Ofsted will “think again” if there is sector-wide opposition to its report card plans – including another consultation if necessary, the watchdog’s national director said today.
Lee Owston repeated Sir Martyn Oliver’s commitment that “nothing is set in stone” for reforms to its inspection framework – which are currently being consulted on and are due to be rolled out this November.
The inspectorate intends to replace inspection reports with a new report card system to provide a more “nuanced view” of an FE provider’s strengths and weaknesses through a five-point grading system across up to 20 areas.
But concerns have been raised that the doubling of graded areas will likely lead to more pressure on providers and create a “greater risk of error”.
Speaking at the Apprenticeship and Training Conference 2025 today, Owston said: “Nothing is set in stone yet – so tell us what you think, what you like, what could be better.
“This a real chance to help us shape the future of inspection and as a consequence, the education and life chances of millions of children and learners.
“It needs to work for them, but it also needs to work for you.”
Responding to concerns that there is a short window to make further changes between the consultation end in April and the planned roll out November, the national director said he believes Ofsted has “enough time”.
He added: “Obviously, I can’t answer that 100 per cent until I know what the complete outcome of the consultation looks like.
“I’m not going to do anything reckless or knee-jerk.
“I’ll be listening to what the sentiment is across the full scale of responses and if we need to think again, and that’s something that we will do.
“If we need to go back to another consultation that is something that we’ll do.
“We’ll see where we get to by the by the end of April, and then our plans are that if things can be tweaked and adjusted without going back to consultation, then we’ll launch this in in November.”
However, on Thursday, Ofsted’s director of strategy Rory Gribbell seemed to all but rule out another consultation – contradicting Owston’s comments.
He tweeted: “We’ve consistently said nothing is set in stone, but we have clear plans to introduce changes in November and we don’t expect there to be a further round of consultation.”
‘Not throwing baby out with bath water’
Ofsted’s new report cards will continue to grade FE providers on areas such as leadership and safeguarding, but will introduce new grades for areas such as inclusion, staff wellbeing and workload.
Apprenticeship providers will be graded on curriculum, teaching and training, achievement, and participation and development.
Owston said that the inspectorate will recognise that training providers cannot always improve achievement rates “single handedly” and will try to praise providers who “exceed expectations in spite of any prevailing headwinds”.
The Department for Education and Ofsted are also working together to maintain the “continuity” in its rules over what level of grade providers need to retain their funding contracts.
Owston also pushed back on suggestions that the new report cards had been “cobbled together” amid concerns from Ofsted insiders that were leaked to FE Week sister publication Schools Week in January.
He said: “No, we’re not throwing baby out with the bath water.
“We did a lot of research right at the back beginning of the [education inspection framework] in 2018 and 2019, we’re not we’re not removing all of that great research.
“What we’re doing is building on the best of what we do, but more importantly, listening to you through the Big Listen and events like this to change the bits that need to be even better.
“So it’s building on it, rather than completely replacing it.”
Reforms to apprenticeships, funding and assessment will be top of the agenda at this year’s Apprenticeships and Training Conference. But what do apprentices think? Jessica Hill finds out
No one suffers more from the flaws in our apprenticeship system than apprentices themselves, and no one has a better insight into what upcoming reforms to the system will look like at ground level.
Yet their voices have been absent from much of the policy debate, with Skills England seemingly under no obligation to consult apprentices when deciding on future skills demand.
Emily Rock, chief executive of the Association of Apprentices (AoA) (which advocates for apprentices) believes apprentices are “too often left out of the conversations that impact them the most”.
So, to hear their perspectives on reforms, AoA convened a roundtable of 30 apprentices of various ages, levels and sectors to speak to FE Week.
Their responses were at times surprising, and not all changes were met with approval.
Former apprentice Anna Muller
Flawed functional skills
Ministers presumably announced their plans to ditch the requirement for adult apprentices to take functional skills during National Apprenticeship Week believing it would land well with apprentices.
But that’s not the case. Only 40 per cent of apprentices surveyed by AoA for FE Week thought it was a positive move that will support access to apprenticeships, while 14 per cent opposed the change and 46 per cent had mixed views or were undecided.
As a non-native English speaker, Anna Muller, who last month completed her level five people management apprenticeship, feels “quite lucky” to have been mandated to take functional skills English as it is “absolutely crucial” for her to have “good writing and speaking skills” in her human resources job.
But she also believes much of what she learned in the maths component was unnecessary, and said: “As a people professional, it’s not like I need to know the volume of a cylinder on a daily basis.”
Mansimranjeet Singh, taking a level six digital and technology solutions programme, believes having a grasp of basic maths and English was “vital” for his job as a software engineer when doing his level four apprenticeship at age 19.
He expressed concern about the lack of “information or guidelines” about “how that gap be covered for those fields that do require [functional] skills and knowledge”.
The change comes too late for learners who dropped out of their apprenticeships after failing functional skills.
Although the change only covers adults, many believe the removal of the requirement should be extended to younger apprentices too.
Analysis by software platform Aptem confirms 16 to 18-year-old learners facing a functional skills component are more likely to drop out.
Apprentice Victoria Treibar
It’s data on around 18,000 learners shows in the 2023-24 academic year, 16-18 age level 2 and 3 apprentices with a functional skills need had a non-completion rate of 66 per cent, compared to 45 per cent of learners who had already passed their maths and English GCSEs.
The impact was greater for advanced (level three) apprentices with a functional skills need, with 74 percent withdrawing, compared to 64 percent of intermediate (level two) learners.
Victoria Treiber, 25, who is taking a level three HR support apprenticeship, described how an autistic friend – “one of the most hard-working people I’ve ever met” – became “stressed out no end” by his six attempts to pass a maths qualification to complete a hospitality apprenticeship. “I just feel that shouldn’t have been a barrier for him,” she said.
She believes the reform will “create more of a pathway for those who might not have seen apprenticeships as an option because they were put off by functional skills”.
Kieren Buxton
Unintended consequences
But Kieren Buxton, East of England co-chair of the Apprenticeship Ambassador Network, worries the change will make it even harder for those without GCSE maths and English to get onto apprenticeship programmes.
Buxton, an apprenticeship training manager, finds that training providers who “aren’t very good” at delivering functional skills raise the benchmark to require all apprentices have passed GCSE English and maths, thereby “ruling out” those without the qualifications “before they even get to talk to that employer or trainer provider”.
He believes functional skills should be “built into” apprenticeship standards “linked directly to the role” rather than being a standalone qualification, so that apprentices “appreciate” the value of that learning.
Alexia Williams, who recently completed a level seven through-life engineering apprenticeship, believes the age threshold at which apprentices no longer need to take functional skills should have been raised to 25.
She fears the reform will now incentivise young people to put off their apprenticeship until they hit 19. She said: “If it was [raised to] 25, they’d probably crack on straight after 16 and just get their functional skills done.”
Apprentice Yasmeen Bey
Axing level 7
Skills minister Jacqui Smith has indicated the government intends to axe funding for level 7 apprenticeships, which was an unpopular move among most of the apprentices we spoke to.
The government appears to be hoping employers will fund programmes instead, and there have been suggestions that degree apprenticeships should be funded by apprentices taking student loans, as higher education students do.
But Amy Norton, a level seven senior people professional apprentice who sits on the Disability Apprentice Network, said she and her partner are “looking to try for children”, and as a same-sex couple this “incurs a cost” that would have made the masters in human resources she currently studies unaffordable.
Yasmeen Bey will soon complete her level 6 digital and technology solutions apprenticeship and wants to do a level seven in artificial intelligence. She is concerned that if she paid to do a part-time masters in the subject instead, there would be “no guarantee” of her training time being “protected” by her employer, as is currently the case.
“I’d be trying to balance the masters on the side of my full-time job”, she explained.
Protected time is a “massive benefit” of apprenticeships, according to Rock.
Three-quarters of the over-2,000 apprentices surveyed by AoA last November valued the opportunity their apprenticeship gave them to gain work experience alongside a qualification, which level seven defunding “throws up in the air”.
However, level 7 accountancy apprentice Malachi Swen believes his employer will swallow the cost of his programme without levy funding. Having seen “a lot of companies” use the funding to “send top management to get an MBA” he supports more “regulation about what companies can use their levy funding for”.
Similarly, Alexia Williams was the youngest person on her level 7 course “by at least 10 years”, and most of the others – who were “already in management roles” – “could have afforded to get that training anyway”.
Apprentice Alexia Williams
Creating barriers
The AoA survey also highlighted the role apprenticeships play in promoting social mobility, with 40 per cent of apprentices who received free school meals saying they would not be working in their current industry without access to an apprenticeship.
For school leaver Nawal Bin-Sheikh, the level 7 solicitor apprenticeship has been “transformative” as she “wouldn’t have been able to afford to go to university”.
Taking out a student loan “would have also been very difficult because it goes against my personal beliefs”, she added.
Bin-Sheikh pointed out that many solicitor apprentices are in higher tax brackets by the time they qualify, therefore “contributing back to the economy quite significantly”.
Solicitor apprentice Amaara Latif said level 7 defunding would create “barriers” for those at her firm who were encouraged to take level 3 paralegal apprenticeships in order to progress onto the solicitor apprenticeship.
Reflecting on this challenge, paralegal apprentice Lucy Jackson said the threat of defunding makes her feel “frustrated” that her progression will be “capped”.
It seems the prospect is already impacting some law firms’ staffing decisions. Jackson said many firms in her home city of Newcastle are not hiring solicitor apprentices this year due to concerns over the programme being defunded.
End point assessment reform
Apprentice Nawal Bin-Sheikh
Apprentices are currently assessed by independent end point assessment organisations (EPAOs) and long waits for assessment, often caused by a shortage of assessors, has led to apprentices quitting at that final hurdle.
To address the problem, the government is letting training providers sign off some parts of their apprentices’ assessments themselves, while responsibility for assessing the ‘behaviour’ elements of standards will be transferred to employers.
From next month onwards, Skills England will deliver the changes by reviewing and updating standards.
All the apprentices FE Week spoke to welcomed these changes, particularly those who had suffered long waits themselves.
Although Rock said sector “best practice” dictates that apprentices should be told upon starting their programmes when their end point assessment will be, that was not the case for the apprentices FE Week spoke to.
After completing her level three team leader programme, Norton felt “ready” for her employee assessment but had to wait another three months for it to take place.
She works at a local authority with apprentices who are often “stuck waiting for a significant period of time” for end point assessments – past the point at which their employment contracts are set to end.
End point anxiety
Of the 62 per cent of apprentices surveyed by AoA who reported feeling stressed or anxious in the last 12 months, 38 per cent blamed their turmoil on end point assessments.
Level 3 accounts assistant apprentice Qasim Shah said that “many people fail” the call with an external assessor that his programme demands, “normally because of anxiety”.
He recalled how, during a previous 18-month level four apprenticeship, there was “no way to track your progress or knowledge” until the end of the programme, when “all of a sudden, everything came crashing down.” The sudden “pressure” caused some apprentices to quit.
Solicitor apprentice Charity Lockie had seen some dropouts caused by “confusion” between employers and providers regarding end-point assessments, with communication sometimes lacking between organisations.
Alexia Williams felt her two previous engineering apprenticeships’ end point assessments were “a bit pointless”. But on her current level 7 apprenticeship, the assessment is part of her master’s degree (in through-life engineering systems) dissertation and presentation. Overall, she feels this is “much better” because “you know that once you finish your master’s you also finish your apprenticeship”.
However, she added “quite a lot” of students on her course are having to redo their master’s dissertation because although they passed the academic course, they did not pass all the apprenticeship knowledge, skills and behaviours criteria embedded within it.
Some are “almost” at the point of giving up, she said, because they “can’t be bothered to redo a year-long dissertation just to tick off two more knowledge, skills and behaviours”.
Shorter courses
From August, the minimum length of an apprenticeship will be slashed from 12 to eight months.
The change would have benefitted apprentices like James Kimble, a level three business administration apprentice at a football club who did “very well” in his coursework and managed to complete and evidence 98 per cent of his apprenticeship within the first nine months of his 18-month course.
Norton believes the change will “open up opportunities for current staff wanting to accelerate their career” and also help employers with “succession planning” in being able to train recruits up quicker.
Meanwhile, apprentices voiced concerns that some apprenticeship standards are currently too niche.
Williams spoke of a friend who “really regretted” embarking on a “very specific” level 6 engineering programme as it restricted them to remaining with one team for four years, rather than getting a broader experience of different departments.
Rock said there was “some support in the sector” for the idea of giving employers a “discretionary percentage” – for example, 20 per cent – of a standard that they could “shape”. It could be spent on something “specific, but not so specific that it ruins somebody’s chances of repivoting their career”.
Bey explained that because the cyber security industry is “certification driven”, no one in her team has a “formal qualification in IT or cyber”. She hopes the government’s promise to increase “flexibility” in what the levy will pay for means the certifications she requires will come under its remit in future – at present each exam costs her over £1,000.
Price of failure
Emily Rock of the Association of Apprentices
On the issue of exam costs, Kimble wants the government to fund a bursary for apprentices who currently have to repay the cost of exams if they fail them.
“The wages of some particularly low-level apprentices means it’s not currently financially feasible[for them],” he said.
Swen agrees, having had to pay £170 to resit an exam.
Lockie said the issue of who should pay for exams when apprentices fail them is “hugely contentious” for some apprentices.
Rock also highlights it as being a “real problem”. She said: “I know there’s got to be something that encourages people not to fail, to make an effort, but some of it’s really unreasonable.”
Kimble also thinks an informal interview should be mandated to take place between potential apprentices and providers before they embark on a programme to help them understand “what workload to expect” because “a lot of apprentices don’t know what they’re getting into, and they’re quite overwhelmed with trying to manage the coursework”.
Williams, who sits on IfATE’s apprentice panel, will meet with the two new Skills England chief executives next week in the hope of persuading them to retain the panel which has contributed to national policy meetings.
She wants to see them commit to having at least one apprentice at every policy meeting. “We’re telling them to make sure to use us,” she added.
Recruitment demand in colleges is bouncing back. We have seen a year-on-year increase in the number of roles we are working on across every region of the country. And colleges are placing a huge emphasis on the quality of staffing, ensuring that the educators – who are the foundation of their establishments – are not just meeting the standards of quality but also exceeding them.
Geography determines demand. Inner-city colleges have access to more candidates and therefore more sessional candidates. Rural colleges are more likely to recruit on a permanent basis as they are fishing in a smaller pond and therefore need to offer competitive packages to secure their candidates.
In my experience the strategic approaches that colleges can take to combat staffing issues revolve around these five areas:
1. Ensure dedicated ‘on-site’ recruitment
One of the most effective ways to tackle recruitment challenges is by introducing on-site recruitment solutions. By embedding dedicated recruiters within college teams, this approach offers institutions tailored, hands-on support to streamline recruitment processes. Rather than juggling multiple agencies, a single recruitment partner can provide consistency, efficiency, and expertise, leading to faster fill rates and a better overall candidate experience.
An embedded model ensures that recruitment aligns with the college’s unique needs and values. When recruiters are deeply embedded in an institution’s culture and long-term goals, they can better assess candidate fit, reducing mismatches and lowering turnover.
2. Focus on staff development and career progression
Retention is not just about offering competitive salaries – it’s also about investing in staff development. A key factor in preventing turnover is ensuring that staff feel supported and valued.
Tailored CPD (Continuing Professional Development) opportunities, career progression pathways, and a supportive work environment all contribute to retention. Colleges that invest in their staff’s growth are more likely to foster loyalty and reduce burnout.
Another cost-effective strategy to improve staff retention is the implementation of EAPs. These offer a range of support services, including mental health counselling, financial advice, and stress management resources.
While the upfront costs may be modest, the long-term benefits are substantial. By improving employee wellbeing, colleges can enhance morale, reduce absenteeism, and increase retention rates.
4. Use data-driven hiring
The use of AI and data-driven recruitment platforms can significantly improve hiring accuracy and reduce costs. By leveraging data to assess candidates’ suitability based on a range of factors – skills, experience, and cultural fit – colleges can make smarter, more informed hiring decisions. This approach reduces the chances of hiring mismatches, lowering turnover and the associated financial costs.
5. Collaborate with industry
Finally, forming partnerships with local businesses and industry leaders can help colleges build robust talent pipelines. By working together to create apprenticeships, shared teaching roles, and other collaborative initiatives, colleges can expand their recruitment base while reducing costs.
By adopting these strategies, colleges can create a workforce equipped to meet the evolving needs of students and institutions alike.
Since its inception in 2017 end-point assessment has helped reengineer and strengthen the apprenticeship brand.
The employers and providers that work alongside TQUK and SIAS strongly agree that end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) have introduced critical independence, credibility and rigour.
Employers have welcomed this confirmation of occupational competency, and we see this acutely in our work supporting critical sectors like care services and early years development and highly technical and hazardous STEM environments.
Deep dive needed
However, almost eight years on and with the market continuing to mature, it’s time to take stock – not just of EPA, but the entire apprenticeship programme! A deep dive reflection will allow the industry to acknowledge what’s worked well, learn from challenges overcome, and explore those that still need resolving. We have a highly successful foundation – now’s the time to evolve it!
DfE’s new principles-based approach represents an opportunity to do that. At its core, the model can help increase flexibility, diminish complexity and promote proportionate assessments and costs. These are goals the entire sector can get behind. If delivered correctly, it can enable assessment plan development that makes sense for individual occupations.
But to provide credibility for any truly fit-for-purpose apprenticeship offer, there must also be a non-negotiable commitment to independence, rigour and quality, and a collaborative and measured process that avoids destabilising the sector and creating long-lasting damage.
The change shouldn’t be embraced without question. There are already signs that the rush to reform is coming at the cost of careful consideration, felt most clearly in the announcements themselves. Communications lacked context, detail and clarity, allowing snippets to become headlines and speculation to become an unfavoured reality.
Whilst there is a desire to delve into questions about practical application, we need to go back a step and ask again: what’s the extent of the problem and what does success look like?
Questions needing answers
If we break this down and consider that cost, complexity, consistency, capacity and completion are key drivers we’d arrive at questions such as:
How do we reduce costs, rather than simply moving cost around the system or worse increasing costs?
How do we fully immerse EPAO expertise in assessment design, with assessment plans driving affordability and increasing deliverability rather than restrictive policy-led assessment methods?
How do we make best use of assessment evidence, including that generated on-programme, to aid access to timely assessment that sufficiently tests competency whilst maintaining independent sign-off of occupational readiness?
How do we find best value through flexibilities and better use of technology to creatively explore competency assessment?
How do we achieve our goals at a supportive pace without creating the chaos and distraction that goes hand-in-hand with poorly-considered timeframes?
How do we ensure the drivers for change are centred around sustainability and quality, and not just short-term goals to drive up completion rates?
Sector-by-sector approach
Transparency about intended outcomes can help answer these questions, but there must also be genuine consultation involving all stakeholders and the provision of sufficient collaboration time to create a sustainable model that’s replicable across the 700-plus standards in existence – and future standards.
This should begin with stakeholders selecting and piloting the reforms on a small group of hand-picked standards. Doing so would help produce worked examples that could help dispel myths, combat fear and show clearly how high-level principles could work in practice – and how some principles won’t fit all standards.
Indeed, we’d welcome a sector-by-sector approach based on agreed priority factors and underpinned by a clear road map that minimises disruption by assessing impact to apprentices, employers, providers and EPAOs, whilst being considerate of wider reform.
Ultimately, this collaborative approach would provide a proof of concept to inform a clearer principles-driven framework that offers flexibility, but also the much-needed guardrails to protect independence, rigour and quality, and truly achievable success measures.
This is a major moment for apprenticeships and represents the best-ever opportunity for EPAOs to bring their expertise together to create meaningful change. Let’s work together to provide the space for innovation and opportunity for return on investment that these reforms are designed to achieve.
At Basingstoke College of Technology (BCoT), we’ve always believed in harnessing technology for good. We were among the first colleges to give every student access to AI tools like Gemini, and over 1,000 learners have completed our AI @ BCoT module, earning their ‘driver’s licence’ for AI literacy. But over the decade I’ve led on digital, our approach has become increasingly sceptical, deliberate and intentional. Technology should enhance learning, not fragment attention.
So, from September 2024, we made mobile phones ‘no by default’ in classrooms.
Unless their use is part of a planned learning activity, they stay out of reach.
Why We Made This Change
The documentary The Social Dilemma (2020) was pivotal. I’d spent years embracing digital tools, integrating Snapchat into lessons and live-streaming debates with students in the US. But the documentary forced me to confront the reality: these platforms are engineered to extract attention, not nurture deep engagement.
In 2021, we conducted research into our students’ phone habits. They spent on average 5.7 hours a day on their phones—equivalent to 13.8 years of their life. The cognitive cost of distraction was evident in lesson observations. US research showed us that students unlock their phones for non-classroom use 11.7 times per lesson, and that it takes 23 minutes to regain focus after each distraction. In a single lesson, we ourselves observed students could be spending more time recovering from interruptions than actively engaging in learning.
Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation (2024) further cemented our concerns. His research on young people shows us how constant digital stimulation contributes to anxiety, attention fragmentation, and a decline in real-world social skills. What we often call disengagement is, in many cases, technology-driven hyperstimulation.
Our students weren’t just distracted—they were becoming dependent. One learner confided that he spent hours every day on explicit sites and video games, struggling to disengage. His story, along with the overwhelming research, made it clear: we needed decisive action.
‘No by default’
We implemented a simple but firm policy that mobiles can only be used if a teacher has deliberately planned their use – for example for capturing photos of work, recording audio and transcripts, or video evidence of an activity.
Lockers were installed in every classroom to store phones securely, removing the temptation to check notifications mid-lesson.
Staff are susceptible to the constant temptations and distractions devices create too, and lead by example by placing their phones in lockers or out of sight.
Our principal, Anthony Bravo, personally addressed every student to ensure clarity in the first week.
The Impact: A Culture Shift
The transition wasn’t easy. Suspensions spiked in the first two weeks as students adjusted. But over time, the impact has been interesting:
✅ Improved focus and engagement – Without constant notifications, students report feeling more present in lessons.
✅ Fewer behavioural issues – A marked drop in classroom disruptions and disciplinary actions.
✅ A more intentional relationship with technology – Phones are now a tool for learning directed by teachers, not a default distraction.
Interestingly, some students admitted feeling relieved. “It’s actually quite nice,” one said. “I don’t have to keep up with messages and streaks all the time.”
Lessons for other collegesconsidering a similar approach:
Frame the change as intentional, not punitive – This isn’t about banning tech; it’s about balance.
Communicate with clarity and consistency – Management, staff and students need to understand why this matters. Remind students every lesson – we have it on their computers when they log on.
Expect resistance—but stay the course through the first term. Long-term benefits outweigh the initial pushback.
The challenges we all face in the attention economy are not just about setting guardrails for our students, but about trying to model healthy habits.
The truth is I really struggle to manage the overwhelming and profound distraction every day, so I am now a 42-year-old man on an information diet.
Even though I’m lucky enough to love my job, I still need boundaries to maintain a healthy relationship with technology – without them I slip. It’s a constant battle. And when I see drivers at junctions glancing at their phones and parents in restaurants with their eyes glued to screens, I know I’m not the only one struggling to stay present.
We can’t change the attention economy overnight, but we can start by reclaiming our classrooms as spaces for deep focus, meaningful engagement, intentional use of technology, and real human connection.
More cash will be poured into a scheme for the unemployed despite doubts about its effectiveness at getting people into work.
Run by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Sector-based Work Academy Programme (SWAPs) aims to get people off benefits by combining training and work experience with an employer, followed by a job interview.
It is the first time in five years the DWP has published a financial evaluation of the impact of the scheme, first launched in the 2010s and ramped up in 2020.
The internal DWP evaluation calculated that after taking part, participants earned £1,400 more than if they had remained on universal credit, working 90 days more and saving the taxpayer about £360.
SWAPs appeared to have the largest impact on older people and those on benefits for 13 to 24 months.
A cost-benefit analysis concluded the programme makes a return of £1.83 for every pound spent after two years, and that for society it makes a return of £5.66 on every pound spent.
Experts say the scheme is a necessary attempt at raising employment and lowering inactivity rates, but questioned whether the data suggests the scheme is a success.
‘An incomplete picture’
Imran Tahir, an economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, commended the DWP for publishing evidence on SWAP’s impact that “allows us to make more informed policy decisions.”
However, he said that while the research finds a positive impact on employment it also has “important limitations,” such as finding out what kind of jobs people are moving into.
Tahir added: “The jobs may be insecure and low-paid – this isn’t taken into account in the evaluation.
“In this sense, the report is an incomplete picture of the impact of SWAPs on employment outcomes.”
Between April 2021 and December 2024, about 350,000 people started SWAPs, with DWP statistics suggesting about two-thirds of starters completed their course.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said SWAPs is a “successful programme” as the courses “increase the time people are in work and make a positive contribution to both the exchequer and society.”
Expanded scheme
The Labour government has decided to expand its targets for participation on the scheme from 80,000 people a year to 100,000, employment minister Alison McGovern announced last week.
This will include the rollout of a UKHospitality-led SWAP to “offer new opportunities in some of the country’s most deprived communities,” including 26 new areas and 13 coastal towns.
McGovern said: “The evidence is clear – SWAPs boost your earnings and keep you in your job for longer.
“That is why we are promising to deliver more of them than ever, as we Get Britain Working as part of our Plan for Change.”
The clear evidence?
The DWP’s evaluation methodology, known as “propensity-score matching,” compared people who did a SWAP with a larger group on universal credit with similar characteristics such as age, gender, household type, employment history and disabilities.
This allowed researchers to “estimate the counterfactual” of what would have happened if participants did not take part.
But this approach, the evaluation admits, does not take account of “unobservable” factors such as whether participants already wanted to move into work.
Despite this, Tahir said the positive impacts of SWAPs are encouraging, given the difficulty governments have in moving people on benefits into long-term employment.
‘Hardly a success’
Professor Alan Smithers, of the Centre for Education and Employment Research, said: “SWAP has certainly been something worth attempting to increase the unemployed’s chances of work.”
“But it can hardly be claimed to be a success when the Government’s evaluation shows it makes little difference to 87 per cent of those taking part.”
“The fundamental problem this government faces, as did those that went before, is how to better integrate education, training and employment, so that so many don’t fall by the wayside.”
A qualitative analysis of 93 interviews and focus group sessions in late 2022 found that while many participants tended to be “positive” about the programme, many doubted whether it was “useful.”
The research suggested that some participants were disappointed about a lack of work placements or job interviews and most were surprised to find the programme took “two weeks or less.”
The recent evaluation estimates that SWAPs in 2021-22 cost an average of £752 per person, with funding split between the DWP which leads on the scheme and the DfE, which funds the pre-employment training element from adult education budgets.
At this rate, 350,000 starts could have cost both departments up to £263 million.
Apprenticeships are frequently cited as being good for social mobility, but it’s not clear what this really means. If it’s relative social mobility, which compares the chances of people from different social backgrounds reaching a specific outcome (such as getting a degree or securing a ‘professional’ or ‘managerial’ job), it’s difficult to tell.
The Social Mobility Commission argues that absolute mobility carries greater importance. This refers to the proportion of people who have experienced social mobility in some form (e.g. being in a higher occupation level than their parents). This is enabled by change in the occupational structure – a greater number of higher skilled jobs means more people can “move up”. And if measured by income, it means living standards increasing from one generation to another.
There’s still an absence of systematic evidence but it seems that apprenticeships have a significant role in improving this kind of social mobility. It’s not so much about comparing who (from which socio-economic background), gets onto what programmes but about the way apprenticeships support growth to bring wider benefits in terms of improved jobs and higher pay. In this way apprenticeships can help create a rising tide, which lifts all boats.
Our apprenticeship strategy, however, appears to have persistent difficulties, with ambitious targets being repeatedly missed. A three million apprenticeships target, set between 2015 and 2020, fell short by almost 1 million. With drop-out rates much higher than those in the education sector, there’s an ongoing debate over standards and the definition of an apprenticeship.
The apprenticeship levy is criticised for underspending and not serving the needs of SMEs, while employers leading in the current system spend their levy allocations in ways that make policy commentators wince. Degree apprenticeships, upskilling their existing (older) workforce, has often taken priority over younger people starting their careers, especially those with lower qualifications and more deprived social backgrounds.
Some solutions appear to help, but may hinder social mobility. The government is looking to defund level seven apprenticeship programmes to reallocate resources to disadvantaged young people much earlier on in their careers, which may appear to support social mobility. But it could impact growth, which would undermine social mobility in other ways. Similarly, the commitment to expand the volume of apprenticeships by 10,000 has to be welcomed because it will bring a greater number of skilled opportunities, but the decision to shorten the length of the apprenticeship is less welcome because it re-opens issues around quality and brand integrity.
The decision to relax the requirement for English and maths for adult apprentices could be seen as opening opportunity (why make them compulsory if they can be occupationally competent without them), or closing it (not having English and maths prevents them from progressing later on) – but it could have unforeseen implications. What if 16 -18 year olds realise that they can avoid English and maths if they wait until 19 to start their apprenticeship? And of even greater concern, are the wider social and economic implications.
As the Learning and Work Institute chief executive Stephen Evans explained, this is not a good time to reduce the English and maths requirements of any educational programmes because of our national problem with low literacy and numeracy. The OECD shows that while there has been some improvement for young people, the situation for adults has deteriorated across some measures. From this perspective the new policy is a retrograde step. From a social mobility perspective, it’s a terrible mistake. Those adults are not just training for work but for life, and parents with low literacy and numeracy are highly likely to produce children with similar challenges.
When we questioned our college’s 2025 intake on social mobility issues, the data showed strong correlations between family circumstances, areas of residence, parental qualifications and levels at which students are studying. This accords with wider evidence about the inter-generational dimension of low qualifications, low literacy and low numeracy.
The Social Mobility Commission is calling for policy to refocus on the “truly disadvantaged”. In an economy driven by knowledge, and a society where status is closely associated with educational attainment, literacy and numeracy have to be priorities for investment. For a government committed to extending opportunity for all, the commitment should be for more English and maths in post-16 learning, properly resourced and funded and taught by experts paid accordingly.
Colleges are on the frontline of a growing youth mental health emergency. Recent NHS data reveals record numbers of children and young people across England needing specialist treatment for severe mental health crises, but this escalating need is outpacing the painfully slow rollout of mental health support in both schools and colleges.
NHS data analysed by YoungMinds shows a concerning 10 per cent rise in emergency, very urgent and urgent referrals for under-18s, with the total increasing to 34,793 between April and October 2024. This is up from 31,749 in the same period the previous year.
While the government has a target to reach 50 per cent of school and college learners by March 2025, no spending has been allocated to guarantee the rollout will continue beyond that.
Labour pledged to provide access to mental health professionals in every school in its manifesto, but disappointingly we’ve seen no concrete details on how or when this will be achieved.
But we know the quality of support is just as crucial as reach. Schools and colleges must have access to professionals who are equipped with the skills and knowledge to support the young people who need them most.
FE remains the lowest sector to take up a £1,200 grant to fund the training of a senior mental health lead. Sixty per cent of colleges completed their grant application as of March 31 2024, compared to 81 per cent in schools.
Even where MHSTs are in place, they are only trained to support young people with “mild-to moderate” mental health issues. An early evaluation of the programme found that schools desperately needed more support than MHSTs could offer, especially for young people with more complex needs.
The next stage of the rollout must ensure that no young person falls through the gap between school and college-based support and the high thresholds for accessing NHS services.
But tackling this crisis will require deeper reforms to address the root causes of poor mental health.
Growing up today is incredibly tough, with young people experiencing multiple pressures, including poverty, inequality, climate emergency and around the clock social media. Having lived through the COVID-19 lockdowns and now confronting an uncertain future, it’s no wonder so many are struggling.
The emphasis on meeting rigid attainment targets has made it increasingly difficult for schools and colleges to prioritise wellbeing.
Deeper reforms needed
Young people tell us they want to re-imagine the education system to move beyond a narrow focus on academic achievement. They want an education shaped by their own voices, one that prioritizes care, support and community. They feel that the endless hours of revising for high stakes, closed-book exams does little to equip them with the skills needed to excel in their future careers and adult life.
FE colleges already play a crucial role in opening different pathways to meet young people’s ambitions. But reforms are still needed to ensure young people can begin developing vocational and creative skills at an earlier age.
With the independent curriculum and assessment review underway, we have a real opportunity to make wellbeing a priority, and ensure young people feel fully prepared for life beyond college. YoungMinds will be working closely with young people, school and college professionals and the wider sector to make this vision a reality.
A former apprenticeship training provider boss has avoided a second director disqualification after arguing almost £1 million in erroneous funding claims were submitted without his knowledge.
Carl Roderick, who was banned and jailed in 2012 due to fraudulent mobile phone insurance trading, faced another case brought by the Insolvency Service after Insight Development and Consultancy, which traded as Levytate or Levytate Skills, went bust in October 2019.
In a High Court ruling last month, a judge dismissed the Insolvency Service’s bid to disqualify Roderick, who was the former managing director and co-owner of the apprenticeship provider.
The Insolvency Service, backed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), alleged Roderick was “unfit” to direct a company after Levytate submitted “inaccurate and unsupported” apprenticeship funding claims totalling £956,946 between April 2018 and May 2019.
An insolvency and companies court judge dismissed the case after finding that “primary responsibility” for submitting claims was “delegated” to his delivery manager, Christine Barton.
Barton has since claimed she was not approached to give evidence by the Insolvency Service ahead of the hearing and alleged the ruling contains “inaccuracies” about her role.
‘Not a details man’
In his evidence, Roderick – who was disqualified from being a director for three years in 2012 – said he was “not a details man” and suffered from “medical difficulties” including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which made it hard to manage operations.
Judge Mark Mullen concluded that while there were “undoubtedly errors” in claims that resulted in a net loss of £447,934 to the ESFA, he could not “infer” misconduct by Roderick on the evidence before him.
He added the Insolvency Service’s arguments that Roderick should have “liaised further” with staff to prevent errors came “nowhere near” convincing him.
Concluding his judgment, the judge said the claimants “failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, either misconduct on the part of Mr Roderick or, in any event, that he is unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.”
Judge Mullen added that the Insolvency Service’s investigation “inadequately” considered how responsibilities were divided between managers and “whether there were deficiencies in the supervision of Ms Barton and her team.”
What happened?
In February 2019, an ESFA funding review of apprenticeship claims Levytate made for 2017-18 and 2018-19 alleged a lack of evidence of apprentices’ start or end dates, issues with learning evidence, incorrectly calculated hours, and individual learner records “inconsistencies.”
Combined with audits later that year, the ESFA arrived at £956,946 in over-claimed funding, with £447,934 remaining owed.
It terminated Insight’s funding agreement in August 2019, resulting in the company entering liquidation that October.
The Insolvency Service didn’t file it’s director disqualification claim against Roderick until October 2022, alleging his conduct at Insight made him “unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.”
It tried to argue Roderick “cannot escape personal responsibility” for funding claims as the ESFA account was linked to his email address and payments were made into an account controlled by Debann Limited, a company he had sole control over.
The service also claimed Insight’s insolvency “could have been avoided” with “appropriate controls,” and there had been “significant harm to public finances” due to the irrecoverable £447,934.
Those arguments failed to convince the judge, who concluded that operations director Barton held “principal responsibility” for ensuring the accuracy of funding claims, not Roderick.
Barton’s denial
Barton adamantly denied having any role in claims made by Levytate when contacted for comment by FE Week.
She said: “I categorically refute the inaccuracies contained within the court papers.”
“Neither I nor any other individuals named in the documents, except for Mr Roderick, held operational responsibility for the day-to-day running of the business.”
“Any suggestion to the contrary is entirely false and misrepresentative of the facts.”
Her junior, “director of performance” Gemma Beech, also called the judge’s understanding of events “factually untrue” and denied ever working on ESFA claims.
Both Barton and Beech claimed the Insolvency Service failed to contact them for a statement ahead of the disqualification trial.
A spokesperson for the Insolvency Service refused to confirm whether or not Barton or Beech were contacted to give evidence about Roderick, claiming that this could impact future proceedings such as an appeal.
The ESFA, which investigated Levytate’s claims and provided the Insolvency Service with evidence, said: “We do not comment on individual cases.”
Roderick declined to comment.
Who is Carl Roderick?
Roderick, 50, has run a series of businesses over the last decade, including in education and e-sports – with several entering liquidation.
He first hit the headlines in 2012 after he was jailed for 33 months alongside his two brothers and banned from being a company director for three years for selling fraudulent insurance policies, according to a Birmingham Live article which was confirmed by Roderick.
The businessman resigned as a director of training provider AMS Nationwide, where Barton was also a director, a year before it shut its doors after having its ESFA funding terminated in 2018.
In early 2018, Roderick purchased Levytate.
A year later, the ESFA said it “had no record” of a change of ownership of the company, which is required by the apprenticeship funding rules.
After Levytate collapsed due to the ESFA’s investigation and contract termination in 2019, he founded e-sports company Adamo Gaming in 2021, which reportedly employed more than 30 people through the government-funded Kickstarter scheme.
When Levytate went bust, Roderick continued to own the holding company of Levytate, called Insight Development (Holdings) Ltd, and another e-sports company now known as Tenstar, which entered insolvency last August.
