Weston College is now free of the financial intervention triggered a year ago when multi-million pound payments to ex-principal Sir Paul Phillips were exposed.
A separate probe, by the government’s counter fraud team, continues.
The south west college’s financial notice to improve (NTI) was officially closed this week following its latest visit from the FE Commissioner in the summer.
College leaders proved they have strengthened governance and audit procedures, and remuneration processes for senior staff.
Principal Pat Jones, appointed in July 2024, said the saga has been “traumatic for colleagues” and moving out of intervention is a “significant step in the journey of putting this behind us”.
However, the Department for Education told FE Week its investigation into “other aspects” of the college’s historical finances is ongoing.
Weston College was placed in intervention last May after fraud investigators found governance failures around the disclosure of financial information including high pay packages to Phillips after his retirement.
DfE sent auditors from BDO to examine “other aspects” of financial controls at the college.
College leaders said they have “fully cooperated” with BDO during its probe and Jones said its focus was related to “past issues dating back to a period concluding in summer 2023”.
‘This has been traumatic for colleagues’
In 2023FE Week revealed that Weston College’s governing board had created a “presidential” role for Phillips ahead of his retirement.
The revelations triggered a government probe, causing board chair Andrew Leighton-Price to step down and FE Commissioner adviser Tim Jackson taking the helm as interim chair. Jackson remains in post.
FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave’s long-awaited report earlier this year detailed how £2.5 million was paid to Phillips and kept off the books over a six-year period through a combination of bonuses, allowances and benefits, including a £909,000 retention payment.
Legrave also revealed the board circumvented standard payroll procedures to directly pay Phillips and provided partial information to external auditors.
Legrave made 13 recommendations to the college, including putting in a “formal” scheme of delegation for the board or committees to approve senior pay approval and banning the remuneration committee chair being the same individual as the board chair.
“Significant” changes were approved by the board after the FEC’s visit in June 2024 to strengthen governance, improve oversight and due diligence.
Jones said she was “thrilled” and called the NTI closure a “significant step” to putting the scandal behind the college under a new executive leadership team and governing body.
“Competent, transparent and strong governance is the best assurance for any public institution (colleges or other) in avoiding anything like this in future,” she said.
“We hope that all colleges use the lessons of our past to validate their own governance arrangements and organisational controls.”
Jones added: “On behalf of all within the college, I extend my sincere gratitude to our valued stakeholders, partners, and wider community for their unwavering support during this period.”
The Department for Education quietly spent almost £3 million on first-of-their-kind compensation payments to dozens of training providers after a botched apprenticeship funding band decision.
Forty-four providers of the heavy vehicle technician apprenticeship received one-off payments totaling £2.76 million. Officials issued “exceptional retrospective payments” after the department admitted it had underfunded the programme for years.
Documents released to FE Week under freedom of information laws reveal that Remit Training received the lion’s share, nearly £1 million, followed by Skillnet, which was awarded £383,000. The SMB Group received £136,000.
The 41 other providers each received between £3,000 and £99,000.
Experts believe the DfE has set a precedent for more campaigns from providers in other sectors to receive similar special payments where they can prove funding band decisions were flawed and have not covered delivery costs.
Who was at fault?
The HGV technician standard was originally funded at £18,000, but the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), now Skills England, controversially reduced that rate to £15,000 in 2019 – a cut it later admitted was based on “inaccurate” information.
FE Week has received conflicting explanations for the error.
Sources close to government blamed training providers who submitted evidence which missed off consumables that should have been deemed eligible costs, and didn’t include end-point assessment costs, which therefore supported a lower funding band.
Providers blame IfATE for allegedly not involving the trailblazer group in any quality assurance of the data and rejecting initial appeals.
The funding band was finally reviewed and increased to £20,000 in 2023. However, many providers said the damage had already been done, with several warning that the programme had become financially unviable.
Skills shortages are now hitting industry. The Road Haulage Association (RHA) told FE Week there were around 100 colleges and independent training providers delivering the HGV technician apprenticeship a decade ago – but the current count has been decimated to 34 partly due to the funding band debacle.
In a statement to FE Week, the DfE said it believed the sector “would have been better served by a funding band of £17,000” between 2019 and 2023, and so made backdated payments to protect “current and future provision of HGV technician apprenticeships, a critical industry being significantly impacted by skills shortages”.
Payments were made to cover the shortfall for learners who started before the 2023 funding uplift, with the money distributed across multiple financial years “for the duration of these apprenticeships”.
There were 4,287 starts on the HGV technician standard between 2019 and 2023, according to government statistics.
Pressure from sector campaign
The exceptional payments follow years of pressure from training providers and employer groups, which have repeatedly highlighted the chronic underfunding of heavy vehicle apprenticeship delivery, arguing it has been catastrophic and led to providers absorbing losses, placing strain on cash flow and staffing, or walking away altogether.
FE Week understands former transport secretary Mark Harper even wrote to then education secretary Gillian Keegan in 2023 demanding a funding band uplift.
It is not clear why the DfE opted to hand out exceptional payments to HGV technician providers as well as increasing the funding band.
DfE would only say this was an “exceptional case”.
Click to enlarge
Remit Training has started around 2,200 apprentices on the course since 2019 – almost triple the number of the next biggest provider.
CEO Sue Pittock, who also sits on the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) board, said: “Remit was pleased that DfE could see the funding needed to change and was able to support all providers who deliver HGV provision with exceptional payments.
“It was challenging during the period when the funding was £15,000. HGV training is vital to keeping the country’s supply chain moving; without trucks being able to transport goods safely, there would be a significant issue.”
Eugene Lowry, managing director at Skillnet, said the exceptional payments were an “incredible” win.
He explained that providers were forced to act quickly when contacted by the DfE about the decision. “The DfE managed to contact me while I was on holiday to say, ‘we’ve sent you a letter, you need to sign it and get it back to us in the next 24 hours’. And they’re not known for speediness,” Lowery told FE Week.
He said the underfunded period “got stretchy” for Skillnet’s business considering the expensive equipment needed to offer the apprenticeship, such as cars and trucks, all of which need faults created for apprentices to fix.
“These trucks and cars are not designed to be broken so their lifetime as a resource is not long,” Lowry added. “It requires more investment from training providers like ourselves to have the resources available to allow the apprentices to do their training and assessment.”
SMB Group, which merged with Loughborough College this year after running into financial difficulty, said: “It is pleasing to see that DfE rectified underpayments.”
A precedent for others?
Sector leaders say the DfE’s decision to effectively backdate funding represents a major policy shift – and could open the door for similar claims for other apprenticeship standards that have been underfunded due to flawed funding band reviews.
Ben Rowland, AELP CEO, said:“It’s right that the DfE has corrected this funding band error and compensated affected providers, but it also underlines just how carefully Skills England must tread as they review apprenticeship standards.”
He added that this “episode” also shows “why independent training providers must have access to capital investment to expand capacity, and why future reviews must be careful not to undermine delivery”.
Another source questioned the fairness of the exceptional payments, and why a similar special deal has not been done for apprenticeships in, for example, adult care which were underfunded for years and received its own “exceptional” funding band increase in 2023.
They said: “It seems unfair and inappropriate that providers delivering one lorry standard, with funding increased by a third, received compensatory payments, while providers delivering the level 2 in adult care, with the same percentage increase, received nothing and were probably in far more financially challenging circumstances.”
Getting the funding band back together
HGV technician apprenticeship providers argue that the increase to a £20,000 funding band is still not sufficient to meet costs.
The standard is also in the process of being revised, according to the RHA’s skills policy lead Sally Gilson, to include zero emission vehicles for the first time which will ramp up costs of delivery even further.
Electric HGVs can cost up to half a million pounds, Gilson said.
She said the HGV technician funding band needs to rise to the maximum level on offer from government of £27,000.
Gilson told FE Week the industry has been on a real “slow burn skills shortage” partly because of the funding fiasco on the three-year apprenticeship.
The sector has gone from having one technician for every 25 vehicles to one for every 32 in recent years, which leads to delays and heightens the prospect of employers cutting corners on maintenance checks to get their vehicles road safe.
“We’ve also got an aging workforce. We desperately need to bring in young people,” Gilson said.
A London group of colleges and schools has rebranded with a name that reflects its “strong civic mission”.
London and South East Education Group, which houses London South East Colleges and London South East Academies Trust, is now known as Elevare Civic Education Group.
Leaders of Elevare, which is Latin for “raise”, said the change “captures our commitment to raising aspirations” and “emphasises our role as an anchor institution”.
London South East Colleges and London South East Academies Trust will retain their identities under the new group, alongside the charity LASER Education Foundation. The names of the group’s eight college campuses and 16 mainstream, special and alternative provision schools will also not change.
The group collectively teaches about 16,000 pupils and learners and employs over 1,600 staff.
Group chief executive Sam Parrett said the rebrand to Elevare Civic Education Group “signals the next stage of our journey”.
“Elevare – meaning to elevate or uplift – captures our commitment to raising aspirations and creating opportunities for learners in our schools and college, and in our wider communities.
“The addition of Civic emphasises our role as an anchor institution. We collaborate with our partners to create lasting social impact, generating community wealth and driving social mobility for all.”
The launch of the new name coincides with the release of a report from the group’s charity, LASER Education Foundation, which analyses insight from over 3,000 school and college learners on growing up in south east London.
The report, Three Thousand Voices: Growing up in South East London, identified groups of learners more likely to experience barriers in education and life. For example, while 82 per cent of young people said they lived with people who make them feel loved, that figure dropped to 54 per cent for looked-after children and 55 per cent for learners who do not identify as male or female.
College learners’ worries about their futures were related to fears of not passing GCSE resits or not achieving the qualifications needed for their chosen careers.
Writing for FE Week, report co-author Vivienne Avery, group director of policy and research at Elevare Civic Education Group, said behind the findings “lies a picture of a generation growing up amid labour-market instability and rising costs of living, trying to make choices in a world that feels unpredictable.”
Skills England should challenge the government over FE funding gaps and “excessive competition and poor alignment” between colleges and universities, a new report has said.
The Association of Colleges (AoC) and Universities UK (UUK) have today published a joint report called Delivering a joined-up post-16 skills system that calls for deeper collaboration between FE and HE. The document highlights opportunities for economic growth and “a more prosperous and fulfilling life” for learners.
Colleges and universities face a “highly marketised” environment, short-term and “disjointed” policy-making, and “funding pressures”, the report said.
AoC and UUK call for Skills England to be empowered to identify barriers and make “recommendations for action”.
The new executive body, which now reports to the Department for Work and Pensions, should highlight coordination issues such as “excessive competition and poor alignment” that drive inefficiencies in the system, according to the report.
It should also highlight financial issues such as when the cost of delivery has failed to keep up with available funding and “challenges” where employers are “impeding demand” from learners due to pay, conditions or progression opportunities.
Not our job, guv
However, it is unclear whether the remit of Skills England allows officials to express strong opinion about competition between colleges and universities, or whether it is able to stand up to the government to whom it answers.
When grilled about funding by MPs on the education committee earlier this year, bosses of the quango said that budget decisions were “up to ministers”.
In an interview with FE Week, the executive agency’s chair, Phil Smith, said he is “slightly neutral” on whether it lacks independence or strength and has not pushed for more powers.
Smith dismissed the idea that “putting more money” into FE will fix its problems, arguing that navigation of educational pathways through careers is a bigger problem.
Much of the solution is marketing, he added.
The goals of the quango are to identify skills gaps in the economy, use this insight to “improve provision”, and ensure people have “clear education and training pathways”.
Since its launch, Skills England has published two reports, covering skills needs in the government’s priority sectors and analysing expected demand over the next five years.
‘We can do more’
The report comes ahead of the government’s post-16 education and skills white paper, which is expected to set out a more “joined up” system that includes unified funding and regulation across both colleges and universities.
David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said colleges and universities have “common and complementary missions” to support people into higher levels of learning and act as “anchor institutions” in their communities.
He added: “Many already work together to help achieve those ambitions, but we believe more can be done to achieve even more.
Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, praised the report’s examples of collaboration that are “already happening”.
This includes Loughborough College’s and Loughborough University’s 30-year partnership over sports-related degree courses, which are delivered by the college and validated by the university.
It also cites London South Bank University Group as a success story, for merging a university, college and academy trust under one “group structure” that provides a “united academic framework” such as level 4 college courses which “guarantee entry” on to the second year of the university’s bachelor’s degree.
AoC and UUK have vowed to “take this challenge on ourselves” by forming a joint group of college and university leaders to demonstrate commitment to “delivering on the prime minister’s ambition” of two-thirds of our children either going to university or taking on a gold standard apprenticeship.
The group will focus on delivery of the white paper’s priorities, identifying opportunities to “deepen alignment” and exploring “stronger partnership working”.
A union which criticised an “unhelpful cottage industry around preparing for inspections” is running its own webinars to help leaders prepare for Ofsted report card visits – at nearly £150 per school or college.
In a policy paper published in 2023, the Association of School and College Leaders called on Ofsted to publish inspector training materials to “dispel myths about what Ofsted wants and reduce the unhelpful cottage industry which has grown up”.
The watchdog now publishes training materials on its Ofsted Academy website, and is running free webinars for the sector on its new report cards, due to be introduced next month.
But ASCL said schools and colleges are still clamouring for more information on how report cards will work, caused by the short timeline between final plans being revealed last month and the restart of inspections in November.
One session will cover “the type of evidence that inspectors will look for to make judgements and will suggest a possible self-evaluation method to aid leaders in their preparation”.
The cost for five sessions is £120 plus VAT per school or organisation.
Three “bonus sessions” covering early years, post-16 provision and further education are also included in ASCL’s webinar series.
ASCL’s Ofsted webinar offer
Ofsted ‘strongly discourages’ paying for prep
When asked about the ASCL webinar, an Ofsted spokesperson said: “We strongly discourage schools spending their limited resources on training materials that purport to prepare them for inspection.
“Ofsted recently hosted a series of free webinars for every different kind of education provider, where we explained first-hand what they can expect from the new approach to inspection.
“Many thousands of education professionals attended, and we are uploading all of the recordings onto our YouTube channel, where they can be watched back any time – for free.”
But Pepe Di’Iasio (pictured), ASCL’s general secretary, said Ofsted’s “determination to rush through the implementation of a significantly changed inspection system has given schools and colleges little time to prepare for a new set of high-stakes hurdles”.
He added: “We have already endeavoured to meet this need by providing information and answering questions about the new framework through our regular communication channels. This is, of course, provided without charge as part of our normal service to our members.
“It is clear that some schools and colleges are seeking a more extensive programme of practical support and as a trusted source of high-quality professional development provision we felt that it was right for us to make that available through our Ofsted webinar series.”
The union charges annual membership fees from £258 for business managers up to £486 for executive heads or CEOs.
Di’Iasio said the “substantial programme” works out at £24 per session and is recorded so it can be shared. “We think this delivers good value and provides a cost-effective option,” he added.
Ofsted has long complained about consultants selling schools and colleges training on inspections.
In a 2018 blog titled ‘The myth of Ofsted consultants: do not buy the snake oil’, former national director for education Sean Harford said the “lucrative industry that sells schools consultation into ‘what Ofsted wants’ and ‘preparation for Ofsted’ seems to thrive”.
“Please, do not hand your silver to these Mystic Megs,” he added.
Under reforms following the death of headteacher Ruth Perry, the Ofsted Academy was set up to publish materials relating to inspector training.
The watchdog said this would “open up Ofsted to those we inspect, and pass on what we know”.
“We will become increasingly transparent about what we do by sharing our training in context and making our processes visible,” Ofsted stated on its website.
Despite this, schools were still contacted by consultants looking to sell training around new report card inspections earlier this year – even before final plans were published.
Speaking to TES about the issue in March, Di’Iasio said this practice was “a sign of just how high-stakes the inspection system is”.
The union said it continued to “call on Ofsted and the government to rethink the five-point grading scale and timetable for implementation as we are deeply concerned about the pressure this places on leaders and their staff with detrimental consequences for their wellbeing”.
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduces new legal responsibilities aimed at improving corporate accountability and fraud prevention in the UK. While originally designed with corporate entities in mind, it has important implications for FE colleges and independent training providers.
Managing fraud risks is nothing new for colleges. Indeed, the College Financial Handbook, the funding rules and accountability agreements all contain obligations on fraud prevention. But this act does create a new layer of obligations and risks which colleges will need to feed into their processes.
Key changes:
‘Senior management’ offence (“SM offence”)
Colleges and ITPs could face criminal liability if a senior manager (such as a principal, finance director or senior leadership team member) commits a specified economic offence (such as false accounting or fraud) whilst acting with the authority of the institution. If this occurs, the college itself could be found guilty of the same offence.
This SM offence applies to all colleges and providers and there is no defence available, meaning everyone needs to be alive to this risk.
‘Failure to prevent fraud’ offence (“FTPF offence”)
This provision, which only came into force this month, means that colleges that meet the definition of a ‘large organisation’ may also be held criminally liable, and receive an unlimited fine, if someone associated with the college or ITP (such as staff, governors, contractors, or agents) commits fraud with the intention of benefitting the provider, even if the provider was unaware of this.
A college or ITP is considered ‘large’ if it meets two of the following three criteria:
It has more than 250 employees.
Its turnover exceeds £36 million.
It has assets greater than £18 million.
If an institution is part of a larger group, note that these thresholds apply to the entire group.
Even if a college or ITP is not classified as ‘large’, the Home Office and the Department of Education (DfE) recommend that all education providers adopt good practice in fraud prevention.
Unlike the SM offence, there is a defence if the institution can demonstrate that it was or was intended to be a victim of fraud, it had reasonable fraud prevention measures in place, or it was not reasonable to expect such prevention procedures to be in place.
How can colleges and ITPs prevent fraud?
Recommended fraud prevention procedures:
Risk assessments: Undertake and regularly review risk assessments. Identify areas of vulnerability, such as procurement, payroll, student funding and sub-contracting arrangements.
Due diligence: Have proportionate and risk-based due diligence procedures in place to vet third-party providers, agents and contractors (especially those involved in financial transactions or student recruitment).
Policies and training: Ensure anti-fraud and whistleblowing policies are up-to-date and clearly communicated, and that staff receive regular training.
Contracting: Make sure that relevant contracts contain clauses to protect the college as far as possible. To take one example, there have been high profile examples of frauds by subcontractors to colleges. So subcontracts should put obligations on subcontractors (ours does).
Anti-fraud culture: Ensure staff are comfortable to speak up about concerns and that reporting channels are clear and accessible.
Governance and oversight: Ensure senior managers understand their responsibilities and that oversight mechanisms are in place.
DfE has issued sector-specific guidance on fraud prevention which outlines common risks and provides useful templates. Colleges and ITPs are encouraged to develop a fraud response plan, use DfE’s fraud indicators checklist and align with cyber security standards to prevent digital fraud. Colleges should review this guidance in detail.
Conclusion
The act marks a significant shift toward greater transparency and accountability and raises the bar in terms of how colleges and ITPs are expected to manage fraud risk.
There have been a number of matters before the Teaching Regulation Agency for example in the past where senior members of the leadership team have been prohibited from teaching due to fraud. If such fraud had been undertaken since the act came into force, there is a real chance that the incorporated body could have faced liability, too.
Whether or not your college or ITP is a ‘large’ organisation, adopting recommended procedures is a proactive step toward safeguarding it’s reputation and finances and protecting against possible criminal liability. Now is the time to review policies and staff training, update internal processes, and seek professional support where necessary to ensure you meet the evolving regulatory requirements.
Our new Three Thousand Voices research, published today, offers a powerful insight into what it is really like to grow up as a young person in south-east London today.
As the largest survey we’ve undertaken across our group’s FE college and schools, we did this work to ensure our learners’ experiences inform and directly shape the priorities of our new charity, the LASER (London and South East Region) Education Foundation.
While we all work hard to understand our different cohorts, some of what our learners told us was unexpected and likely to be reflected across the FE sector.
For example, only 16 per cent of learners we spoke to believe the people running the country listen to their views, and this figure drops to single figures on some vocational courses.
This is sobering given that many college learners are developing the skills the country urgently needs – yet are feeling unheard and invisible in national decision-making.
There were, however, many clear positives in the data. Seventy per cent of learners agreed they had great lecturers who supported them – a powerful reflection of the dedication and care shown by staff every day, which is no doubt mirrored at colleges across the country.
Even among the minority of learners who didn’t agree, their comments reflected not criticism but concern for the pressures their lecturers face, such as staff changes or the difficulty of meeting every learner’s individual needs.
It is clear that young people value their lecturers’ commitment and the personal connection that makes college a place where they feel they belong and can succeed.
Another revealing finding was the link between enjoyment of college and attendance. Those who said they enjoyed college life were also the best attenders.
It is, as ever, a bit of a chicken-and-egg relationship, but reinforces what many practitioners instinctively know: connection and motivation are the foundations of engagement. If we want attendance to improve, we must ensure that learners feel supported and that they are a valued part of their community.
Focus groups with college learners highlighted uncertainty about the future. Young people are worried about career choices and the options open to them, with their fears often tied to the pressure of passing GCSE English and maths resits.
This challenge is reinforced by the requirement for learners to re-take these exams until they achieve at least a grade 4 – which for some is a huge barrier, deeply affecting their confidence and sense of possibility.
Behind these worries lies a picture of a generation growing up amid labour-market instability and rising costs of living, trying to make choices in a world that feels unpredictable.
It highlights the importance of high-quality careers guidance within FE, with mentoring made widely available alongside meaningful employer engagement.
Despite the anxieties, there was optimism too.
When asked what they would prioritise if they were running our new charity, learners overwhelmingly focused on mental health support, activities to make friends and promoting understanding of different identities. They want to explore new places, reduce exam stress and find ways to stay physically healthy while studying.
These are grounded, empathetic priorities. Many also expressed a strong desire to give back – to support their peers, mentor younger students and use their experiences to make a positive difference. In that generosity of spirit lies the true strength of our FE community.
What struck us most was not just what learners said, but how it challenged assumptions.
Their views underline why understanding wellbeing through a local lens is so important.
National data can show the trends, but only by listening directly to our own young people can we grasp the complex realities and then take the right action to make a difference.
The answers are there – in their own words – so now we must act.
I’ve been teaching EFL (English as a Foreign Language) and then ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) for about 20 years. I am Polish and English is my second language, learned as a teenager, and I used to think that this gave me a natural empathy with my learners. But at the start of this year I signed up for a Spanish course, partly to put myself back in their shoes. The experience has been eye-opening.
As a complete beginner, I felt overwhelmed after the very first class. Nothing was familiar. The teacher introduced expressions I couldn’t connect to anything I already knew.
The effort it took just to be able to say ¿Cómo te llamas? the following week truly astonished me. I couldn’t remember new words, and I was grateful that I could at least read Spanish letters, as they resemble the sounds in my native language. My English-speaking classmates had no such advantage.
I thought I already understood the barriers my ESOL learners at WM College face, but I had underestimated them. I also discovered how much small moments matter. When I finally remembered how to introduce myself without hesitation, I felt a tiny spark of pride. I couldn’t understand what the teacher was asking mein front of my classmates and felt self-conscious – key reminders of the emotional rollercoaster many ESOL learners face daily.
The contrast between my situation and my students’ is also striking. I chose to learn Spanish as a hobby. My learners need English to navigate daily life in the UK – booking medical appointments, filling in forms, or even asking for the right bus. I come with study skills, grammar knowledge, and experience of learning other languages. Yet the classes still felt challenging. Many of my learners had only basic education, or none at all. For them, the challenge is even greater.
As a learner, I noticed I thought more slowly, needing time both to gather my thoughts and to express them. I felt helpless and frustrated when I lacked words or grammar. Tasks that seemed simple from the teacher’s perspective could feel overwhelming on the other side of the smartboard. I also observed how different teaching methods – visual aids, repetition, and peer interaction – helped me, and I realised how crucial these are for all learners, particularly in ESOL classrooms.
Experiencing another person’s teaching has revealed my own shortcomings and helped me to improve. I now spend more time revising in class, and I’m more forgiving when learners say they didn’t study at home – I have to juggle it too.
I’m more generous with timing and remind both myself and my students that learning takes time and patience. I’ve always understood the importance of paired speaking exercises or using visual prompts in my teaching but experiencing them as a learner has made me place even greater emphasis on these techniques with my learners.
This experience has also made me reflect on the wider ESOL sector.
FE colleges operate under tight budgets, yet investing in teacher wellbeing and development – even just through free courses – should not be seen as a financial burden, but as a worthwhile investment in better teaching, more engaged learners, and stronger institutions.
ESOL provision faces mounting pressures amid funding cuts and growing demand. Positive sector-wide change cannot happen at the expense of teacher development. Supporting teachers to step back into the classroom, even briefly, is one practical way to achieve this.
Learning Spanish has been enjoyable, but more importantly, it has made me a more empathetic teacher at WM College. Adult colleges such as ours provide ongoing professional development, but I believe every teacher, whatever their subject, should occasionally become a learner again. provide ongoing professional development, but I believe every teacher, whatever their subject, should occasionally become a learner again.
Stepping back into the classroom reminds us just how hard it really is, and how essential patience, resilience, and small victories are for every learner. Becoming a learner again doesn’t just benefit the teacher – it strengthens the classroom community, encourages resilience, and reminds us that learning is a lifelong journey. It’s a perspective every teacher could benefit from, and one that ultimately helps learners thrive.
Since independent training providers were told in May to follow the government’s updated guidance on careers provision from September this year, I’ve spent the past few months connecting with colleagues across the country to see how they’re preparing.
Many colleagues welcomed the clarity. But others worried the benchmarks were still too aligned with schools and colleges. For those of us delivering apprenticeships and other provision in real workplaces, we’ve had to ask how do we make the framework work in practice?
Personal guidance (benchmark eight) is a hot topic. Some are concerned that delivering impartial, structured guidance within a workplace learning model feels like trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. Beneath this sits another challenge: how do we ensure careers education isn’t just a compliance exercise, but something strategic, embedded and owned from the top down?
For me the answer is simple: stop seeing careers as the job of one individual.
In education, distributed leadership is the idea that responsibility for an area doesn’t sit with a single leader or department. Instead, it’s shared across the organisation, with each role contributing to a bigger picture.
For careers, this means that while there is a named ‘careers leader’ (a completely essential role), accountability and ownership run through the whole provider – from the boardroom to delivery staff.
Too often with ITPs, the careers leader is seen as the person who “does Gatsby”. But the new guidance is clear: careers provision must be embedded in strategy, quality processes, and learner outcomes. That can’t happen if one person is left holding the responsibility.
Executive and board-level oversight: Senior leaders, including our CEO, executive team and board members, ensure careers delivery is part of performance discussions and strategy. They are regularly briefed on careers priorities by the director of student services and head of careers, and understand how these link to Ofsted’s education inspection framework (EIF) judgement areas, particularly leadership and management and personal development.
Director of student services: This person ensures careers guidance is integrated within learner support services and personal development strategies. They collaborate across safeguarding, enrichment, mental health and destinations planning.
Head of careers: Leads on strategy, compliance and innovation in careers guidance, ensuring alignment to Gatsby benchmarks, EIF expectations and statutory duties.
Heads of department and regional operations managers: Champion consistency and quality across sites and subject areas. They support the implementation of the careers strategy at delivery level and ensure staff have the tools and time to prioritise meaningful careers integration.
Careers champions: These are nominated staff across academies who act as on-the-ground advocates and conduits for high-quality careers guidance. They localise strategy, drive innovation, and share examples of best practice to motivate and inspire teams.
Delivery teams: Teams are supported to embed careers guidance through training, professional development and high-quality resources. Careers is not a ‘bolt-on’ but is integrated into schemes of work, conversations and learner journeys.
Investing in Edtech development: We’ve significantly invested in the development of several edtech platforms, including CareersPro which records, tracks and enhances independent careers guidance and delivery, and DestinationsPro which captures long-term learner outcomes.
We are one of the largest ITPs in the country but we know ITPs come in all shapes and sizes. We all face the same risk: if careers remains “someone else’s job,” the Gatsby benchmarks will never feel authentic in our sector.
The steps we’ve taken show that distributed leadership isn’t about creating extra layers. It’s about embedding careers in what people already do.
We don’t have all the answers, but we believe that sharing practice is the key to collective progress. We’d love to see more providers, leaders and careers professionals come together to explore how the benchmarks framework can work for ITPs. Because if we keep treating careers as a one-person responsibility, we’ll keep hitting the same walls.
At Learning Curve Group, we’re ready to keep the conversation going. From our CEO to our frontline staff, we’re all in. And we’re inviting the sector to join us.
