Adult learning can help rebuild community and resist hate 

Across the UK, communities are under strain. Whether it’s the rising cost of living, stretched public services, or deepening political divides, many people feel disconnected, disempowered, and negative about what’s to come. At its heart, this is a crisis of community and pessimism. In my research I’ve identified social connectedness, a sense of agency and access to resources as three protective factors that make communities thrive.

Without connection, agency and resources, people become vulnerable to those who promise simple answers to complex problems. The far right seeks to exploit these issues, but we can stop them by providing a hopeful alternative. Adult education has a role to play in tackling the polarisation we see in our communities.

The challenge

Change isn’t happening fast enough for people who are struggling. The far right is joining together issues like the cost of living, stretched NHS, deindustrialisation and the decline of the high street into a dangerous story of blame. They scapegoat marginalised groups like migrants and refugees, ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ community; they also attack the progressive causes (charities, law firms, journalists) who are trying to support these people or shine a light on the difficulties they experience.

At HOPE not hate, we work to challenge the far right and their narratives. But they are skilled communicators. They frame their messages emotionally, exploiting people’s desperation to create a sense of competition and scarcity: that there’s “not enough to go around”, and that some people are taking more than their “fair share”.

Social media amplifies this. Algorithms push sensationalist content and connect together different conspiracies and hateful rhetoric. We have seen how online discourse can spill over into offline violence: the riots following the tragic Southport attack in August last year, or recent events in Ballymena.

Adult learning as part of the solution

I believe adult education can be part of the solution because it is rooted in local communities and designed to build trust, openness and purpose.

The small, group-based learning that takes place through adult learning provider the WEA helps to foster belonging. Learners aren’t just learning new skills, they’re meeting people they might not otherwise cross paths with. In fact, 88 per cent of WEA learners say they met people they wouldn’t normally encounter during their learning. This builds empathy, reduces fear, and helps form the relationships that protect against polarisation.

The WEA has also developed tools to help people navigate today’s information landscape, like an open-access resource on combatting disinformation created with the journalist Amanda Ruggeri. It’s an excellent starting point for the kind of critical thinking that our new digital age demands.

Learning to tackle the far right goes beyond the academic. Publishing facts and ‘myth busting’ can dry up the conversation and escalate arguments about which sources of information are trustworthy or accurate. On the other hand, learning to be curious and ask people why they think what they think and asking open-hearted questions encourages people to understand their thought processes.

The WEA’s work is deeply local. 73 per cent of learners attend sessions in physical venues rather than online, the majority within a three-mile radius of their home. These are often the same venues that host other community services, meaning adult education becomes a gateway into broader civic life. It’s work in Leicester helped support community cohesion after the 2022 unrest.

Adult learning must be funded to succeed

Funding cuts to adult education limit its potential to address the challenges we face today. Investment in children’s education is essential, but often it is used as a long-term fix for problems that are happening right now. We cannot kick the can down the road. Community-based learning for all should have a seat at the table when it comes to broader conversations about cohesion, resilience, and inclusion.

We need government, policymakers and providers to:

  • Invest in local, community-based learning.

  • Fund social infrastructure. Shared spaces and opportunities for connection are vital for communities.

  • Follow through on initiatives like the £1.5 billion neighbourhood plan, ensuring communities can shape their own futures through inclusive strategies.

Let’s be clear: people vulnerable to far-right narratives are not ‘hard to reach’. They’re online, in our workplaces, parents at the school gate. Adult education can and should be part of the national conversation on tackling extremism.

Apprenticeship changes are a moment to refine, not rewind

The introduction of assessment principles sets the scene for simplified assessment plans, introducing flexibility into assessment design. This includes opportunities, where appropriate, for provider-led and on-programme assessment. This has stirred up a mix of anticipation and anxiety across the sector. Yet beneath the uncertainty lies a chance to reframe how we design, deliver and assure apprenticeships.

As Catherine Large of Ofqual rightly notes, “This is a recalibration, not a return to the days of framework apprenticeships before the Richard Review”.

It’s a moment to refine – not rewind.

Reforming a comfortable status quo

Traditional assessment plans offer reassurance and comfort through consistency. But comfort is no substitute for efficacy. Current models are increasingly seen as over-engineered and rigid, frequently prioritising standardisation over deliverability and relevance (validity), and often failing to reflect the dynamic realities of delivery across employers and industries. Apprenticeships thrive on responsiveness. From training to assessment, different contexts require different approaches. And that’s not a weakness, it’s a strength!

The new approach lifts the lid on prescription, inviting assessment organisations to make design choices to meet the needs of specific sectors and in some instances individual employers and settings. With increased freedom in design comes increased variation and we must recognise the accompanying risk.

Comparability remains a central topic across many sector groups we engage with. The worry is that varying assessment approaches among organisations could lead to inconsistent learner experiences – prompting legitimate questions around fairness and outcome reliability. However, it’s important not to conflate the concept of variation with a lack of comparability: difference in approach doesn’t inherently compromise the integrity of assessment outcomes.

The on-programme journey already varies by provider and employer; tailored to industry needs, learner profiles, and local contexts. That difference is accepted, even welcomed. So why should assessment be excluded from thoughtful variation?

Different doesn’t mean inconsistent

Variation in delivery isn’t a flaw; it’s a feature of a responsive and modern skills system. Different job roles demand different approaches. Quality doesn’t come from rigid uniformity, it comes from meaningful oversight, sector expertise, and evidence-informed practice.

The worry that decentralising assessment may threaten quality and consistency is valid. But context matters. Across regulated qualification provision, training providers already assess independently – with awarding organisations conducting robust scrutiny under frameworks like Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny Strategies (CASS). This model works and there’s no reason it can’t translate to apprenticeship assessment.

What matters is that assessment design and regulation go hand-in-hand: organisations take ownership of assessment design, while regulators uphold fairness, validity and transparency.

Ofqual is actively responding to these ongoing apprenticeship reforms, having recently launched a public consultation to gather sector views on its proposed revised regulatory framework for apprenticeship assessment.

The proposal sets out key requirements across both the design and delivery of assessments, with a clear focus on mitigating potential risks while upholding consistency in quality, rigour, and fairness.

Ofqual, as an outcome-based regulator, already enables flexibility without sacrificing control. Its framework encourages innovation within boundaries and that philosophy is exactly what apprenticeships now need.

Collaboration drives confidence

For this reform to succeed, it must be co-created. We need DfE, Skills England and Ofqual to better align their timeframes and expectations on delivery of the reform and introduction of new plans and frameworks. This is a major moment of change and it’s important we get it right.

The sector is mobilising with intent, actively engaging in consultation groups, reviewing internal systems, and strengthening connections across stakeholder networks. As momentum builds, it’s vital to recognise the scale of change ahead and ensure that reforms are given the time and space needed to be embedded responsibly and sustainably.

TQUK is proud to be part of that momentum. Regulated since 2013, we understand the balance between adaptability and accountability. And we believe Ofqual’s experience in qualification regulation will bring valuable structure to apprenticeship regulation, ensuring consistency, fairness and confidence in outcomes.

With the right safeguards in place, it could be the recalibration that apprenticeships have been waiting for.

Raising participation age to 18 had ‘limited impact’, study suggests

Raising the age to which children must participate in school, college or training to 18 has seen “limited impact” ten years after implementation, a study suggests.

But researchers have said the policy of raising the participation age (RPA) has “untapped potential to expand learning opportunities for young people”, and called for “duties and responsibilities” for the policy to be re-assessed.

The participation age was raised from 16 to 17 in 2013 and then to 18 in 2015, in a bid to tackle the fact 10.3 per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds at the time were not in education, employment or training (NEET).

The RPA was introduced after the 2008 education and skills act included provisions for all children to stay in education or training for longer.

Now a report by the University of Bath, FFT Education Datalab, Institute of Policy Research and the Edge Foundation has found an overall reduction in sustained participation among 16 to 18 year olds. Data also shows an increase in the NEET rate.  

‘Hasty’ implementation

The idea of raising the compulsory age was to improve teenagers’ “qualification attainment and acquisition of skills, as well as their future employment and earning potential”.

But implementation of the policy was “hasty”, the report found, as it was “delivered in a climate of economic austerity, a change in government, and accompanied change to education management” within local authorities.

The IRP studied data covering all pupils in England state schools in the years immediately before and after the policy was implemented. They also looked at case studies of local authorities Blackpool, Bristol, Norfolk, Sunderland, Wandsworth and Worcestershire.

Data showed the RPA was not associated with large changes. 

While there was some initial improvement in participation for year 12s and 13s, there was also an increase in mid-year dropouts. The sustained participation rate reduced by around 2 percentage points compared with cohorts unaffected by the RPA.

Boys drove the increase in overall participation in year 12. Girls had a larger reduction in FE participation, while participation among black students reduced much more than other groups.

“We find there was a limited impact of the policy on overall participation in education or training during the first two years post-16,” said Datalab’s Dave Thomson and the IPR’s Matt Dickson in a blog post.

‘Untapped potential’

Young people are met with structural, institutional, social and personal barriers which prevent their participation, the report warned.

In particular, cuts to local authority budgets means they struggle to deliver their RPA duties, with timely reporting of student dropouts “lacking”.

Careers education is “inconsistent in quality, with non-academic routes unevenly covered”, researchers added.

Thomson and Dickson said the research “at times presents a bleak picture but we do finish with a cautious note of optimism. 

“We see the RPA policy as having untapped potential to expand learning opportunities for young people, and with that in mind, offer a series of recommendations to find ways of offering earlier intervention during the post-16 phase.”

The report calls for duties and responsibilities of the RPA to be reassessed, with much closer alignment between the Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions needed.

Other recommendations included equipping LAs with better resources to fulfil their duties, commissioning an assessment of the post-16 maths and English resit model and introducing attendance performance measures.

BTECs axe will cause huge ‘qualifications gap’, ministers warned

Tens of thousands of youngsters are at risk of falling through a “qualifications gap” in key areas of the economy because of the government’s plan to scrap BTECs, campaigners estimate.

In December 2024, the Department for Education announced a future blanket ban on all diploma and extended diploma size applied general qualifications (AGQs) – courses equivalent to two and three A-levels respectively – in T Level subjects. 

Ministers’ aim is to “direct” students away from AGQs to T Levels – new courses dubbed to be the technical equivalent to A-levels.

It means popular AGQs like BTECs in subjects such as health and social care, applied science and IT will be scrapped in 2026, with “highly regarded” AGQs in business and engineering due to follow in 2027.

The government’s “optimistic” forecast is that just 91,200 students will be studying a T Level in 2027 – up from 41,589 learners in 2025. There are currently 277,380 students studying an AGQ.

New analysis by the Protect Student Choice campaign indicates that the bonfire of AGQs will lead to 52,000 fewer young people studying health and science courses each year, a reduction of 45 per cent.

And there will be 11,000 fewer young people studying digital courses each year, a fall of 33 per cent, according to the report.

Government priority areas to be hit

Life sciences and digital and technologies are two of the eight priority sectors identified in the government’s industrial strategy.

Campaigners said that reducing the numbers of students studying these subjects will “hamper plans to upskill the workforce and act as a barrier to achieving the government’s key mission to kickstart economic growth”.

Campaigners have urged the independent curriculum and assessment review (CAR) chaired by Professor Becky Francis to recommend that the government “reverses the ban on AGQ diplomas and extended diplomas in T Level subjects when it publishes its final report in the autumn”.

It comes after a briefing from Skills England, seen by FE Week, warned that while most colleges and schools know about the government’s level 3 reforms, there is “significant uncertainty about how they work in practice”. The note, which followed a survey of 122 providers in May, added: “Awareness does not equate to confidence.”

Labour MP Gareth Snell, who also chairs the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education, said: “Sixth forms and colleges up and down the country know the vital role that AGQs play in helping students to progress to higher education or skilled employment.

“Limiting the choice of qualification in certain subjects to T Levels will leave some young people without a suitable pathway at the age of 16, and some employers without the skilled workforce they need.”

December’s stay of execution

In 2021, the Conservative government announced plans to scrap funding for AGQs and shift to a two-pillar system where most young people would pursue A-levels and T Levels.

The new Labour government conducted a limited review of the level 3 reforms after coming into power in 2024. As a result, the plan to axe AGQs in subjects such as applied science, health and social care and IT was paused for 12 months.

But last December, the government also announced a blanket ban on all diploma and extended diploma-sized AGQs – 720 hours or more – in T Level subjects.

Guidance published in February 2025 confirmed that “large qualifications in T Level routes…will have funding removed” and last month skills minister Jacqui Smith (pictured) emphasised that the government “remains committed to T Levels being the best large qualification in routes where they are available”.

The Protect Student Choice campaign looked at two subjects where it had sufficient data to forecast T Level student numbers and compare it to enrolments on AGQs set to be scrapped.

Using static overall student numbers for “simplicity”, the analysis suggests there will be 52,477 health and science students without a “suitable” study programme in 2026 due to the slow projected growth of T Levels.

Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said health and social care AGQs are “highly valued as a source of introducing younger people to a career in social care”.

“Scrapping these qualifications would close off a well-established pathway to entering the profession and exacerbate the workforce crisis in the care sector for a younger population we are keen to promote access to,” he added.

Source: Protect Student Choice campaign analysis

By repeating the same analysis for IT, computing, and digital, the campaign found government’s plans could result in almost 11,000 fewer young people studying these subjects each year.

Nimmi Patel, head of skills, talent, and diversity at techUK, the UK’s technology trade association, said: “With over 10,000 fewer young people set to study IT and digital subjects each year, the pipeline of future tech talent is under threat. At a time when the government is prioritising growth through innovation, it’s vital that pathways like BTECs are retained to ensure a diverse and skilled workforce for the UK’s digital economy.”

Source: Protect Student Choice campaign analysis

The research also indicated that just 71,000 of the 277,380 students currently studying an AGQ are enrolled on those that the government has agreed not to scrap – which are all equivalent to one A-level or smaller and will be known as alternative academic qualifications (AAQs) in the future.

The rest – more than 200,000 students – are studying AGQs that are either being scrapped or have an “uncertain future”.

The fate of the 134 AGQs

Protect Student Choice’s focus is on the 134 recently reformed AGQs currently available to young people, which are included in the DfE’s performance league tables.

The government is reviewing these in two cycles. Of the 55 in cycle one – subjects like applied science, IT, and health and social care that overlap with the first few waves of T Levels – 17 have been reapproved as AAQs. However, 20 were scrapped in 2025 and the remaining 18 are due to be scrapped over the next two years.

There are 79 AGQs in cycle two – subjects that clash with T Levels rolled out in later years. Campaigners said know that popular diplomas and extended diplomas in, for example, business will be scrapped as there is a T Level in this subject, but there is “uncertainty about the fate” of the one A-level equivalent qualification. 

“Many” of these AGQs, such as criminology and applied law, have a “very high number of enrolments” yet a decision will not be made on their future until the curriculum and assessment review report is published, today’s report said.

Another quals review possible

Colleges and schools have been told that the future of these qualifications will be set out when Francis’ CAR reports in the autumn.

Campaigners said it seems “unlikely” that the review will make specific recommendations about individual AGQs by size and subject, which “raises the possibility of yet another qualifications review”.

“This uncertainty is making it difficult for colleges and schools to plan their future curriculum, recruit and train the right staff, or to provide appropriate information, advice and guidance to younger pupils,” campaigners added.

A DfE spokesperson said: “T Levels will be at the forefront of our technical education offer. Alongside them, newly reformed qualifications will become available for delivery at level 3 at the start of the next academic year. These are high-quality, aligned to occupational standards in technical routes and offer learners clear routes to higher education or skilled employment.  

“The department’s position on further plans for reform to level 3 qualifications will be set out soon, informed by the independent CAR.” 

Missed inspection targets and 5 more findings from Ofsted’s annual report

Ofsted has missed nearly all internal inspection targets this year, its staff are less positive about working there and one in ten left, the watchdog’s annual report and accounts reveal.

The publication breaks down the inspectorate’s achievements, finances, and challenges for the 2024-25 academic year.

Here are the key takeaways…

1. Internal inspection targets missed

Ofsted missed its internal target of FE and skills inspections by 16 per cent – more than 150 providers – this year, its report shows.

The watchdog aimed to inspect 969 FE and skills providers but inspected 818.

The report said it missed its FE target because fewer apprenticeship and skills bootcamp providers opened or “stayed open long enough” to be inspected. This was contrary to the watchdog’s planning assumptions, so it carried out fewer new provider monitoring visits.

Elsewhere, Ofsted hit just 92 per cent of its state schools target due to pausing routine inspections between December 2023 and January 2024 so inspectors could undergo mental health awareness training in the wake of the death of headteacher Ruth Perry.

This led to a shortfall of 417 (6 per cent) inspections at the end of 2023-24. These were then prioritised at the start of this academic year and added to 2024-25 targets.

In September, routine inspections were again paused while overall effectiveness grades were scrapped for schools, and another 341 inspections were unable to go ahead.

The revelation comes as the impending roll-out of the new education inspection framework is expected to hamper Ofsted’s inspection capacity in coming months.

The inspectorate has already announced there will be fewer inspections than usual in November and December, as inspections will initially be carried out only by the most senior and experienced inspectors.

There will also be no education inspections in the final week before the Christmas holiday, “to allow for further inspector training”.

2. ‘On track’ with enhanced FE inspections

Meanwhile, Ofsted said it was “currently on track” to inspecting all FE colleges, sixth-form colleges and designated institutions with an enhanced inspection “at least once” by July 2025.

The watchdog has carried out enhanced inspections of the three provider types since September 2022. They include a sub-judgment on how well providers are meeting skills needs.

“We are currently on track to complete this three-year undertaking. This year, we carried out 76 enhanced college inspections,” the report said.

3. Ofsted staff less positive about their work

The report also shows staff felt less positively about working for Ofsted this year. 

Around 80 per cent of staff took part in the annual Civil Service People Survey last autumn. 

Ofsted’s Employee Engagement Index score – which captures how staff feel about working in the department – was 64 per cent this year, down four percentage points from the previous year. The Civil Service benchmark score for this year is 65 per cent.

But sickness absence also increased this year. The average number of working days lost rose to 7.3 days, above Ofsted’s target of 6.8 days.

Ofsted says around one third (32 per cent) of absences are due to “stress, anxiety and other psychological conditions. Although this is lower than the Civil Service average, we will continue our efforts to reduce it,” the watchdog said.

4. Staff turnover still above target

Staff turnover also remains higher than the Civil Service target, at 10.9 per cent. The target number is not included, but the wider civil service turnover rate was 7.5 per cent last year.

However, Ofsted’s turnover has improved: it was 12.8 per cent in 2023-24.

A total of 113 inspectors left Ofsted across all of its remits in 2024-25, the report states.

Turnover varies between remits and grades, but “recruitment and retention of talent continue to be priorities”, it adds.

5. ‘Catalyst’ scheme to boost diversity

More than 80 per cent of Ofsted employees are white, while just 13 per cent are from an ethnic minority. This is around the same as last year.

Meanwhile 69 per cent of employees identify as female, 8 per cent identify as LGBT, and 8 per cent are disabled.

Ofsted says the Ofsted Academy is “ready to launch” a new initiative it calls “Catalyst”, to “improve our recruitment of underrepresented groups”. FE Week has approached Ofsted for more details.

6. 4 in 10 of college complaints upheld

Of the 830 inspections and other activities carried out in FE skills in 2024-25, 2 per cent (18) resulted in a complaint. This is less than the previous year, when 5 per cent (39) resulted in a complaint.

Of the 24 FE complaints closed this year, at least one aspect was upheld in 42 per cent of cases. This is the same proportion as the previous year.

In five other cases, the complaint investigation meant FE inspections were deemed “incomplete”. There were no cases in FE where the overall judgement was changed.

Legislation paves way for mayors to appoint ‘skills commissioners’

New legislation will give mayors powers to appoint “commissioners” to lead on delivery of their skills and employment policies.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, published this month, proposes that mayors could directly hire up to seven “independent appointees” who would act as their “extension”.

This could include appointing an unelected “skills and employment commissioner” taking over adult skills policy delivery that is currently overseen by mayors or local authority leaders.

In the legislation, the government is proposing a devolution “framework” aiming for every part of England to be overseen by a “strategic authority” which can take local control of seven policy areas including skills and employment, housing and planning, economic development and transport.

A strategic authority is a new category of regional government – including combined authorities, the Greater London Authority and some large local authorities – which will have an automatic right to gain new local powers.

The government argues giving mayors the “option” to appoint dedicated commissioners for each policy area will enable them to bring in “external expertise and full-time resource” to help them politically oversee their expanding responsibilities.

Currently, combined authority mayors with devolved adult skills powers can give leaders of local councils a policy “portfolio” to oversee, such as adult skills.

However, a government impact assessment published alongside the bill argues this practice “does not work optimally”.

It added: “Constituent council leaders are very busy with work for their own council, which are significant organisations with powers and responsibilities in their own right.”

The government believes that London’s system of allowing its mayor to appoint up to 11 deputy mayors with similar roles to the commissioner proposal is “vital” to managing their “significant workload” and in some cases, avoiding conflicts of interest.

Political support, with caveats

West Midlands Combined Authority mayor Richard Parker told FE Week he is in favour of mayors being able to appoint commissioners.

He said: “The Devolution Bill gives us a real chance to shape skills policy around what our region actually needs.

“By putting trusted local experts in post – people who know our industries, our communities and our challenges – we can close the skills gap and unlock new opportunities for local people and businesses alike.

“And this is just one of the new powers we could put to work to connect our skills system with employers – working closely with government.”

But Alessandro Georgiu, a Conservative London Assembly member, said that while deputy mayors are necessary for helping the London mayor “run the administration”, their quality “depends on the mayor” who appoints them.

He added: “In theory deputy mayors can be a very good thing, but only if you have competent people. Otherwise you’re just paying £130,000 per year for political hacks who don’t do the job properly.”

Georgiou said having strong scrutiny arrangements similar to London’s would be “crucial” to ensuring there is democratic oversight of commissioners.

He pointed out that the London Mayor’s work is scrutinised by 25 “assembly members”, paid £62,761 per year, who run a range of committees focusing on different policy areas such as transport, policing, housing and planning.

In comparison, most combined authorities are scrutinised by a single overview and scrutiny committee, made up of councillors from local authorities, who are paid much smaller allowances, such as £3,159 per year in the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA).

WMCA’s overview and scrutiny committee plans to meet only six times this year to scrutinise its mayor’s spending of about £1.2 billion each year, which adult skills is only a small part of.

Ambassadors for mayors?

The proposal to give mayors the power to appoint skills and employment commissioners has been welcomed by some devolution experts.

Sue Jarvis, co-director of the Heseltine Institute for public policy, practice and place, said commissioners could bring in a “level of expertise” that mayors or local authority leaders don’t have.

She added that commissioners could have more time than mayors to work “cross sector” with business, colleges and local authorities to raise awareness and “get people behind” new policies.

Alex Walker, a researcher at the Bennett Institute, said appointing commissioners “makes sense” as local authority leaders who are also portfolio holders are stretched by “other responsibilities”.

“I think on a practical level, the mayor can’t be everywhere at once. So, there is a rationale to having a commissioner who can act as a kind of focal point, as sort of like an ambassador, I suppose, for the mayor in that particular sort of area.

“But as the powers of mayors and suitable authorities increase, there does need to be a corresponding strengthening of scrutiny and accountability arrangements as well. 

“And I think these are woefully weak as it stands – you do have overview the scrutiny and oversight committees, but they don’t really kind of conduct inquiries in any kind of meaningful sense, in the way that you’d expect a Parliamentary committee or even the committees of the London Assembly to do.”

Sue Pember, policy director at community learning representative body Holex, said the bill’s “clear breakdown” of responsibilities of different authorities is “helpful”.

However, she said the new devolved system feels “overly complex and bureaucratic” with skills and employment commissioners adding “yet another layer” of administration that could draw more funding away from frontline education delivery.

The rulebook I never got: A neurodivergent teacher’s journey from masking to belonging

If someone was ever asked to describe me the words would be a bit quirky, weird or strange. Throughout my childhood and adulthood, it always seemed that no matter how hard I tried to fit in I never quite managed it. It was only until I started teaching psychology in an FE college this year that I started to understand neurodivergence and where I fit into that.

Working in the FE sector, I have been able to explore my neurodiverse background safely. Previously I went undiagnosed in fear of being discriminated against and occasionally was accused of being autistic as an insult. And while I have had issues in communication and misinterpretation generally it’s been one of the safest environments I have worked in. The idea of autism being a diffability rather than a disability is communicated through the CPD days to the openness of management.

There are several challenges I face as a neurodivergent teacher such as masking, social interactions and staff culture. Early on I felt like I needed to ‘mask’ and do a performance of what a teacher should be, such as always smiling, and energetic. Masking is a term often used in autism and even though the workplace is a theatre for most people for me it’s the inherent desire to try to appear normal. In trying to embody a ‘normal’ person I pay attention to every little detail to try to fit to expectations. I think about every sentence, every change of tone trying to decipher what it really means. However this was exhausting, and my weekends were often spent recovering from the week. Since then, I have been leaning into a more natural style and built relationships with colleagues who understand me which has helped with navigating the unspoken social rules of the staffroom.

Another challenge is following rules to the exact letter which sounds great on paper until you realise there are nuanced unwritten rules, especially in the workplace and then you realise that you don’t have the rulebook. I have also noticed that people don’t appreciate it when you tell them the truth, preferring the accepted social norms. People say one thing and then mean another; the spoken word is often a mask for the actual meaning, and I am taking every word literally.

In terms of supporting neurodivergent students, I understand the landscape they navigate through, having lived experience myself which means I can anticipate the situations in where they struggle such as transitions or feeling misunderstood. I also recognise the strengths of neurodivergence such as pattern recognition, deep focus and the different ways of thinking and encourage these as strengths and not obstacles to overcome.

How does this impact teaching? In terms of subject knowledge, I have to say I am pretty good, the hyperfocus has a place to go. Classroom management is something I have developed, having pattern recognition skills works to my advantage and I have learnt that predictability is key. It also gives me the added advantage in understanding that not everyone thrives in the same mode, so I give options into how much they want to participate in class. However, for someone who thrives in silence the constant chaos can be too much at times. In trying to create an inclusive environment for my students I sometimes find it hard to create one for myself. However, building quiet moments in the day to recharge has helped me.

When discussing inclusivity and neurodivergence, the college always makes it clear it’s for students and staff on the spectrum, and it is celebrated through training and storytelling. This is what an inclusive environment does and one that I hope my neurodivergent students will experience when they go out into the world of work. Autism is not a disability but rather a different way to view the world, and difference is something to celebrate.

The only tip for other neurodivergent teachers is to find an environment that suits you and lean into your strengths. Remember, you bring a needed perspective to a diverse community.

When kindness takes a seat in the exam hall 

She arrived late. Breathless. Tearful. And already defeated.

It was the morning of the GCSE maths exam. This student – an adult learner and a mother – had done everything right: taken her children to school, planned her journey, set out on time. But traffic was gridlocked. By the time she reached her college, she was distressed, unable to breathe steadily, and gripped with panic. She couldn’t stop saying: “I forgot my calculator. I forgot my calculator.”

She was directed to a seat in a side room, where two other latecomers sat silently, legs trembling under their desks. But there was one more blow: she was told she had lost her dyslexia entitlement to extra time. She whispered, eyes wide, “I always use all my extra time.”

Her body was present, but she was emotionally miles away from being able to take an exam. She needed to hear something urgently – something that wouldn’t be on the paper in front of her:

That she still had a chance to pass.
That this one hard morning didn’t define her entire year.
To be reminded that she was not a failure. Just a person who’d had a very human morning.

In FE, kindness is not optional

We rarely speak of kindness in the exam hall. It’s assumed to be a neutral space. But for many FE learners – particularly adult returners – exam halls can be spaces of acute vulnerability. As staff, we can make an enormous difference.

During my time in FE, I’ve met countless students with long histories of difficulty in maths – many with undiagnosed special educational needs, learning anxiety, caring responsibilities, mental health struggles, or past trauma from education itself. For these learners, an exam isn’t just a test of knowledge – it’s a test of resilience, emotional regulation and whether they can recover quickly enough from whatever the morning threw at them.

Kindness in these moments is not indulgent. It’s essential.

When I reflect on this incident, I’m reminded that compassion is not about excusing poor behaviour or lowering standards. It’s about making space for people to perform at their best despite difficult circumstances. Had that learner sat the paper without any support or time to reset, she would have been physically present but mentally shut down. Instead, with reassurance and a few moments of calm, she began to see the paper as a challenge she could face – rather than a punishment she deserved.

In FE, we rightly give ample attention to curriculum planning, attainment data, and qualification outcomes. These are vital parts of our work. But alongside that, it’s equally important to recognise how emotional regulation and a sense of psychological safety can affect performance – particularly for students with complex needs or fragile academic confidence.

When learners enter a high-stakes exam, they bring more than just a pencil case but memories of past struggles, negative thoughts, daily pressures. For some, all that reaches new heights in the exam room. Emotional distress isn’t always visible, but it’s real.

We don’t always have full flexibility around systems and structures, but we do have the power to be human in the moments that matter. Our presence, patience, and understanding can make the difference between a learner shutting down – or showing up fully.

And if we are serious about learner wellbeing, we must bring that same safeguarding mindset into the exam hall. That means training invigilators and staff to recognise signs of distress and respond with calm, compassionate presence. Sometimes a quiet nod, a moment of understanding, or simply being near is enough to steady someone when everything feels like it’s unravelling.

Our students are still forming a picture of whether they belong in that seat. Kindness, sometimes, is the thing that helps them stay in it.

Members revealed for white working-class kids inquiry

Two former education secretaries, union leaders and a college membership body boss have been named as members of a new inquiry launched to investigate the educational outcomes of white working-class children.

More details have been announced for the Independent Inquiry into White Working-Class Educational Outcomes inquiry, commissioned by Star Academies and run by consultants Public First.

The year-long inquiry will examine what is and isn’t working for white working-class children and young people through data analysis, polling, focus groups and immersive research with parents, teachers, children and young people.

It will be co-chaired by chief executive of Star Academies Sir Hamid Patel and Estelle Morris (pictured), who served as education secretary from 2001 to 2002. 

The project will be part-funded by Star alongside the Christopher and Henry Oldfield Trust, set up to support programmes which reduce offending and reoffending.

The inquiry was originally reported as being “ordered” by education secretary Bridget Phillipson, but that is not the case. However Sir Kevan Collins, the government’s school standards tsar, is a member.

Other members of the panel have now been confirmed. They are:

  • James Bowen, assistant general secretary, NAHT
  • Anne-Marie Canning, CEO, The Brilliant Club 
  • Dame Sally Coates, United Learning 
  • Professor Rob Coe, director of research and development at Evidence Based Education
  • Sir Kevan Collins, school standards advisor, non-executive board member, Department for Education
  • Steve Crocker, non-executive board member, Department for Education
  • Leora Cruddas, CEO, Confederation of School Trusts
  • Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary, ASCL
  • Lucy Heller, CEO, Ark
  • David Hughes, CEO, Association of Colleges
  • Professor Lindsey Macmillan, founding director, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO)
  • Baroness Nicky Morgan, former education secretary (2014-16), member of the House of Lords
  • Baroness Sally Morgan, former director of government relations in 10 Downing Street, member of the House of Lords
  • Dame Lesley Powell, CEO, North East Learning Trust

Phillipson said last month white working-class children had “been betrayed – left behind in society’s rear-view mirror.

“They are children whose interests too many politicians have simply discarded. That’s why I have tasked my officials with bearing down on this schedule”.

Phillipson said data shows a “clear picture” across attendance, attainment and life chances that white-working class children “do exceptionally poorly”.

Bridget Phillipson

Of the 1,228 secondaries with more than 20 per cent white working-class pupils taking GCSEs, 1,061 (86 per cent) had a Progress 8 score for those youngsters of -0.5 or worse.

Just 21 schools (1.7 per cent) had a score of 0.5 or better. The rest had a progress 8 score of between 0 and -0.5.

David Hughes, chief Executive of the Association of Colleges and inquiry member, said: “At age 16 we see disproportionate numbers of young people from working class backgrounds disengaged and unmotivated by the education they have been offered, and colleges work hard to turn that around, with great success.

“Understanding how they do that and what works will be great learning for the education system in key stages 3 and 4.”

It is not the first inquiry into the issue. The education committee ran an inquiry in 2014 and again in 2021, with the latter concluding that white working-class pupils had been let down after decades of neglect.

Patel said the inquiry will “take a fresh, evidence-led look at the persistent challenges facing white working-class pupils and work towards practical solutions that can make a lasting difference”.

Ed Dorrell, an education practice partner at Public First who is also currently assisting the Department for Education’s communications team, added: “The issue of educational underachievement of white working-class is young people is one of the most urgent public policy challenges in this country.”