AoC refuses to make college pay proposal

The Association of Colleges has taken the unprecedented decision to refuse to make a pay recommendation for college staff unless ministers intervene with more funding.

Chief executive David Hughes said the association could not offer a recommendation to its members for 2023/24 because “colleges simply can’t afford to make a meaningful offer” that would not be “an insult to the hard-working staff”.

Following the start of negotiations between the AoC and five unions this week, Hughes wrote to education secretary Gillian Keegan (full text below) explaining that the “difficult and unusual decision” has been forced upon the membership body due to inflation of 10 per cent and college funding lagging well behind.

Last year, the AoC recommended that colleges give staff a 2.5 per cent pay increase when the unions had been demanding a 10 per cent uplift.

The five unions in the National Joint Forum (NJF) – the University and College Union (UCU), Unison, the National Education Union (NEU), GMB and Unite – have demanded an inflation-busting 15.4 per cent increase for 2023/24 on all pay points.

Hughes said that college leaders wanted to improve staff pay but “without more investment from the government, their hands are tied”.

“That is why we have made the difficult and unusual decision to not share a proposed pay recommendation at this stage in the annual pay negotiations process,” he said.

“This is not because we don’t think staff deserve a pay increase – we do – but because colleges simply can’t afford to make a meaningful offer, and to continue to recommend small percentage pay rises in line with college funding would be an insult to the hard-working college staff.”

The AoC said that the recruitment and retention crisis was growing because sector staff were paid too little, citing the “enormous gap” of around £8,000 between school and college teacher pay.

“That is not fair to college staff and will have a severe impact on the economy, people’s life chances and efforts to reduce inequalities,” Hughes added.

“This is a crisis not just for college staff and leaders, it is a crisis that will hinder delivery of the government’s big promises and priorities. The prime minister’s promise of strong economic growth and overcoming inequalities through T Levels, lifelong learning and apprenticeships is at serious risk.”

Hughes concluded the letter by requesting an urgent meeting with Keegan to “discuss what more can be done to secure the investment colleges need”, ahead of the next NJF meeting on May 11.

The UCU would not comment on the pay negotiations at this stage. In its submission to the AoC last month the union said that sector pay had fallen behind inflation by more than 35 per cent since 2009/10.

Its submission continued: “In recent years staff in FE in England have seen their pay, working conditions and professionalism undermined. The annual cycle of NJF negotiations has not resulted in meaningful and tangible outcomes that benefit staff.

“This year the joint trade unions’ claim seeks change. We want the outcomes of these negotiations to result in a pay rise linked to inflation and meaningful and binding agreements leading to real action to address excessive workloads.”

As well as a new pay offer, the unions want “significant movement” towards “meaningful national agreements to address workload in colleges”. Progress towards a new national contract for FE staff is also among the unions’ asks.

They want a climate change commission to be formed that will look at sustainability, new skills, climate justice and a road map for the sector to become carbon neutral by 2030.

Fresh figures were released this week which indicated that inflation remained above 10 per cent in March – 10.1 per cent according to the consumer price index or 13.5 per cent year-on-year for the retail price index. 

Letter from David Hughes to education secretary Gillian Keegan

Dear Secretary of State

I am writing following a meeting today of the joint negotiating forum between college employers and the college staff unions, where we began negotiations for the AoC pay recommendation to colleges for 2023-24. With inflation still above 10% and college funding rates lagging a long way behind, you will be able to imagine how difficult the meeting was.

College leaders are clear that they want to improve pay but without more investment from the government, their hands are tied. This is now at crisis point, with staff recruitment and retention challenges worse than ever. The impact of that is clear, with colleges unable to fully deliver opportunities for people to gain the skills employers are crying out for because they cannot recruit the people to teach those skills. This is leading to thousands of missed opportunities for young people and adults to get the skills that will help them secure well-paid work and it is holding back economic growth. 

Meanwhile, your government has shown that it is willing to invest new funds to support teacher pay in schools but not to even try to match that for colleges. The already enormous gap between school teacher and college lecturer pay of around £8,000 per annum will continue to grow unless colleges receive more funding. That is not fair to college staff and will have a severe impact on the economy, people’s life chances and efforts to reduce inequalities. 

That is why we made the difficult and unusual decision to not share a proposed pay recommendation at this stage in the annual pay negotiation process. This is not because we don’t think staff deserve a pay increase – we do – but because colleges simply can’t afford to make a meaningful offer, and to continue to recommend small percentage pay rises in line with college funding would be an inadequate response to the cost-of-living crisis facing hard-working college staff. 

This is a crisis not just for college staff and leaders, it is a crisis that will hinder delivery of the government’s big promises and priorities. The PM’s promise of strong economic growth and overcoming inequalities through T Levels, lifelong learning, and apprenticeships is at serious risk. 

The next meeting of our joint forum is in mid-May and I would urgently request a meeting to discuss what more can be done to secure the investment colleges need. An investment in colleges is an investment in students, businesses, local communities and the economic success of the entire country. 

Approval process for future level 2 qualifications unveiled

Awarding organisations have seven months to make their case for retaining funding for level 2 technical qualifications as the government presses ahead with plans to “simplify” the marketplace by axing thousands of courses.

Guidance published on Thursday details the extensive approvals process for the qualifications that will be considered for funding in time for teaching in September 2025. 

In-scope in this approval round are level 2 technical occupational entry and additional specialist qualifications in the following routes: construction and the build environment, education and early years, engineering and manufacturing and health and science. 

The first “cycle” of reformed level 2 qualifications were supposed to be on offer from September 2024, but was delayed by a year by DfE following its consultation last year.

Level 2 technical qualifications in other occupational routes will be considered for teaching from 2026 through the same process with dates being released this autumn. Qualifications at level 1 and below will be reviewed in “cycle two” in time for reformed qualifications to be taught in 2027.

The process announced this week is similar to the one already in place for T Level alternatives at level 3 qualifications. 

Any new or existing qualifications that an awarding body thinks should be publicly funded must pass a number of tests with Ofqual, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and then the Department for Education to make the final list.

As well as proving a qualification is eligible for Ofqual recognition, awarding organisations will be expected to evidence sufficient demand from learners and employers. IfATE guidance advises awarding organisations to gather evidence from labour market information, local skills improvement plans and “direct employer engagement” as part of their applications. 

If Ofqual and IfATE approve a bid, the Department for Education then gets a final say on whether a qualification meets their criteria to receive funding. 

IfATE will only approve level 2 qualifications that “match up to employer-defined occupational standards”. It’s chief executive, Jennifer Coupland, described the new approvals process as “a major step towards a world class, simpler system where employers and learners can be confident in the currency and quality of apprenticeships and technical qualifications at every level.”

But Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB), believes this new approval process adds unnecessary red tape without clear value for learners.

He said: “It’s no secret that FAB does not support this additional layer of bureaucracy in terms of approving individual qualifications, particularly when Ofqual already sufficiently regulates AOs to operate in a publicly funded market. It’s become a huge distraction at a time when what we should all be focused on is plugging the skills and productivity gap.

“The government via IfATE have never really demonstrated how the skills system will deliver better outcomes for learners by introducing such a complex process, other than some technocratic notion that employers must be able to formally endorse these quals via the Institute.”

Awarding organisations that have new or existing qualifications in those subjects that they think should receive public funding can register their interest now ahead of the official window opening on November 13 and closing the following week on November 24. 

Outcomes will be communicated to awarding organisations by the end of July 2024, the DfE has said, and there will be further “procedural review” option until the end of August of an unsuccessful AO thinks an “unreasonable decision” has been made. 

GCSEs and English and maths functional skills qualifications are not in scope for this approval process. 

Ofsted inspectors and senior DfE officials to ballot for strike action

Senior Department for Education staff and Ofsted inspectors will be balloted for strike action over the government’s civil service pay offer.

The FDA union has announced that its executive has approved a national strike ballot over pay for the first time in more than 40 years.

The union represents senior civil servants including in-house Ofsted inspectors and high-ranking officials in government departments and agencies including exams regulator Ofqual.

It is not known how many members the union has in each organisation.

It comes after the government announced in its civil service pay remit guidance that departments could make average pay awards of up to 4.5 per cent and an additional 0.5 per cent for the lowest earners in 2023-24.

The FDA said unlike other public sector workers like school teachers and health staff, civil servants had not been offered a one-off payment for 2022-23.

General secretary Dave Penman said: “In my 23 years at the FDA and 10 years as general secretary, I have never found myself so utterly at a loss as to why the government would want to treat our members and the rest of the civil service in this way.

Government ‘do not value the civil service’

“If this is, as I suspect, a tactical decision to use the civil service to send a message elsewhere then not only is it a flawed one, but once again demonstrates that there are those in government who simply do not value the civil service in the way they do the rest of the public sector.”

He added that there was “now no pretense that the government places any value in constructive dialogue, with no meaningful engagement on the substance of the ‘offer’, despite repeated assurances of an enhanced consultation process.”

Civil servants in the PCS union already voted last year to strike over pay and conditions, and have taken several days of action already this year. They are currently being re-balloted for a renewed mandate.

It comes after all four unions representing school teachers and leaders voted to reject the government’s offer of a £1,000 one-off payment this year and 4.3 per cent rise for most staff in 2023-24.

ASCL, the school and college leaders’ union, will decide this week whether to ballot its members for the first time in its history, while the NAHT will decide next week whether to re-run its ballot, which also missed the 50 per cent turnout threshold needed over the winter.

The National Education Union has timetabled further strikes and will seek a mandate for more action in the autumn term. The NASUWT teaching union will re-ballot members after missing the turnout threshold required last time.

Observation can prioritise quality improvement – but not the way we’re doing it

Evaluating and improving the quality of teaching and learning has always been a key focus of quality assurance in FE. Lesson observation has traditionally been the main method of doing this, but the performance management models of observation that have come to dominate the sector are long past their sell-by date and need to be consigned to the scrapheap.

Not only are current models of observation ineffective in assuring or improving quality, but they are also one of the most ineffective ways an organisation can invest in developing that quality. As the largest research study into observation in the FE sector revealed a decade ago, they are also often responsible for a range of counterproductive consequences that can impact negatively on staff morale, motivation and trust.

Besides, there are a range of research-informed alternatives that have been proven to be effective. Research on teachers’ professional learning has repeatedly reinforced how meaningful and sustainable improvements in teaching and learning are built on trust, honest introspection and personal responsibility. These key factors all underpin the ethos and practice of an alternative model of observation known as unseen observation.

The term ‘unseen observation’ might seem like a contradiction, given that it is a model of observation that does not actually involve the observation of a taught lesson by a third party. The removal of the physical or virtual presence of a third-party observer confronts the longstanding issue of the Hawthorne effect – the fact that subjects alter their behaviour when they know they are being observed.

As a result, unseen observation promises to allow teachers to behave more naturally and authentically. This is particularly pertinent when considering how performance management-driven models of observation can lead to increased levels of inauthenticity in teachers’ practice, especially when observation is used as a form of high-stakes assessment.

Unseen observation is a teacher-centred model of observation where the fundamental work takes place in the pre- and post-session conversations that form the foundation of the unseen observation cycle. The teacher’s recounting and reflection on the taught lesson is what provides the stimulus for the professional dialogue between them and their collaborator, as well as a pre-session meeting between the two in which the proposed session plan is discussed.

Unseen observation shifts the emphasis from a product to a process

Originally designed for face-to-face interactions, one of the many advantages of unseen observation is its flexibility, which makes it perfect for adapting to virtual learning environments.

Unseen observation shifts the traditional emphasis of observation from a product-focused event to a process-driven practice that prioritises deep, meaningful thinking about teaching and learning through collegial conversations and collective reflection. This takes place through detailed conversations about the teacher’s planning, their delivery and analysis of its effectiveness.

By removing the ‘performance’ element traditionally associated with lesson observation, unseen observation allows us to reconceptualise how we think about observation as an educational tool to support teacher improvement. It also puts the control and accountability of the process back into the hands of practitioners, as it is built on the premise that they are the best people to decide their own professional needs and those of their students.

The process is a relatively simple one. The teacher identifies a session and particular area of practice they wish to focus on. They prepare their session plan and resources, sharing them with their collaborator before arranging a meeting.

In this meeting, the pair discuss the rationale for the selected teaching techniques and tasks, the anticipated impact on the students, and explore the teaching and learning philosophies underpinning the teacher’s reasoning before the teacher finalises their session plan. The teacher then delivers the unobserved session, including opportunities for student feedback (in person or online), which can inform subsequent reflections.

After the session, the teacher records a reflective account of the session. The teacher and collaborator meet for a second conversation to discuss its effectiveness in relation to anticipated outcomes. The teacher then writes records forward action points to work on.

Unseen observation provides a credible alternative for moving beyond the confines of the outdated performance-management model. Instead of top-down judgment, it centres on shared expertise, providing a genuine tool for supporting rather than sorting teachers.

How to ensure EDI is more than a box-ticking exercise   

When I began my role as diversity and inclusion officer at London South East Colleges in 2021, my motivation was to support people and ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, race, sexual orientation and other aspects of identity felt accepted and had access to the same opportunities.

My own university experience had opened my mind to diversity. This was where I felt supported to come out as a lesbian and began to recognise the many different experiences that people around me were living.

A truly diverse college brings huge value to people within in and outside it – and my focus was, and remains, on celebrating these differences.

But how to approach this EDI challenge and ensure that everything you do has genuine impact on people’s lives, as opposed to simply meeting targets on paper?

My first priority was to spread awareness among students and staff by introducing a full programme of events and campaigns – but crucially, making it clear that these were not one-off activities.

One of the biggest challenges I faced was people not understanding how seriously I was taking my role. This was simply not about meeting binary objectives such as ‘run two events per term’ (for example); it was about ensuring that every activity was having a direct, positive impact on students, staff and the college as a whole.

For example, to support our calendar of events, we have developed glossaries of various terms to support staff and students with their knowledge and understanding. This has been well received and reinforces our message about the importance of embedding EDI, not just ‘doing’ it.

Long-term commitment is vital to community buy-in


This is also the case with our 10-year grants programme, which offers staff and students the opportunity to run EDI-focused projects themselves. Committing to positive action over a decade again reflects the authenticity of our organisation’s EDI strategy, which is vital if we are to get genuine buy-in from our community. The value of this initiative was rewarded with a WorldSkills EDI heroes award earlier this year.

With my previous role focusing on LBGT (as the first LGBT officer to be appointed at a Premier League football club), my role at LSEC has been far broader. Recognising just how many different groups are affected by EDI is really important, from race and religion right through to neurodiversity and other forms of disability.

To reflect this, we have recruited EDI champions, representing the many minority groups at our college. These champions offer support to others as well as being a voice for those people who may not be confident enough to come forward with issues, concerns or ideas. This again is key to helping us achieve what we do, ensuring everyone can be heard and giving them confidence that we will act on this feedback.

Giving staff and students safe spaces in which to be themselves, as well as providing training and raising awareness is helping us to meet our robust EDI targets and become a far more diverse organisation.

This has included taking positive action within our recruitment strategy to make sure that our staff profile is in line with the demographics of the local community. We also focus on equal opportunities for people wanting to progress within the organisation.

For any other EDI officers who may be starting out on a similar journey, my advice would be to focus on the positive differences you are making and every small win. Don’t be put off by people who don’t realise just how important the role is to you and to the college as a whole.

Also, connecting with external organisations such as Stonewell and Investors in Ethnicity is really valuable. Many offer accreditations provide national targets to work towards and enable you to benchmark your own college’s progress much more effectively.

In addition, we have adopted the Black FE Leadership Group’s 10-point plan into our EDI strategy, which underpins many of our activities, from growing and diversifying our talent pipeline to developing and promoting our staff.   

FE is a fantastically diverse sector and such diversity must be celebrated. I am proud to be working in a role that encourages this and would urge all FE staff to support their EDI teams in achieving this ambition. 

One-year cash settlement for advanced maths premium amid policy changes

A one-year cash boost is to be offered to colleges and providers set to lose £20,000 under changes to a maths premium aimed at encouraging take-up of the subject beyond the age of 16.

Changes to the advanced maths premium baseline being introduced for the 2023/24 academic year will mean some post-16 providers will not secure as much funding as they have in previous years.

But the Education and Skills Funding Agency in its weekly update has confirmed that those institutions that will lose £20,000 or more will be given additional temporary funding for one year only. The top-up will bring the premium funding up to the same amount they have received in the current year’s allocation, 2022/23.

The ESFA said that providers in scope have already been contacted directly, and will receive their amended allocation later in the summer.

The advanced maths premium is paid to colleges, sixth forms and other providers which deliver level 3 maths courses – AS levels, A-levels or core maths – encouraging them to deliver more maths provision.

The Department for Education in January announced its 16 to 19 funding allocations for 2023/24, which confirmed that the baseline average for the advanced maths premium will change.

To date, the baseline has been calculated as an average number of level 3 maths students in the 2015/16 and 2017/18 academic years, with payments made to providers at £600 per student above that figure.

But the baseline going forward will be an average of the 2019/20 and 2020/21 academic years. It means the baseline will be higher because some growth had already been seen in the years between the old baseline and the new, which now leaves some providers below the threshold for premium funding or receiving less than in previous years.

The ESFA announcement said the one-year additional funding is to help providers maintain their levels of advanced maths participation, adding: “This one year of temporary funding is being provided while we look at how best to achieve the government’s ambitious goals for growing participation in maths, including options for funding in 2024 to 2025 and beyond.”

The Sixth Form Colleges Association said the one-year settlement was a “welcome intervention” by the ESFA.

Deputy chief executive James Kewin said: “The advanced maths premium has helped to fund the growth of students studying maths in some of our colleges, and without this change, institutions that have seen the biggest growth in numbers would have seen the biggest reduction in funding.

“That would have been difficult to square with the government’s ambition to boost the number of students that study maths. The next task is to develop a sustainable funding model beyond 2023/24, but this one year fix will buys us some much-needed time.”

In January, the Association of Colleges warned that the funding model was not going where it needed to.

Its analysis found that of the £56.7 million premium paid out in the last four years, 86 per cent had gone to schools and just 14 per cent paid to colleges, despite around 25 per cent of level 3 maths entries coming from colleges.

The analysis found that providers which delivered consistently high numbers of students on level 3 maths courses were not being rewarded as the model rewarded growth from lower starting numbers in the years the baseline figure was based on.

Eddie Playfair, the AoC’s senior policy manager, said a model based on volumes would be a better fit.

Some of the biggest winners in premium funding told FE Week in January that it had actually allowed them to introduce core maths.

On the 2023/24 arrangements, Playfair said: “The change means that some of the unfairness of this type of funding has now been removed as it is not funding past growth several years after it took place. There is still the unfairness of funding growth rather than volumes

“However, I think it’s difficult to double guess how this change will affect provider behaviours in future. I’m not sure that it will make much difference one way or the other.”

Last summer’s exams entry indicated there were more than 89,000 A-level maths entries, while 12,311 core maths entries were recorded in 2022 – the highest number since its inception in 2016.

The ESFA announcement comes just days after the prime minister reaffirmed his plans for maths to be studied up to the age of 18, announcing the creation of an expert advisory group which will report back in the summer to help inform proposals.

ChatGPT: FE institutions need a solid policy to manage the AI revolution

Imagine a world where virtual teaching assistants provide personalised learning experiences for students and administrative tasks are handled with precision and speed by artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

This is no longer a distant dream, thanks to the likes of ChatGPT and others. As this exciting technology becomes an integral part of the education landscape, it’s crucial  that institutions have a comprehensive AI policy in place for staff for four key reasons.

The first is ethical. Picture a maths lecturer using AI to provide instant feedback on a student’s algebraic equations. While this is a great example of how AI can enhance learning, it also raises questions about ensuring its ethical, responsible use in education, not least with regards to privacy, fairness and transparency.

The second reason to have an AI policy is consistency.Having lecturers at the same college using AI tools in vastly different ways might lead to a disjointed learning experience for some students, and disadvantage others outright depending on who they were taught by.

Only a consistent application of AI can ensure that all staff and students benefit from the technology while minimising the risks of misuse, over-dependence and unequal provision.

Which leads us to professional development. It is inevitable that staff will need new knowledge and skills to integrate AI into their teaching practice and administrative duties effectively. Early adopters can be viewed as an asset, a threat, or merely as a novelty, but the reality is that these tools raise the bar for digital literacy across the board.

And finally, of course, institutions must continue to navigate data protection laws like GDPR while using AI. This isn’t just about remaining compliant, but about maintaining the trust of students, staff, and external stakeholders.

Four good reasons to have an AI policy, but what should it include?

Purpose and Scope

Outline the policy’s purpose, highlighting the institution’s commitment to responsible AI usage in a way that engages and excites staff and students alike.

Roles and Responsibilities

Be clear about the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved in using AI. Consider creating an AI ethics committee that includes representatives from different departments, ensuring a diverse range of voices contribute to the responsible implementation of the policy.

Data Protection and Privacy

Offer real-life examples of how the institution will comply with data protection regulations, such as GDPR, in relation to AI usage. This will help staff understand the importance of safeguarding student privacy and handling sensitive information responsibly.

Accessibility and Inclusivity

Showcase how the policy will champion accessibility and inclusivity, ensuring that staff and students with disabilities can access and benefit from AI tools on an equal footing.

Training and Support

Design an engaging training programme to teach staff about the responsible use of ChatGPT etc. and the policy itself.  You could include hands-on workshops, interactive webinars, and develop creative resources to help staff integrate AI into their practice effectively.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Establish a dynamic system for monitoring and evaluating the AI policy’s effectiveness, as well as the impact of AI usage on student outcomes and staff experiences. Encourage staff to contribute feedback, ideas, and suggestions for improvement through various channels, such as ‘town hall’ meetings or online forums. 

Review and Update

Don’t let the policy gather dust! Schedule regular reviews to ensure the AI policy remains relevant and effective in light of emerging AI technologies and educational practices. Adapt and revise the policy as necessary to address new challenges and opportunities in the rapidly evolving world of AI. 

As AI becomes a driving force in shaping the future of FE it’s important that institutions embrace a comprehensive and engaging policy for staff. By addressing ethical concerns, promoting consistent application of AI tools, ensuring legal compliance, and enhancing digital literacy, these policies will pave the way for a new era.

By fostering a culture of inclusivity, accessibility, and ongoing improvement, FE can harness the power of AI to transform the learning experience for both staff and students.

Maths to 18: A policy in search of a strategy  

The prime minister’s reiteration this week of his belief that all young people should study maths to 18 reflects a view that subjects can and should be prioritised according to the return on investment they offer to the Treasury and to their value to young people in securing employment and contributing to the economy. 

A focus on maths education is important, and sixth form colleges – with their specialist expertise and established tradition of excellent results in A Level, core maths and GCSE resits as well as their large populations of students taking maths – are well-placed to support an increase in take-up.  

But it is also important to foster a love of learning for learning’s sake. Maths is already the most popular A level subject, accounting for more than one in ten of all entries. So it’s worth remembering that all disciplines have an important role to play in enriching our society by offering learners a wide range of expertise and skills.

The promotion of maths must therefore be a part of a wider strategy. We also need to develop skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity and communication, and young people need to develop their artistic sensitivities through the arts, their understanding of the world through the lessons of history, and their active role in a democracy through the study of philosophy, law and politics.

So we still need to see more details of the Mr Sunak’s proposal, but a raft of questions already arise, including what measures will be introduced to address the fact that it is already difficult to recruit enough maths teachers.

If maths is to be added to a young person’s timetable, there will be more lessons on the timetable. Will the government commit to fully fund the delivery of additional maths qualifications?

We will have to build capacity first

Of course, maths for all to 18 does not mean that everyone will have to take maths at A level. Some will take core maths (roughly equivalent to half an A level). Others may need to resit their GCSE. If the latter pass at the end of the first year, at 17, what should they study for the final two terms before their A level examinations in other subjects?

Crucially, what kind of maths should be studied by those who aren’t naturally drawn to choosing maths? 

In 2018, Lord Baker advocated two different maths GCSE exams, such as happens in English (language and literature). This would make sense at post-16 too. Those who want to study mathematical theories can choose A level. Those who want to develop their practical numeracy should be able to access a different qualifications focused on the skills they will need in the real world, from basic operations to geometry, and from percentages to basic statistics. 

But if we are to succeed in achieving the prime minister’s ambition of maths for all to 18, we will have to build capacity first. The policy will mean even more demanding targets for the recruitment of maths teachers at the end of a decade when targets have been missed every year. The strategy will have to be properly resourced too: additional maths lessons on the timetable will only add to the cost pressures facing schools and colleges.

Then, once the capacity is there, the realities of delivering the policy will need careful consideration. We will have to establish the course content and the level of the qualifications offered. Employers will have to be engaged, including through the new expert advisory group, so that their needs are fully taken into account. And we will have to protect other disciplines in order to avert the kind of narrowing of the curriculum that followed the introduction of the EBacc and Progress 8, with a drop in the average number of GCSEs (or equivalents) taken by students from 11 to 7.

So there is much to do and to clarify before this proposal can become a reality, but the debate is an important one and sixth form colleges will look to make a valuable contribution.

Abolish Ofsted? We have better things to focus on

Like a punch to the face, the thought of Ofsted is worse than the reality. The recent outpouring of fury about the impact of our high-stakes accountability system is certainly worthy of exploration by the sector and its regulator. But will this moment of challenge lead to a moment of change? I doubt it.

Media commentators and unions are carrying the hopes of the profession by enticing us to imagine a life without Ofsted. But the rallying cry for its dismantling is frankly just noise. If it was sent to the scrap yard tomorrow, we’d have a new Frankenstein agency welded together and released back into the wild by a week on Wednesday.

Just because you want something to happen doesn’t mean it’s going to. And this is never going to happen. Nor should it. No one wants Ofsted to appear at the gates, but that doesn’t mean they are not required to check standards. 

That doesn’t mean regulation can’t be improved, but it’s not all down to Ofsted either.

True, judgments can be devastating. But this isn’t the fault of the judgment. It’s the culture in which the judgment is given and received. To paraphrase Cassius, the fault lies not in our stars, but in our minds.

We educators hand over too much power to the judgment. If governing bodies and communities, leaders and staff collectively had the will, we could take the high-stakes feel away from accountability. Where is our confidence in our evidence beyond the Ofsted criteria? College reputations exist in communities, for whom Ofsted only plays a small and often over-estimated part. 

Having said that, it’s easy to go too far the other way. A principal colleague recently mused that ‘a lion shouldn’t concern itself with the opinion of a sheep’. But as trust in public institutions declines, it is our duty to rebuild it, and this can only happen through mutual respect.

We hand over too much power to the judgment

The problem is that our sector is in perma-crisis. This means Ofsted judgments are increasingly likely to damage institutions through no fault of their own over the coming years. This is unlikely to foster respect for it, which is already at an ebb.

Ofsted will need to work with the sector to figure out how it will handle judgments amid not just chronic underfunding but substantial change. Curriculum reform looms that will displace thousands of young people from technical routes. In this context, how will Ofsted judge curriculum intent? And how will judgment land when providers stop delivering apprenticeships because they don’t pay their way and drag down quality indicators or increase audit risk?

The greatest danger is that the axe repeatedly lands on individual colleges, when it’s actually a system issue. An ongoing data-led, desk-based accountability system is worthy of further exploration. As is a more collegiate approach like peer review, adopted in many systems in Europe (who also have higher standards).

Removing grading isn’t a realistic option. Ask anyone in the street about a school or college and they’ll use their own more informal language to give you a one-word assessment. But there’s no need for the stigma and reputational impact of the current system. A binary system –  good enough and not good enough (yet) – is ample. The reality is that at any given time some providers really aren’t good enough. But ‘outstanding’ is a distraction – a pedestal from which to fall. 

The current inspection framework is well structured and broadly sensible. But it’s unwieldy and more difficult for GFECs, and in my experience Ofsted’s outcomes are variable regardless. Do less, but better, focusing on the professional, considerate dialogue and clear, dispassionate judgments that are the most valuable aspects of inspection.

In reality, amid the many strategic priorities on my desk Ofsted isn’t even in my top 10. I don’t enjoy Ofsted visits, but I don’t enjoy my prostate examination either. Both cause me fairly constant low-level anxiety, I’m fearful of both when the time comes, and ultimately they both leave me feeling a bit violated. But both give me important information about whether I need further help, so I welcome them.

Just not this week. Please.