of learners’ progress.

Department for Education funding data shows the training provider had an approved facility for advanced learner loans and bursaries of more than £300,000 per year for the last four years.

However, the most up-to-date reconciled funding figures suggest the business accessed loans and bursaries of only £18,664 in 2022-23 and £17,891 in 2023-24.

Eden College also had an adult education contract with the Greater London Authority, earning £194,578 in 2021-22 and £257,000 in 2022-23.

This ended following the launch of the GLA’s new Jobs and Skills for Londoners contracts in 2023.

The company is also currently listed as suspended from new starts on the apprenticeship provider and assessment register. It joined the register in 2017, but is understood to have stopped delivering apprenticeship training in 2023.