DfE ditches draft apprenticeship funding rules

The Department for Education will not publish a draft version of apprenticeship funding rules this year.

Officials said today that they will release the 2025-26 rules for the first time in May instead of in March.

This approach “allows us to incorporate the latest policy developments before publication”, an update from the DfE said.

During the March to May period, the department will “engage with the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), the Association of Colleges (AoC) and our expert providers to ensure the rules are as clear as possible”.

Funding and data expert Steve Hewitt said he was “very disappointed with DfE for taking this decision”. 

“Over the years those in the front line of delivering apprenticeships have made vital contributions to improve the clarity of rules presented in draft versions,” he told FE Week.

“My concern is that a smaller ‘focus group’ won’t catch all of the ramifications of changes proposed to the detriment of the whole sector.”

Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “There are lots of moving parts in the apprenticeship system, including important reforms that require legislative change. Understandably, this will mean a shift from the timetable we’ve become used to in recent years for the publication of funding rules.

“The DfE has given the sector an early steer on the areas in scope for change, which will help manage expectations and lay the groundwork for the new rules. We look forward to continuing our work with the department to help turn policy into practice.”

Ashworth added that it is important the rules are published as soon as possible as there “needs to be ample lead time so providers and suppliers can be hit the ground running and be compliant at the start of August”.

The DfE said today that changes for 2025-26 will focus on “several priority areas”, including “operational developments” such as finalising the implementation of new foundation apprenticeships and off-the-job policy.

The rules will introduce updates across: 

•               “active learning policy, with adjustments to support more flexible delivery models and maintain learner engagement

•               “prisoner apprenticeships, clarifying processes and eligibility to expand apprenticeship access for prisoners

•               “changes to end-point assessment (EPA), implementing modifications following announcements made during National Apprenticeship Week

•               “eligibility criteria, updating eligibility guidelines to ensure greater clarity and consistency

•               “English and maths clarifications, providing further guidance on English and maths requirements to support all apprentices”

Apprenticeships starting after August 1, 2025 will follow the new rules.

Spring statement 2025: What the chancellor announced for FE

The chancellor has confirmed a £625 million construction skills package that it hopes will “boost” training with up to 60,000 new workers in the next four years.

Rachel Reeves also endorsed £4.8 billion in welfare budget cuts, which the government hopes will push more young people into work and training, and a target of 15 per cent savings to department administrative budgets.

The spring statement published after the speech offered more detail on how the construction skills funding will be spent, but the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has raised concerns about “significant pressures” on unprotected budgets, which include FE.

Reeves said the new measures will give working people “new opportunities” and “the chance to fulfil their potential”.

Commenting on the cuts to benefits, which will remove the right to universal credit health top ups for under 22-year-olds, she added: “If we do nothing we are writing off an entire generation.

“That cannot be right, it is a waste of their futures, and we will change that.”

Here’s a rundown of what impacts further education:

10,000 foundation apprentices

The statement set a target of 10,000 “additional places” on foundation apprentices for the first time, funded by £40 million, to give young people a “high-quality entry route into a new career”.

According to announcements this weekend, the £40 million will reportedly fund £2,000 incentives for employers who “take on and retain” foundation apprentices. The cash incentives were however absent from today’s spring statement.

10 Technical Excellence Colleges

The technical excellence college initiative confirmed at the weekend, funded by £100 million in “new investment”, will mean ten existing colleges “in every region in England” will be “specialised in construction”.

Around £80 million of this will be for capital investment and the remaining £20 million for revenue, to fund “specialist facilities, equipment, and curriculum for construction courses to directly meet industry needs”.

Details remain limited about a new separate £80 million capital fund “to support employers to deliver bespoke training tailored to their needs”.

35,000 more bootcampers

Up to 35,000 new entrants, “returners” and existing workers will be able to access “construction-focused” skills bootcamps, through about £100 million in funding.

The government is yet to confirm who will oversee commissioning the newly announced funding for construction bootcamps amid the Department for Education’s move to pause national commissioning of bootcamps, instead funding the short courses through ring-fenced grants to mayors and local authorities.

£165m for ‘more construction courses’

About £165 million will also be available to colleges and training providers through a “high value course premium” and free courses for jobs.

The Treasury told FE Week this is “additional” funding that has been “scored at the spring statement”, but a course premium for subject areas including construction is already established policy.

Skills policy expert Tom Bewick said: “Note how [the Treasury] refuses to say whether this is additional investment… instead saying: ‘This is new funding being scored at spring statement’.

“Bureaucratic translation: ‘This is money we’ve recycled within our existing budgets, but Treasury requires an eye-catching announcement for the Spring Statement’.

“We’ll only know for sure when the [spending review] is published in the autumn. That zero-based budgeting exercise will show what different political choices they’ve made.

“But given the fact that real terms day to day spending in non-protected areas is set to fall over the Parliament, I can’t see how this is anything other than Austerity 2.0 for the FE sector.”

Industry exchange to teach in FE

The Treasury also announced plans for a ‘teacher industry exchange’ scheme to “attract experts” to teach in FE.

This appears similar to the ‘workforce industry exchange programme’ announced in the skills for jobs white paper in 2021, which promised to “support providers to engage in a sustainable, two-way exchange with industry”.

FE Week has approached the Department for Education for comment.

DfE budget rise but braced for civil service cuts

The Department for Education’s budget will increase by £4.9 billion from £89.2 billion in 2024-25 to £94.1 billion in 2025-26.

This includes an increase of £1.7 billion in non core-school funding, which will rise from £27.6 billion to £29.3 billion next year, although it is unclear what proportion of this is for 16-19 or adult education budgets.

The DfE is likely to be impacted by a target of reducing its administrative budget by 15 per cent, funded by a £150 million exit payment scheme and cutting-edge “AI exemplars” that will make government operations “more efficient and effective”.

Concern for unprotected budgets

According to the OBR’s forecast of Treasury’s spending, “unprotected” departments will face “significant pressures” in coming years, with day-to-day budgets cut by 0.8 per cent per year in real terms from 2026-27.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, pointed out that this could mean “another £200 million” in cuts to adult education and skills by the end of the decade.

He added: “We’ll see in the spending review whether this is genuinely extra money, or robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

Benefits savings

Reeves confirmed that the benefits cuts will save £4.8 billion, with £1 billion reinvested into “guaranteed personalised employment support” and £400 million for Jobcentres.

But the OBR said the government shared its analysis of savings to be made from the reforms “very late”, which “hampered” their ability to add these measures to their forecast.

Qualification challenges threaten government’s housing mission

The government’s extremely ambitious house building targets are creating a debate around whether we have the construction workforce to actually deliver 1.5 million homes over the next five years. At the minute the industry has sufficient capacity to build the 200,000 homes a year it is currently delivering. But if the government can create an environment where around 300,000 homes could be built each year, the industry would have to recruit and train tens of thousands of new people across a range of trades. That is a big ‘if’, even with the new funding announced over the weekend.  There are other considerable barriers to increasing supply; while the planning policy changes the government has made are very welcome, there are other market and regulatory costs and delays in the planning process they need to tackle before ‘skills’ even comes into play.

However, the intent is clearly there and regardless of the debate around housing policy, it is key that we put in place the building blocks to enable us to effectively train the workforce of tomorrow.

One vital area that needs to be tackled is vocational qualifications. Currently just 25 per cent of those on FE construction courses go directly to working in the industry, according to a 2020 report from the Construction Industry Training Board – a shocking statistic that from an industry perspective we simply have to address.

The main reason for this is that too many courses today fail to equip learners with the practical skills and qualities that employers’ demand. As a result they struggle to find jobs in construction, often abandoning their career ambitions or having to enrol in additional training to become work-ready.

This means the time before they get into useful productive work, and crucially start to get paid well, is elongated.

We have to find a way to reform vocational courses so they are responding to industry needs and providing a viable route into employment.

Some T levels are now fulfilling this requirement. The design surveying and planning course is providing a real pathway into a quantity surveying degree apprenticeship. And there are some similar BTEC examples. But many trade specific courses are not and fundamental changes are needed to make them a useful option for learners and employers alike.

A starting point must be the structure of the courses. Providing students with just 16 hours a week in total learning, of which only around four hours is practical training, is never going to provide tomorrow’s bricklayers or joiners with the skills they need.

Funding is clearly critical here, and whilst we have the ear of a government that has put increasing housing supply as its number one policy commitment, we’re ensuring that they’re aware of this point. We simply must adequately fund FE colleges to ensure vocational courses are full-time, well-resourced, and properly staffed. This will enable learners to complete their courses with the skills and experience needed to be work-ready and fully employable.

Properly funding FE colleges and improving the courses they offer will provide a section of our young people that currently are not served well enough by the education system, with huge opportunities.

Less than 20 per cent of 25–64-year-olds in the UK hold a vocational qualification, compared to nearly 50 per cent in other European countries like Germany. This discrepancy must have an impact on our productivity and growth as an economic competitor.

 We need to make the case to decision makers and more broadly in schools and to parents, that a good vocational qualification can lead to a rewarding, and very well-paid career.

We are prioritising this through our ‘partner a college’ initiative, which connects member companies with colleges to provide support and shape courses to better meet industry needs. We’re working with the government and stakeholders on improvements to apprenticeships, the development of skills hubs, and our ongoing women into construction programme. If we can get this key route into industry right, it will help ensure we are well positioned to deliver the workforce, houses and growth the government and the country desperately need.

The 50-hour work experience policy: Ambition versus reality

The government’s vision for a Youth Guarantee, outlined in its Get Britain Working white paper, includes an ambitious entitlement to two weeks’ work experience (50 hours) for all school and college students in England as part of its provisions to boost young people’s employability.

One assumption is that work experience will start earlier – perhaps in year seven, rather than the traditional year ten or twelve week-long block – therefore the expectation is that most of the new work experience activity would be carried out by schools rather than colleges.

But what remains less clear to us at EDT is how the policy will be applied for a young person moving from school to college. As the concept does seem to apply across a young person’s educational journey, colleges need to be aware of it. A system where a young person’s entitlement moves with them would be too hard to monitor understand, but colleges should be attempting to build on the work done in schools.

More capacity means increased workload for schools and colleges

Youth Employment UK’s Youth Voice Census found that only 36 per cent of secondary school pupils currently have access to work experience opportunities, and only 38 per cent of those undertook work experience in a job they were interested in. Our analysis suggests that to achieve the 50-hour objective, schools and colleges would need to at least double the amount of work experience they currently offer. This would significantly increase their workload.

Alongside this, the current level of employer participation would also need to be doubled. How could this be achieved? And how could we avoid this becoming a siloed initiative that adds to employer confusion? The government’s goals are indeed challenging, so educators and employers need to be not just supported but incentivised too.

A role for careers hubs?

For such a policy to work as a universal entitlement, schools and colleges would need to be robustly measured on how well they meet their 50-hour target. A mechanism for this could be the Gatsby Benchmark goal concerning good career guidance in schools. Schools and colleges currently self-assess their status against each Gatsby benchmark (using the Compass tool) – but perhaps measurement of this new entitlement should be undertaken externally. Careers hubs (like the one we operate in West London on behalf of the Careers and Enterprise Company and the Greater London Authority) would be ideal for this. They support young people with the guidance, skills and work experience they need to make informed career choices, coordinating the engagement of employers and apprenticeships providers across a local area to avoid duplication and ensure alignment. They also have robust relationships with schools and colleges. Careers hubs could quality assure and broker opportunities (ensuring collaboration between institutions) and locally coordinate the opportunities available nationally.

Good practice exists but funding is needed

There is evidence of good practice for many, if not all, the proposed solutions to ramp up work experience. In particular, the feedback we receive suggests that the most impactful work experience provision incorporates pre-placement preparation and post-placement reflection with students. Only additional funding can ensure this happens at scale. The creation of a national level database or service, to manage universally available work experience opportunities, could be one way of using any new funding – although effective local coordination would still be necessary.

Funding needs to reflect where the needs are: For employers, this would mean focusing on building capacity within the SMEs that comprise 99 per cent of the nation’s employers; for schools and colleges, funding would be required to provide additional support to students with greater needs, such as enhancing work experience activities to support students at risk of being NEET (not in education, employment or training).

Perhaps a kitemark for employers who have effectively engaged with work experience programmes would encourage take-up? If every procuring local authority prioritised the take-up of work experience in their lists of social value options that bidding organisations have to choose from, how much would that move the dial? Perhaps some standardisation of the more universal work experience processes could save local duplication of effort – for example, a standard proforma for risk assessments.

However, the two weeks is currently not yet a mandatory requirement but a policy aspiration; how it might work is not yet detailed. As well as questions about funding, responsibilities and capacity there are questions around what types of activity or duration will have most impact, The CEC’s Equalex model, currently being piloted in some areas, seeks not to have a single two-week block, but a progressive build-up of work experience across a young person’s education, to move from exploration to in-depth experience.

We all must work together to consider and test new approaches and ideas, as the overwhelming benefits of work experience are worth the challenge.

‘New ways of doing FE’ inquiry: Experts give evidence to MPs

Staff pay is “killing” FE and T Levels are not yet a “gold standard” qualification, the education committee heard today as it kicked off a new inquiry into FE.

In the first oral evidence hearing this morning, the committee heard from college representatives, economists and FE policy experts on a range of issues concerning FE including chronic underfunding and GCSE maths and English resits policy.

The inquiry was first opened in January, which sought to explore the current reforms and challenges in further education such as pay gap between school and college teachers, maths and English GCSE resits, students’ mental health.

Here are some of the main takeaways:

‘Alphabet soup’ of FE qualifications 

MPs began the hearing asking panellists what their assessment of the range of post-16 qualifications was and what can be done to improve it.

Principal and CEO of Hartlepool College Darren Hankey said FE has an “alphabet soup of different qualifications” that has been constantly tinkered with over the last few decades.

“I think there is an opportunity there to be a little bit clearer,” he told the committee.

David Robinson, director of post 16 and skills at Education Policy Institute (EPI) added: “There are three times as many qualifications within each subject area for vocational qualifications compared to academic qualifications. I think this complexity works against those who need most support that post-16 transition.”

Alice Gardner, chief executive at Edge Foundation, agreed that the landscape “can look quite confusing to a young person post-16”, adding that “some of that is a responsibility pre-16, so it’s really difficult to look at it in isolation”.

Gardner advised that school settings should be doing more to promote different career paths, which is underpinned by the Baker Clause that states that schools must allow colleges and training providers to tell students about non-academic routes.

“We’ve got quite a narrow curriculum that doesn’t encourage young people to really understand the routes and the pathways that might be available to them later,” she said.

Rob Nitsch, chief executive at Federation of Awarding Bodies, agreed with Gardner.

“I definitely think the Baker Clause is not working, it’s not sufficient,” he said. 

“Where we do see it applied, it seems to work reasonably well. 16 per cent more apprenticeships in college, in school settings that actually push that.”

Parity of ‘input’ not ‘esteem’

When asked about how to achieve parity of esteem between academic and vocational pathways, Robinson said there should be more focus on “parity of inputs”.

“It used to be the case that technical qualifications were funded less than academic qualifications, despite the fact they have higher delivery costs. That has been improved in recent years,” he said.

He added that academic qualifications are more prevalent in school sixth forms where staff pay is higher than further education colleges, which teach more technical vocational pathways, and leads to deeper recruitment issues in FE.

He told the committee: “Vacancy rates in the FE sector around 10 times those that they are in the school sector. So I would rather we focus on parity of inputs. We may get closer to parity of esteem if we address some of those things, but I think parity of esteem on its own, I think can be a distraction.”

Hankey added that he didn’t really understand the issues around parity of esteem as vocational careers such as engineering, healthcare and hairdressing all need good academic knowledge.

“To be successful in a technical area, you need a good academic underpinning anyway. We could probably call all qualifications at level two and level three the same thing, because that would do away with the parity,” he said.

Are T Levels ‘gold standard’?

The committee also heard that T Levels model was “very rigid” and the T Level foundation year programme “was not doing well”.

When asked if T Levels were a gold standard qualification, as labelled by government and backed by the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review last week, Nitsch said it was “dangerous to stigmatise everything”.

“I think any qualification will have advantages and disadvantages. I think T Levels do a particular function. I think our focus should be on how we can make them work better,” he said.

He added: “The model that we’ve applied to T Levels is very rigid at the moment and I think it’s just a leap of faith to expect that to work across the whole of the economy.”

Gardner said that it would be “doing a disservice” to what could be a really useful pathway for young people to “paper over the cracks” of T Levels – the crack being high drop out rates and employer engagement.

“It feels like it’s very much in that guinea pig place and I get worried about young people being guinea pigs. We can’t afford to let any young person go through any qualification without being absolutely clear what the aims and objectives are and what they will get at the end of it.”

Robinson said his concerns with T Levels were over the scalability. 

“Our research showed that retention was an issue for some students with 20 per cent of students with T levels being 20 per cent less likely to complete than students doing similar sized alternative qualifications, particularly disadvantaged students are more likely to drop out of T Levels.”

He added: “I think the transition program is definitely not gold standard, with only around 8 per cent of those on the transition program transitioning into T levels, and of those that do around the quarter drop out in the first year. So there’s clearly a lot of work to be done.”

Meanwhile, on the government’s pause on defunding BTECs to make way for T Levels, the panel agreed that it was important to retain alternatives to T Levels.

“And I think if we give young people a binary choice between T Levels and A-levels on one side, or being pushed down to lower level qualifications, and I think many more young people will end up not achieving a level three, which we know is associated with good outcomes for young people,” Robinson added.

Gardner added that for a “large majority” students that take BTECs and end up at university, retention is “good”.

‘We don’t know how well resits are working’

Regarding GCSE resits in FE, Robinson said there isn’t much evidence on how well the resit policies benefiting young people.

“We know very well that young people who pass at 16 more than progress to have higher levels of education. Fundamentally, I don’t think we know whether the same is true of students who re sit. And for me, that’s a really, really important evidence gap that we should be looking to fill,” he told the committee.

He also recommended a rethink around using the same resit policy for both maths and English.

“It may be that there’s more good practice that can be shared for literacy to improve standards across the board. For numeracy, I think probably the policy needs bit more of a wholesale rethink.”

Nitsch, who is also chair at the City of Portsmouth College, said the resit policy was an “utter nightmare” for his college.

“It has to close three out of its four campuses. It’s got 1,200 students that are due to sit do their resits, takes a whole day out of the programme, and 200 of those who’ve got SEND requirements as well, it destroys the delivery of education broadly across the college for a significant period of time.”

Pay is killing FE

In the second part of the evidence hearing, the committee heard about staff pay issues in the FE sector.

In January, the Department for Education released £50 million from the £300 million award to FE to fund staff pay rises as a one off grant. 

Imran Tahir, research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimated that the grant would translate potentially to a 3 per cent increase in pay relative to what it is today.

But Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, said that would “barely going to cover any car parking charges if people are even driving to work” nor the pay gap between FE teachers and schoolteachers.

“Staff in FE have really borne the brunt of this neglect,” she said.

She added: “I do not think it is over the top to say that it is killing FE. The quality of what can be delivered in the classroom is dependent on how staff are treated. The working conditions of staff are the learning conditions of students.”

Inflation-adjusted additional funding still results in funding fall

The IFS estimated that FE would need £200 million in real terms of additional funding every year.

Tahir calculated that if the government spends the £8.3 billion on 16 to 19 education, adjusted for inflation, up until 2027-28, it would result in a 4 per cent fall in per pupil funding.

If it spends the same unadjusted amount of £8.3 billion, it would result in a 8 per cent fall in per pupil funding.

David Hughes, chief executive at that Association of Colleges said it was a “really good estimate” but said it was difficult to assess because it doesn’t factor in learner choices.

“It could be that the IFS is underestimating, because they’ll be tending to do more technical courses which cost more, and therefore the average cost per student might be higher. And I think with the labour market getting tighter as well, we might see more young people who are in work coming back into FE colleges, and that could boost that pressure on the budget.

“The spending review has to recognise those numbers, because otherwise the sector is on its knees, it will be cataclysmic.”

Pupil premium for FE ‘would make a massive difference’

The committee was urged to consider the lack of a pupil premium for FE learners, which supports looked-after teenagers and care leavers beyond the age of 16.

Robinson said in the first evidence session that disadvantaged students finish college with lower grades – usually the equivalent of one A-level grade lower – because they started with lower grades.

“We also know that at the age of 16, disadvantaged funding falls by about a third. So those same students who one day at the end of at the end of secondary school were getting a certain amount of support just falls off when they then start their post-16 education.

“We need to think about supporting those students all the way through their education, from early years all the way through to 16 to 19 and beyond,” he said.

Hughes added that there is “no reason” or rationale for no pupil premium beyond the age of 16.

“That would make a massive difference for disadvantaged students.”

DfE shaves £500m off T Levels spending

The Department for Education is set to spend over half a billion pounds less than planned on T Levels due to low student recruitment, FE Week has learned.

New figures shared with Parliament by minister Janet Daby show the DfE expects to spend £1.247 billion on the new technical qualifications by the end of the 2024-25 financial year.

Previous ministers said the total spend from pre-2019 development through to the 2024-25 financial year was due to be £1.754 billion. Data from the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), published by the DfE in January, revised this figure down to £1.653 billion.

The DfE claimed the huge new spending adjustment was solely down to lower-than-expected student enrolments.

The department told FE Week: “Costs have been adjusted to reflect the most up to date data on T Level student numbers, which has reduced the costs of the programme.”

The DfE, which confirmed the £1.247 billion includes capital funding, added that underspends are usually returned to the Treasury but can sometimes be reallocated to wider education priorities.

DfE made a saving

T Levels were launched in 2020 and are hoped to be the technical equivalent option to A-levels for 16- to 19-year-olds.

Around 1,300 students started a T Level in the first year of rollout and numbers have steadily increased each year, but at a much slower rate than predicted. 

Figures published on Friday show that T Level starts grew 59 per cent in 2024-25, moving from 16,085 to 25,508. A similar growth rate was recorded in 2023-24.

Around 58,500 young people have started a T Level to date.

Catherine Sezen, director of education policy at the Association of Colleges, said the reduced spending figures “confirm that DfE made a saving on lower-than-expected T Level recruitment”.

However, she pointed out that “students who ended up taking other subjects in colleges were still funded, albeit at a different level”.

Sezen added: “While the numbers have not fully met the government’s initial expectations, there has been a steady increase in enrolments over the past five years and it is critical that funding levels are maintained to ensure there are sufficient T Level places to train the next generation of skilled labour in sectors such as health and digital.”

Gold standard?

T Levels have a pass rate of around 90 per cent but have also recorded drop-out rates of a third – much higher than other technical course options.

The new spending and starts figures come days after the independent curriculum and assessment review (CAR), led by Becky Francis, highlighted that, using 2023 data, just 2 per cent of 16- and 17-year-olds took T Levels.

Despite this, and the high drop-out rate, the CAR panel’s interim report backed the government’s view that T Levels are “the gold standard technical qualification”.

Anne Murdoch, senior adviser in college leadership at the Association of School and College Leaders, raised concern about the government’s level 3 reforms, which could remove funding from popular applied general qualification alternatives like BTECs.

She said: “Although the number of students studying T Levels is growing, this does not appear to be at the rate that was initially anticipated. This demonstrates the challenges involved in introducing a new system of qualifications, particularly one that also requires significant input from employers.

“While T Levels can grow and develop further as time goes on, our immediate concern is that the premature withdrawal of BTECs and other applied general qualifications risks leaving some young people without a pathway to future study or work in the meantime.

“This is likely to have a particularly big impact on students with special educational needs and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, as many of these students study BTECs before going on to work and higher education.”

Sumo Games apprenticeship arm crushes Ofsted inspection

A global game developer’s “advanced” apprenticeship training operation has been rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted.

Sumo Digital Academy, which trains about 15 level 7 game programmer apprentices, underwent its first full inspection last month since launching in 2020.

Apprentices develop “very advanced technical knowledge” and “thoroughly enjoy” attending the Sheffield-based academy, where they work on Sumo Digital’s commercial projects, inspectors said.

Teachers, who have “considerable” academic and industrial experience, present complex new topics in an “exceptional” way.

Learners “develop swiftly” the new knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to become programmers or technical artists thanks to a “highly ambitious” curriculum and “meticulously” planned lessons.

Sumo Digital Academy, led by former Sheffield Hallam computer science professor Dr Jake Habgood, mainly recruits graduates with an art background or degree in STEM subjects who want to “change direction”.

It is part of Sumo Digital, which has helped develop games including the Hitman trilogy, Forza Horizon 4 and Call of Duty: Vanguard.

Commenting on the inspection outcome, Habgood posted on Linkedin: “Our industry isn’t having the greatest time at the moment, but it is hugely gratifying to see your team rise to a challenge and pull together to achieve a common goal. 

“I don’t need anyone else to tell me that I have outstanding staff and outstanding apprentices as I’m lucky enough to work with them every day, but it’s validating to know that Ofsted agree.

“Many congratulations to all the staff, governors and students at the Sumo Academy – your dedication to creating an incredible learning experience has been recognised and is massively appreciated.”

Sumo Digital Academy was part of the trailblazer group that helped design the level 7 apprenticeship, which was approved by government in 2021.

Habgood told FE Week the government’s planned withdrawal of public funding for some level 7 apprenticeships will impact Sumo Digital Academy if it is applied to the game programmer course, adding that the company awaits a final decision “with considerable interest”.

He added: “It would be a great shame if level 7 apprenticeship funding was dropped across the board.

“This programme is an entry level opportunity for our industry, and without it an entire industry would be contributing to the apprenticeship levy with almost nothing in return.”

Inspectors wrote that apprentices develop “very advanced” technical knowledge and are able to clearly explain programming concepts, while those on the technical art route “demonstrate impressive technical knowledge”.

They added: “They thoroughly enjoy attending the academy, where they work in a real-work environment on commercial projects.

“They benefit greatly from working on projects where they are involved in the development and publication of games.

“Apprentices self-esteem grows considerably, and they feel an immense sense of pride when they see members of the public playing games they were involved in developing.”

Sumo Digital was founded in Sheffield in 2003 and is part of a group that has subsidiaries in England, India, the USA and Canada.

The company has about 1,700 employees globally.

The company is ultimately owned by Chinese internet giant Tencent, which reportedly paid £900 million for the purchase in 2021.

Labour’s youth policy challenge: Avoid short-termism for real change

Growing up in today’s world presents a unique set of challenges for young people. High levels of unhappiness, anxiety, and social inequality are just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that young people are navigating an increasingly complex landscape marked by economic instability that drives poverty and decreased opportunity, as well as systemic issues such as inadequate education investment, limited social mobility, prejudice and discrimination, geographic disparities, and limited access to essential services.

Despite these challenges, young people possess incredible resilience, creativity, and potential. Investing in their well-being and supporting their development is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic necessity for the future of our society. By addressing the root causes behind rising youth unemployment and economic inactivity, we can unlock a wealth of opportunities that will benefit everyone.

As we approach the spring statement, it is crucial to recognise the importance of comprehensive and properly inclusive policy interventions. The shifts we need to make to improve the lives of young people and those most vulnerable in our communities feel like an open door for Labour’s Breaking Barriers to Opportunity mission. This mission can finally bring together years of piecemeal youth policy and build a comprehensive, cross-department, national-to-local strategy that, if done well, will make significant savings and sow the seeds for economic growth tomorrow and in the future.

However, we are beginning to see the risks that the Labour team may be falling into the trap of policy initiatives and short-termism over strategic long-term change management. Over the last eight months, we have heard about the change that is to come, that there is a strategy, and yet we are barraged with policy changes and updates on a near-daily basis. Those of us working closely with the system cannot always see that all departments are on the same page or that the contraindications of policy change are being robustly explored.

But there is cause for optimism. Some of the best questions are being asked by the teams working with ministers on education reform and the youth guarantee. There are questions being asked about what a youth strategy could look like, and young people have, in some part, a seat at the table.

So, if we are to hold onto the optimism as we head into tomorrow’s Spring Statement, what is it that would make some of the biggest shifts in youth unemployment and economic inactivity?

What we hope to see in the budget:

Set out a positive and inclusive vision for the country

It’s essential to create a vision that resonates with young people and positively influences how they feel about themselves and their futures. This vision should emphasise inclusivity, opportunity, and hope, ensuring that every young person feels valued and supported.

Join up all youth policy at a national government level

It’s time to appoint a senior adviser or minister for young people who can lead a centralised approach, working across key government departments (DfE, DWP, DCMS, MOJ, MHCLG, DHSC, and DBT) and with devolved leads. This role would ensure that national and local policies are cohesive, offer value for money, and deliver tangible benefits for young people everywhere.

Recognise that system change will take time, money, and partnership

Avoid short-term fixes and cuts to services that undermine long-term systemic change. Acknowledge that meaningful change requires sustained investment, collaboration, and patience. This approach will build a robust foundation for future generations.

Commit to doing the right thing by young people

Commit to making decisions that prioritises the well-being and development of young people, even when these decisions are challenging. Doing the right thing may not always be easy, but it is essential for creating a fairer and more prosperous society.

Skills Bootcamps Are Changing – What FE Colleges Must Know 

Over the past year, the Skills Bootcamps landscape has seen significant changes. A shift in funding structures and increasing employer demand for AI and data skills are reshaping how colleges deliver Bootcamps. These developments present both challenges and opportunities for FE colleges looking to ensure their Bootcamps remain locally impactful, employer-aligned, and financially sustainable. 

The devolution white paper highlights that from 2026, Skills Bootcamps funding will no longer be ringfenced, giving mayoral combined authorities greater control over how it is allocated. This shift means colleges should work more closely with regional authorities and employer bodies to shape provision effectively. 

At the same time, Skills England is playing an increasing role in shaping policy, ensuring that adult skills training aligns with local and national workforce needs. As a result, FE colleges delivering Bootcamps should take a more strategic approach to employer engagement and curriculum planning. 

Alongside policy changes, digital skills demand is accelerating. The World Economic Forum Future of Jobs Report 2025 highlights that AI and machine learning specialists, software developers, and data analytics professionals are among the fastest-growing job roles. 

What This Means for FE Colleges 

While demand for Skills Bootcamps remains high – with over 42,000 learners enrolling in the period — only 37% secured a positive job outcome, according to the latest Department for Education data. This highlights the need for continuous refinement in how Bootcamps are structured, delivered, and aligned with employer needs. 

FE colleges are approaching Skills Bootcamps in different ways, tailoring their models to fit regional priorities, student needs, and industry demand. Some institutions are revising their learner selection process to ensure participants are fully prepared for the intensity of a Bootcamp. Others are expanding employer engagement to improve graduate progression into jobs, while some are adjusting their delivery formats. Colleges looking to strengthen their Bootcamp models might be focusing on: 

● Adapting to the new funding landscape by working with regional authorities to align Bootcamps with local skills priorities 

● Strengthening employer engagement to ensure programmes lead to real job opportunities 

● Expanding digital skills provision to include AI, data analytics, and emerging technologies that match job market trends 

As Skills Bootcamps evolve, regional funding control and employer collaboration will shape their long-term success. Colleges that proactively align their programmes with industry needs, maintain strong learner support, and adapt to funding shifts will be well-positioned to drive stronger outcomes for students and local economies.

Join the Conversation – Expert Insights from Leading FE Colleges 

To explore these shifts in more depth, Code Institute is hosting a webinar with FE leaders who have been successfully navigating these challenges. 

In the webinar, Skills Bootcamps Are Changing – What FE Colleges Must Know, Allison Muggridge (Westminster Adult Education Service) and Pasquale Fasulo (City of Bristol College) will share practical insights on: 

● How Skills Bootcamps fit into FE curriculum planning and how they’ve evolved 

● DfE data insights – completion rates, employment outcomes, and how different providers compare 

● The impact of funding devolution – what FE colleges need to prepare for 

● Practical insights for employer engagement and curriculum integration 

● Emerging digital skills trends – the rising demand for AI and Data analytics skills 

Register for the Webinar 
Register now 

Whether your college already delivers Skills Bootcamps or is considering them for the future, join us to hear from sector leaders and gain insights into the future of Bootcamp delivery.