Get on board and publish your minutes, FE Commissioner tells colleges

The FE Commissioner has called on colleges to publish board minutes within four to six months after an FE Week probe revealed half had failed to publish any this year.

A review of 215 colleges found 106 had not released any full board meeting minutes to the public in 2025, while a fifth (45) had published nothing in 12 months.

Board minutes for taxpayer-funded bodies such as FE and sixth-form colleges are considered an important symbol of accountable governance which, according to FE specialist lawyers, should be published on websites in line with freedom of information laws.

But FE Week’s review found 10 had published no minutes for more than two and a half years, and six had never made minutes available.

Responding to the findings, FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave said: “From a transparency angle and as organisations who are receiving substantial amounts of public money, it is good practice for colleges to publish the minutes of their governing body meetings in a timely manner.”

Legrave, who advises the Department for Education on the college sector and leads interventions in struggling institutions, suggested they should publish their minutes “within six months”.

She added: “In an ideal world it would be about four months assuming you only have meetings every three months, you’ve got to have the time to approve it [at the next board meeting].”

College governance experts have blamed the failings on “administrative inefficiency” rather than deliberate concealment.

Legrave confirmed that a college failing to publish its minutes would not be grounds for an intervention but declined to comment on whether the rules on timely publication should be tightened up.

Wait just a minute

The six colleges without any minutes published online were Aquinas, Bexhill, Fircroft, Joseph Chamberlain Sixth Form, the Mary Ward Centre and Plumpton.

When contacted for comment, Plumpton CEO Jeremy Kerswell said the college had been wary about publishing minutes on its website due to the “high degree of transparency” between the board and senior management.

However, the college said FE Week’s enquiry was an “opportunity to change” and it would publish all board minutes moving forward.

The Mary Ward Centre and Aquinas College both claimed their minutes were usually online but had been temporarily removed during website updates.

Therese Reinheimer-Jones, CEO of the Mary Ward Centre – which has now uploaded minutes for the last two years – said public records of board meetings were “an important part of our governance” and can be a useful tool for students, partners and potential trustees to learn about the “successes and challenges” the centre is experiencing.

Fircroft College said the missing minutes were an “oversight” due to staff illness and committed to publishing them from now on.

Bexhill and Joseph Chamberlain colleges did not respond to requests for comment.

FE Week found that 11 colleges had published minutes for meetings held in June and July. A further 55 had uploaded minutes from March and April.

‘No deliberate concealment’

Martin Sim, who has led turnarounds at several colleges, said he was an “avid minute reader” when looking at colleges on behalf of the FE Commissioner.

He added: “At the end of the day it’s not something people will deliberately hold back for any reason.

“I’ve yet to find a situation where I’m pretty happy that it’s a deliberate act of concealment – there are different ways of protecting information, you can redact or go fully confidential.”

Governance expert Ian Valvona, who has chaired multiple colleges, said minutes are an important way to help outsiders understand what could have led to failures.

“But I’d be very surprised if there was deliberate foot-dragging because corporations wanted to withhold something that was difficult,” he added.

“The non-availability of minutes is not good, don’t get me wrong, but I think in most instances it’s going to be just an administrative inefficiency, or just something hasn’t worked in getting a set of minutes onto the college website.”

‘Request a copy’

Ten colleges had not published minutes since the end of 2023. Several of those updated their website with newer documents after FE Week approached them for comment.

This included South Staffordshire College –  whose most recent published minutes were from October 2022. The college did not respond to requests for comment.

Huddersfield New College was another example where board minutes hadn’t been published since 2023 but it has now updated the online archive up to its April 2025 meeting. Principal Marcus Smith-Connor said his college takes transparency and accountability responsibilities “extremely seriously”.

He added: “Anyone with an interest can contact the governance professional to request a copy of meeting minutes which have not yet been published, and these will be provided (excluding confidential information) in a timely manner.”

What are the rules?

Guidance for FE colleges issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) says that in line with the Freedom of Information Act, colleges are expected to publish governing body and committee meeting minutes for at least the current and previous three years.

Although it does set a specific timeframe, the ICO guidance says this is part of a legal commitment to publish “as much information as possible on a routine basis”.

Anieka Sheppard, a solicitor specialising in education at Shakespeare Martineau, said: “In addition to publication obligations in their [instruments and articles] and good governance, colleges are also subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

“The ICO has a guide for colleges as to what should be in their publication scheme. Minutes of corporation meetings are included as documents which should be published.”

Colleges are also governed by their own constitutional rules, known as instruments and articles, which they have been free to amend since reclassification as public bodies in 2012.

Most contain standard wording that commits to making board agendas, minutes and related documents available “as soon as possible” to members of the public.

They also promise to make copies of signed minutes available on the college website for at least 12 months.

The DfE’s FE and sixth-form college corporations governance guide also says it is a requirement under the funding rules to follow codes such as the Association of College’s (AoC) FE Code of Good Governance, which recommends colleges demonstrate transparent decision making by publishing minutes.

Jeff Greenidge, director for diversity and governance at the AoC, said: “The AoC code is clear that transparency is a fundamental feature of good governance and we encourage colleges to follow our governance code in all respects.”

Revealed: Strode’s £5.75m subcontract scandal bill

The scale of the financial fallout from Strode College’s subcontracting scandal has been revealed – with a £5.75 million clawback now transferred onto the newly merged University Centre Somerset (UCS) College Group.

Government investigations into Strode’s historic delivery of traineeships found subcontracted learners were working illegal hours and funding rules had been breached.

The college’s financial health dived from ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’ in 2023 once the Department for Education tallied up the recovery amount. Leaders were told to seek a merger partner as the institution was no longer sustainable on its own.

Last month the college formally merged with Bridgwater & Taunton College to create UCS College Group.

A newly-published batch of Strode College’s delayed financial accounts for years up to 2023-24 reveal the total clawback amount for the first time.

The £5.75 million liability has followed the college into the new merged organisation.

In a statement to FE Week, a UCS spokesperson confirmed discussions with the DfE regarding the clawback were handled prior to the merger.

They said: “We are working closely with the department on an agreed approach and repayment plan that ensures the continued financial health and stability of the newly formed college group, without compromising the quality of education or support for students and staff.”

The spokesperson stressed the merger was designed to “create a stronger, more resilient educational offer for Somerset” and insisted UCS remained in a “robust financial position” despite inheriting the multimillion-pound debt.

Strode College’s previous leaders last year instructed lawyers to write to the six subcontractors involved to demand repayment.

UCS College Group’s spokesperson told FE Week they were “not in a position to comment on the contractual matters relating to legacy third-party providers, but the appropriate reviews and actions are being taken where necessary”.

The DfE and college have not disclosed the repayment plan’s structure or duration.

Rule breaches occurred between 2019 and 2022 – around the time the government cracked down on subcontracting in FE by introducing caps on volumes, geographic restrictions and enhanced oversight and transparency requirements to tackle poor-quality provision from third-party providers.

‘Our focus is now firmly on the future’

Strode College was judged as ‘good’ by Ofsted in 2022, brought in a total income of £16 million in 2024 and taught around 5,000 students last year.

Bridgwater & Taunton College holds an ‘outstanding’ Ofsted grade, teaches around 24,000 learners, has income of £65 million and a ‘good’ financial health rating.

UCS’s spokesperson said: “Our focus is now firmly on the future. UCS College Group is well placed to grow and deliver for Somerset. We have an outstanding curriculum, a history of strong employer partnerships, and a commitment to widening access to university-level study through University Centre Somerset.

“The group is in a robust financial position, with a clear vision and ambitious strategy that will continue to deliver educational excellence and transformative opportunities for students and communities across Somerset.”

New ‘honesty’ rules for awarding organisations kick in from December

Awarding organisations have warned they face fresh layers of bureaucracy after Ofqual confirmed plans to add new enforceable “principles” to its bulging rulebook.

The assessment regulator confirmed on Thursday it will introduce new “principle conditions” to its already 100+ page general conditions of registration (GCR) for awarding organisations from December 4.

The six principles instruct awarding organisations to “act with honesty and integrity”, use evidence to make decisions, make sure their qualifications are fit for purpose and “where possible, promote public confidence in qualifications”.

AOs must also act in an “open, transparent and co-operative manner with Ofqual and, as appropriate, with users of qualifications” and conduct activities “with a proactive approach to compliance with its conditions of recognition”.

Ofqual said the principles will “help ensure a consistent understanding of our rules and make their underlying expectations clear” and help awarding organisations make decisions in “novel situations”.

But awarding representatives are concerned about the additional regulatory burden this could place on them and how the subjective language of the new principles could be interpreted.

A consultation on the proposals attracted 49 responses. Analysis of the consultation responses, published alongside today’s guidance, found that 17 respondents said the first principle – to act with honesty and integrity – lacked clarity and was “subjective in nature”.

Others were concerned how the principles will be interpreted “consistently”, particularly where subjective language is used.

Ofqual addressed fears by publishing extra guidance on the principles, and told awarding organisations they will not need to declare compliance or non-compliance in their annual statement to Ofqual for 2025-26. For future years, AOs have been told to make declarations about the principles “by exception”.

Breaches of a principle condition would rarely occur in isolation, meaning AOs declaring a breach of another GCR rule will likely also have breached a principle condition, which should be declared.

But, “where the principles condition is relied on in a new, unexpected or novel scenario not covered by other conditions and it is breached, we would expect that to be reported,” Ofqual said.

Non-compliance will result in sanctions including financial penalties, remove an AO’s awarding powers and instructions for certain improvements.

Rob Nitsch, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, told FE Week that his members thought the proposals were “inevitable” but “few had any disagreement with the substance” of the new principles.

He added: “We do remain concerned about the potential for overlap with existing conditions and the additional regulatory burden that will be created for awarding organisations.

“It will be important that the three-month lead-in period is used well and that the measures that Ofqual are putting in place to improve the operational viability of the introduction of a principles condition carry through.”

EMCCA’s adult skills cash released after legal bid is ditched

A new combined authority has finally dished out £6.5 million in procured adult skills fund contracts following the withdrawal of a legal challenge that delayed the tender process.

In July, FE Week revealed the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) had halted the awarding of contracts – due to commence on August 1 – after losing bidder CT Skills Ltd began legal action. 

When the challenge was subsequently dropped, awards were made to 10 training providers late last month.

The successful bidders will share £6.5 million in their first year, with an option to extend the contracts for a further two years to July 2028. If all are extended, the total value to the procured providers will be £19.5 million.

CT Skills never publicly revealed the grounds of its legal claim, but FE Week understands multiple providers complained that feedback from markers did not match the bids they had submitted.

There were also concerns that multiple tender winners are headquartered outside of the combined authority’s geographical area, which covers Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

One other bidder that lost out, which did not wish to be named, said: “Some providers have said they’re contract-ready with premises and staff, but they’re not. How can out-of-area providers score more than in-region providers on readiness to deliver?”

The procured contracts will be added to EMCCA’s 16 grant-funded colleges and local authorities, which share £46 million between them. Total adult skills fund contracts (ASF) in the region are worth almost £53 million.

EMCCA took control of the region’s adult skills funding this year.

An EMCCA spokesperson said: “Decisions about ASF once made in government are now being made right here in the East Midlands.

“For the first time, this funding is being designed around the needs of our communities. EMCCA is working with local colleges, councils, employers, independent learning organisations and voluntary organisations to ensure education and training opportunities match the jobs of the future and the needs of our economy. 

“EMCCA has already awarded nearly £53 million in adult skills and free courses for jobs funding. This is money which will help thousands of adults have the chance to learn new skills, open up better job opportunities and build brighter futures.”

Independent training providers that must bid for a slice of the funding through procurements previously complained that EMCCA put £7.8 million – down from an expected £10 million – out to tender. It is not clear why only £6.5 million was allocated.

CT Skills did not respond to requests for comment.

National Grid lights up with fourth consecutive Ofsted ‘outstanding’

National Grid has been awarded its fourth consecutive ‘outstanding’ rating from Ofsted – maintaining its 20-year status as a grade one apprenticeship provider.

National Grid, which operates electricity transmission systems in England and Wales, trains its own workforce as an employer provider through apprenticeships in specialist electrical engineering at its national training centre in Eakring, Nottinghamshire.

Ofsted praised the organisation’s training regime that results in high-achieving safety-conscious apprentices with deep academic knowledge of electrical systems, networks and engineering principles.

During its July 15 to 18 full inspection, the watchdog awarded National Grid ‘outstanding’ in all areas according to a report published this morning.

The training arm was first inspected in 2002, receiving a grade two. It was upgraded to ‘outstanding’ in 2005 and has since kept the status in three subsequent inspections.

National Grid had 161 apprentices in training at the time of inspection. Nearly half were undertaking level 4 electrical power networks engineer or electrical power protection and plant commissioning engineer standards, while the rest were enrolled in level 3 power network apprenticeships. 

The inspection found most apprentices achieve distinction grades in their additional academic qualifications and first-time pass rates for final assessments are high.

Inspectors also heard from apprentices who were positive about leaders’ investment in their training, wellbeing and accommodation while attending training.

Apprentices “thoroughly” enjoy their training and are proud to work for National Grid, the report said. Ofsted’s report added that the technical training makes them competent and safety-conscious professionals. 

“They learn to work well in teams and communicate clearly, even in high-risk situations,” inspectors noted.

The report also found that apprentices benefit from a “well-planned” personal development programme, including opportunities to become STEM ambassadors in schools and colleges.

“Apprentices develop their confidence, while also building strong friendships by going on residential team-building events to outdoor pursuits centres,” it added.

Learners also said they felt safe in the work and training environment and contribute to, and benefit from, a “highly supportive and respectful” culture.

Ofsted inspectors noted leaders’ big ambitions for apprentices and commended their investment in high-quality training facilities and carefully designed curriculum.

“They view them as an important investment in the company’s future and aim for them to stay long after completion, which most do,” inspectors said.

Daniel Tingle, head of development programmes at National Grid said: “Our apprenticeships provide young people with world-class training, hands-on experience, and clear pathways to rewarding careers in the energy sector.

“In supporting the next generation of engineers and technical specialists, we’re not just investing in their futures—we’re equipping the UK with the skills and expertise needed to decarbonise. As our sector transforms, the new jobs and capabilities developed at National Grid and the world-class facilities at Eakring will be at the heart of building a sustainable, greener energy system for everyone.”

Bootcamps fray and wear thin as providers begin race to the bottom

Like many skills initiatives over the past three decades, the history of skills bootcamps in England has been mixed.

Conceived during the pandemic, bootcamps were designed as short, intensive courses aligned with employer demand. They have enjoyed a measure of success, attracting over 60,000 learners in their first three years across priority sectors including digital, construction, logistics, green skills, health and social care and engineering.

Their short duration has proved popular with employers and anecdotal evidence suggests the impact on individuals can be transformative.

Members of the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) cite numerous positive learner outcomes. One digital bootcamp graduate, for instance, went from busking on the streets to earning nearly £60,000 as a software engineer in the North West.

However, there are growing concerns about the effectiveness and sustainability of the bootcamp model. A modest 37 per cent success rate in 2023 has raised questions – not just about outcomes, but how those outcomes are defined and measured.

As the job market tightens, groups of bootcamp graduates find themselves competing for just one or two vacancies, calling into question the promise of rapid employment.

FIN has been closely monitoring the quality of provision and our analysis of Ofsted’s findings might offer some reassurance. As of January this year, 65 of the 90 most recent new provider monitoring visits, largely to independent training providers, were for bootcamps. All but two were judged to be making ‘reasonable progress’ across key areas such as curriculum, safeguarding and leadership.

Yet this presents only a partial picture. New providers can operate for up to two years before Ofsted even conducts a monitoring visit and it may be another two to two-and-a-half years before they undergo a full inspection. This four-year window leaves learners exposed and raises serious questions about provider vetting and programme oversight.

The situation is not without precedent. The government’s early experience with the apprenticeship levy saw the rapid expansion of untested providers entering the skills market, only for ministers to backtrack when quality concerns surfaced. The bootcamp programme risks repeating this cycle, particularly as devolution accelerates.

The shift to the combined authorities is already having a destabilising effect, with redundancies hitting high-performing providers. Several local commissioners are overseeing delayed tender processes, smaller contract sizes and pricing structures that reward low bids rather than quality. The result: pressure to deliver programmes for as little as £9 per learner hour.

FIN is increasingly hearing reports of corners being cut. Online group sessions are replacing interactive tutoring. Providers, incentivised by payment structures tied to job interviews, may be pushing candidates into interviews of questionable value just to trigger the next funding milestone. Such practices are undermining the reputation of the programme and penalising good providers, some of whom are still achieving employment outcomes for more than half of their learners.

Amid this, there are encouraging signs. Some established apprenticeship providers are using bootcamps as progression pathways to apprenticeship programmes, supporting sustained employment. But their viability is under threat unless funding models are reviewed. As with apprenticeships, quality cannot be bought on the cheap.

Five years in, the bootcamp programme is at a crossroads. To stay relevant, course content must evolve with the labour market. One example: demand from employers for Level 3 data bootcamp graduates has declined markedly compared to the early days of the programme.

Bootcamps have the potential to be a game-changer in adult skills and workforce development. But without clearer accountability, appropriate funding and strategic alignment between national and devolved decision-makers, they could wither on the vine and become yet another missed opportunity in England’s skills landscape.

Exams disadvantage the anxious and fail to prepare the crammers

I’ve seen countless learners with outstanding practical skills lose confidence because of exam-driven systems, while others who could cram for short-term recall gain high grades but struggle to demonstrate real-world competence.

I’m currently overseeing business HND provision, where there are no formal exams, and I’ve seen first-hand how alternative assessments can better capture ability, confidence and progression.

Employers tell us constantly they want learners who can apply knowledge – who can problem solve, collaborate, and adapt under pressure. Yet too often, assessment in FE still prioritises theory over practice.

We need systems that measure not just what learners know, but what learners can do with the knowledge they have acquired. This is especially true in skills-based qualifications such as HNDs. These qualifications are designed to bridge the gap between academic study and industry application which makes it easier for learners to pick up transferable skills. 

What’s wrong with the current model

The dominance of high-stakes exams in many FE pathways disproportionately disadvantages neurodiverse learners, those with social anxiety or students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Exams reward short-term recall, not creativity, teamwork or resilience.

This disconnect leaves us failing both students and employers. A student may leave with a distinction in theory but no confidence in applying those skills in a live workplace project. This is where FE should be making the difference to bridge that gap. 

Rethinking assessment

A more balanced model should look to embed various approaches which gives diverse learners opportunities to demonstrate mastery with:

  • Portfolios and projects – showcasing their work over time, which captures growth and reflective practice rather than a single performance on exam day.
  • Peer and self-assessment – encouraging learners to evaluate their own work and that of their peers, developing confidence and interpersonal skills.
  • Digital evidence – video presentations, online portfolios, or simulation work that mirrors the modern workplace.
  • Employer co-assessment – bringing industry partners into the process, ensuring learners meet the standards real workplaces demand.

From theory to practice

At Apex College Leicester we looked to pilot project-based assessments in the business HND programme. Learners collaborated in teams to design business pitches which they then presented to a panel of tutors. The process-built confidence and pushed students to link theory to application.

We also trialled portfolio-based evidence for management units, where learners documented real workplace case studies, reflections, and solutions to business challenges. Many of these learners later used their portfolios successfully in job applications and interviews, showing employers exactly what they could do.

Another example of learners being tested was digital presentations, where learners were asked to record video pitches for new product ideas. This developed both digital communication skills and the confidence to “sell” ideas under pressure. One student who had previously underperformed in written work excelled in this format and went on to secure an internship in marketing.

Finally, we embedded peer feedback sessions into group projects. Learners not only received tutor assessment but also practised giving and receiving constructive criticism. For many, this was their first experience of feedback in a professional format, mirroring the realities of performance reviews and workplace collaboration.

The outcomes were striking – achievement and engagement rose, but more importantly, learners reported they finally understood why the work mattered. One learner told me:
“I used to panic in exams. But showing my work through a portfolio gave me confidence that I could actually do the job.”

A call to the sector

We need courage to move away from the comfort of exams and towards assessments that reflect the realities of work and life. If FE really is about employability and lifelong learning, then our assessment systems must evolve to reflect that – not just in words, but in practice.

The HND model is pointing in the right direction: having exams is a way of testing, but not the only way. Now we need to embed this philosophy more widely across FE. Only then will we prepare learners not just to pass, but to progress and be ready for their next move. 

We must stop chasing unicorns and start valuing sustainability

I don’t like how a few people at the top walk away with the lion’s share of the wealth, and the duplication and waste that arises out of competition rather than genuine collaboration in our capitalist system. Saying that probably marks me out as naïve to my peers.

  But In the FE world, many larger private providers in the ‘quasi’ funding market are now owned or backed by private equity (PE) and/or venture capital (VC). A number of large providers are also now at least part owned by venture capitalists.

The widespread belief across the sector seems to be that there’s no problem in ‘entrepreneurs’ benefitting personally from the quasi funding market, be it from the proceeds of a company sale, or in executive salaries that are many multiples of their organisation’s median salary.

 The idea of a smaller provider, such as the one I manage, delivering slow sustainable growth doesn’t appear to be part of the DfE’s current thinking, which seems instead intent on betting the house on potential large provider ‘unicorns’. The recent response of someone I respect when discussing the pros and cons of PE/VC investment was “well, if people are prepared to invest in private providers why shouldn’t they be allowed to – that’s capitalism”.

Everyone knows equity investment is a risk. But, like the national lottery, every investor hopes that they’ll be the one to win big. No one thinks they will be the ones to lose, despite the contrary evidence.

Such thinking also allows ministers and civil servants to ignore the fact that current funding levels are insufficient to deliver quality training, because there are large providers that are closing the funding gap with external investment income. Unfortunately when such investment is burnt through, which it inevitably is in most PE and VC cases, the losers are the learners and staff of the companies that go into liquidation, the investors and the remaining providers expected to pick up the pieces.

These investors are more likely to be institutional pension funds than they are wealthy individuals who can afford to lose some of their disposable wealth. New investors often procure the failed enterprise for very little and start the whole sorry cycle over again.

 The current system is self-perpetuating because it is operating from the perspective of self-interest; a quick internet trawl shows just how intertwined the establishment and PE/VC companies are.

 Rachel Reeves recently doubled down on the government’s support for private equity in her mansion house speech, even pushing for pension funds to be taking a greater investment risk.

The industrial strategy talks about ‘taking a punt’ to generate rapid growth. And DfE are self-evidently tolerating poor financial performance in large PE/VC backed providers in a way they absolutely don’t do with other smaller (less politically relevant) providers.

Anyone who suggests that there isn’t a two-tier system of education providers is deluding themselves! Such ‘trusted’/politically relevant providers are also much more likely to be invited to DfE roundtables, public launch events and pilot initiatives.

The continual rhetoric from both government and PE/VC investors is that private equity leads to economic benefits and growth, despite the clear evidence that the majority of PE/VC ventures fail, that many of the new jobs created are insecure and short term, and that most wealth generated goes back into the pockets of the PE/VC investors – and definitely not into public services or the average citizen’s pockets.

PE/VC companies also hide behind impenetrable financial instruments whilst claiming that they ‘promote growth and innovation’ and/or that they are ‘saving good businesses from failure’. The reality is that both PE/VC investors are looking to make a substantial profit from a planned exit point – PE from underutilised assets and cost cutting, and VC from an IPO (initial public offering) or sale. PE will often leave a company saddled with unsustainable debt and a reduced workforce. VC will often require a company, if it survives at all, to rationalise its staff and pivot into other markets.

Before PE/VC ventures fail they often deliver an uneconomic product, which can appear high quality to external observers (such as Ofsted) but more often than not is being subsidised by equity burn, and not being produced by a sustainable business model. This gives such companies an unrealistic advantage over others trying to operate genuinely sustainable business models. Competitors are going out of business because they cannot compete with an equity subsidised product.

A subsidised operating model also promotes an unrealistic impression of what is achievable from the smallest economic unit, which with the apprenticeship market is determined by funding bands. The government actively supports and tolerates this flawed process because it is hamstrung by 100 per cent GDP debt levels and its own fiscal rules. Such ventures also offer the short term political benefit of creating an illusion that the economy is growing in a sustainable manner.  The reality s is just as likely that the government will ultimately be forced to bail out a company that they have allowed to operate in an unsustainable manner, and that other providers with suffer the inevitable regulatory backlash. The taxpayer will be left to pick up the costs, whilst the PE/VC investor move on to the next ‘opportunity’.

Young people have spoken. Now it’s time for government to listen

As NUS president I chair the youth-led shadow curriculum and assessment review, which was borne from a shared desire amongst young people for meaningful, inclusive and relevant education.

Our recently published final recommendations aim to address issues identified by young people through nationwide engagement, supported by evidence and insights provided by expert contributions.

We’ve worked to ensure that young people have their views represented in this review. I firmly believe that perspectives of young people must be included in reshaping education and am so proud to support the shadow review, along with leading organisations including SOS-UK, The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, I have a voice, NUS, The Scouts Association, NYA, UK Youth and Young Citizens.

The report sets out 14 key recommendations which reflect the shared view from young people for an education system across four themes: building skills and relevance to life; assessments, mental health and wellbeing; climate, sustainability and citizenship education; and equity and inclusion.

The recommendations have been shared with the intention of influencing the curriculum and assessment review, and I am hopeful that the recommendations will ultimately be implemented by the Department for Education. Students have a vision for education that is bold, ambitious, and fit for the challenges we face today and, for those of the future, and through the shadow review we’ve strived to present this vision to government.  

Students want an education system that prepares them for life, with skills like financial, digital, information and political literacy on the curriculum. Our young people are currently graduating without the broader competencies needed to thrive in life; the shadow review’s recommendations will change that.

Enhanced integration of citizenship skills – such as teamwork, critical thinking, resilience, analytical skills, empathy, debate and problem-solving – are also recommended across the curriculum and all key stages.

Young people today want the skills to become active, participatory and considerate members of our society. We know that our education should be preparing us to be active and engaged citizens, and we want to be prepared for the task. It is the government’s responsibility to incorporate the shadow review’s recommendations and guarantee young people the best possible foundation to take on tomorrow’s challenges.

Students also know that the society we want to meaningfully participate in is incredibly diverse, and we want an education system that reflects that. The shadow review calls on government to ensure that the national curriculum represents the full diversity of society, throughout history and at present. This means integrating a wider range of perspectives, including racialised, LGBTQIA+, disabled, neurodivergent, faith-based and working-class communities, whilst ensuring that these are presented sensitively to avoid tokenism. We want real experiences included through case studies, examples, and thoughtful subject content to guarantee psychological safety. Many FE providers are already independently working on delivering diverse curricula, such as Goldsmiths, University of London’s decolonised and diverse syllabuses, and Brighton MET College’s incorporation of queer perspectives in relevant courses. But the Shadow Review wants this inclusivity to be mandated across the whole country, and across all key stages.

We want the assessment system to be more inclusive and accessible, too. Current exam formats disproportionately disadvantage disabled and neurodiverse learners, and students are calling for reasonable adjustments to be proactively offered, not requested, and students should be able to choose from a range of assessment methods based on what will work best for them, rather than the narrow, prescriptive approach which exists now.

The shadow review shows that students want an education system built on inclusivity and empathy which prepares us for life’s future challenges, ranging from managing money to tackling climate change. Government has a major opportunity to respond to these demands with the publication of the curriculum and assessment review slated for this autumn. I am pleased by how receptive Professor Becky Francis and colleagues have been so far. If our recommendations are accepted in the final review, the benefits will be far reaching throughout this generation, the next, and all those which follow.