Latest news from FE Week

Inspector’s conflict of interest led to Ofsted abandoning judicial review

Ofsted pulled out of its high-profile judicial review with Make UK at the 11th hour after an undeclared conflict of interest came to light, FE Week has learned.

The manufacturing giant claimed victory over the watchdog this month after it turned a proposed ‘inadequate’ judgment into a ‘good’ following a costly, year-long legal battle.

Make UK claimed its original inspection, conducted in January, was “fatally flawed” and led by an “inept and inexperienced” team that came to a “fundamentally inaccurate” grade. Its leaders have, however, maintained they were unaware of the true reason why Ofsted surrendered before the dispute could go to trial and decided to reinspect the provider.

FE Week understands that the watchdog would have seen out the trial but stood down at the last minute after a relationship between the lead inspector and Make UK was exposed.

There was a family connection between the lead inspector and a company that is both a member of Make UK and used the organisation to train its apprentices, which raises questions of impartiality.

The lead inspector failed to declare this alleged conflict during the original inspection process. FE Week understands that the lead inspector claimed to have had no knowledge of the link and therefore it could not have impacted the decisions made during the inspection, but this was contested by Make UK.

This significant information came to light after Make UK was granted a judicial review in the summer and the judge accepted it could be added to evidence ahead of the trial.

Ofsted then backpedalled and ultimately pulled out of the proceedings. The watchdog decided to conduct a full reinspection of Make UK with a different inspection team in October, which resulted in a ‘good’ report published last week. None of the allegations in the January inspection, including claims of misogynistic behaviour, were carried forward.

FE Week understands the lead inspector from the January inspection has now been suspended.

Ofsted’s conflicts of interest policy states that inspectors should “not accept work or undertake inspection or regulation activity with a provider where past, present or future employment, engagement, allegiance or relationship suggests an actual or perceived bias or any personal benefit”.

It adds: “Inspectors are responsible for continuously ensuring that there is no real or perceived conflict of interest before undertaking an inspection event or any work for Ofsted. They are responsible for declining inspections where they feel there may be a real or perceived conflict.”

Angela Sandhal, a judicial review solicitor who specialises in Ofsted disputes, said the potential for conflicts is a “wide-open field and can arise in various forms”.

She told FE Week: “Inspectors may feel uncomfortable and awkward about disclosing affiliations or memberships which could create the conflict, preferring instead to keep quiet about such matters.

“The key problem from a provider point of view is that conflicts or potential conflicts do not have to be declared to the education provider and may arise unexpectedly during the inspection itself. So providers have to rely completely on an inspector making a declaration in the first place and then Ofsted’s assessments and decisions about whether an inspector can proceed to conduct objective and impartial judgments about the quality of provision, which is ultimately what the public relies on.”

Make UK, formerly known as the Engineering Employers’ Federation, is an influential organisation that represents manufacturers across the country. It is chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness and was name-checked twice in last month’s autumn statement speech by the chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

It spent more than half a million pounds on legal fees to suppress the grade four Ofsted report, which included initially being granted an anonymity order to protect its name and reputation.

An ‘inadequate’ judgment would probably have led to the Education and Skills Funding Agency terminating the provider’s skills funding contract and ending its ability to deliver apprenticeship training.

Sandhal pointed out that “unfair” inspections can have “major ramifications for small education and training providers especially and there have been several cases recently of providers being put out of business based on a single inspection and not having the financial resources to bring these matters to the court’s attention”.

Ofsted and Make UK declined to comment.

Craft skills charity returns £11.2m over sex trafficking claims

A charity is looking for new donors to help save dying heritage craft skills after it handed back a multimillion-pound donation due to sex trafficking allegations made against its philanthropic benefactor.

English Heritage welcomed an £11.2 million donation in August from the foundation of British businessman and philanthropist Hamish Ogston (pictured). It was earmarked to go towards training and apprentice wage costs on its heritage skills programme.

However, a Sunday Times investigation alleged in September that Ogston had engaged in the sex trafficking and attempted trafficking of southeast Asian women and the procurement of class-A drugs over a period dating back 15 years. Scotland Yard is now reviewing the evidence.

A month later, English Heritage announced that it had severed ties with the Hamish Ogston Foundation given the “extremely serious nature of the allegations”. The Charity Commission has also opened a regulatory compliance case.

The charity said the £667,000 it had received so far would be handed back and that it would not draw down on any further funds committed by the foundation.

A spokesperson for English Heritage told FE Week that it was now “pursuing alternative funding avenues” to overcome this “setback” and fulfil its commitment to delivering its heritage skills programme.

English Heritage’s apprenticeship programme features courses in traditional skills including flint and stone masonry and heritage brickwork to help safeguard its properties. It also aims to fund a new heritage skills training centre in East Anglia and boost outreach across schools and the post-16 sector.

Training sessions for 450 FE construction students are on offer to help with the preservation of 34 castles and abbeys in the East of England.

Upskilling in heritage crafts has been dwindling in England due to low demand and high training costs, causing training providers to pull out of delivering courses such as clockmaking, bookbinding and blacksmithing.

Nearly £29 million was committed in total by the Hamish Ogston Foundation to projects run by heritage organisations across the UK and overseas, including the Commonwealth Heritage Forum and Historic Environment Scotland.

A spokesperson for Historic Environment Scotland (HES) told FE Week it had not drawn any of the £5.2 million committed from the foundation to date. The money would have funded its new Craft Your Career programme, launching 100 traineeships over five years to protect Scottish buildings.

“HES is assessing the information available relating to the Hamish Ogston Foundation in light of these serious allegations, as well as reviewing our legal and contractual obligations and talking to partners,” the spokesperson added.

Ogston, aged 75, made most of his fortune in 1980 when he founded credit card insurance firm Card Protection Plan (CPP). At one point he was worth an estimated £500 million. CPP was later embroiled in an insurance mis-selling scandal, as customers who had lost credit cards were already protected by their banks.

The Sunday Times investigation alleged that Ogston suggested using his charitable organisation as “some foil” to bring women into the country potentially as interns.

Ogston stepped down as chair of his foundation soon after the allegations were made and is no longer involved in the governance and running of the foundation, according to a statement on its website.

His daughter Isabella has also “retired” as a trustee and the foundation will continue with new leadership and a new name “in the next week or two”.

Since it was established in 2019, the Hamish Ogston Foundation has offered donations of more than £40 million to UK and Commonwealth initiatives. The foundation did not respond to requests for comment.

FAB to investigate regulators’ impact on health and wellbeing

The Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB) is set to investigate the “human and emotional cost” of government regulation, including the approach and conduct of regulators.

It comes after FE Week revealed how Ofqual was accused of driving an end-point assessment organisation out of the apprenticeship market with an “excruciating” and “unfair” investigation that left its owner feeling suicidal.

The situation emerged amid the Ruth Perry inquest, which concluded last week with a coroner’s verdict that the school headteacher died in January by suicide, contributed to by an Ofsted inspection.

It was also discussed at this month’s FAB annual conference, in which one leading awarding body chief executive said that, when regulation impacts on people’s health and wellbeing, it is a “red line we should not allow to be crossed”.

John McNamara, FAB’s interim chief executive, told FE Week he now plans for the membership body to survey members on their experience of regulatory approaches.

He said: “The significant issue about the human and emotional cost of regulation was raised at the federation’s recent conference and we will be conducting research with our members to better understand the emotional impact of the current approach to regulation.

“The results will be shared, and appropriate representations made to the regulator community and Department for Education should further action be required.”

Catherine Large, Ofqual’s executive director for vocational and technical qualifications, said the exams regulator “welcomes the news that FAB is working with its members to understand sentiment within the sector”.

“Mental health and wellbeing are very important issues, and we look forward to working with FAB and its members to consider the findings of their survey,” she added.

The awarding body that accused Ofqual of forcing it out of the apprenticeships market through a “traumatic” investigation is called QFI Ltd.

The company claimed the regulator used “minor” and “petty” data errors to impose strict conditions that would make its business untenable, as well as “inappropriate evidence gathering”. This included an almost five-hour “interrogation” of the responsible officer that forced her to turn to stress medication.

Speaking at FAB’s annual conference, NCFE chief executive and FAB non-executive director David Gallagher said awarding bodies operate in a “low-trust paradigm”, describing it as a “waterfall of mistrust”.

He told delegates: “There’s a very serious point here. We saw what happened in relation to Ofsted and the reform that’s been called for because of a very, very tragic event. I know it’s quite a dark thought, but I think some of the pressures I’m seeing in the sector, some of the impact that I’ve seen on people, it’s not OK.

“I think we’ve got to challenge back with evidence, with research, with insight, with togetherness.”

An audience member then said: “I was very grateful to hear mention about the emotional and human cost of regulatory burden in the week when Ruth Perry’s inquest is going on. We’ve also read about the human cost of regulatory outcomes in our field.

“It’s really, really important that FAB continues to step up and hold their [regulators’] feet to the flames in terms of the cost of that.

“I see an awful lot of it. The pressure it puts on organisations – and it’s not always as clear because it’s organisation to organisation – but there really is a huge human cost to this, and it’s on the exponential increase, it seems.”

McNamara said all FAB members believe in “fair and robust” regulation of qualifications and end-point assessments to “maintain public trust in the UK qualifications system and to protect the interests of learners”.

But he pointed out that the sector has seen an increasing regulatory burden. Three main regulators operated across the UK market in 2010. There are now eight organisations performing these functions.

Gallagher told FAB’s conference that, while the regulatory burden “is a problem”, the “approach” of regulators must also be examined.

He said: “I’ve spent most of my career within the sort of auspices of Ofsted regulation, and for me actually when it comes to Ofqual regulation, it’s so different. At least with Ofsted, you’re building up to an inspection, you’ve got a grade, you knew where you stood.

“Do you ever have any sense of achievement with Ofqual regulation? Are there any lessons that really come out of the, you know, the audits or the investigations?

“So, stylistically, it’s not just the burden, it’s the approach. I think it’s becoming really concerning and, when it impacts on people’s health and wellbeing, that is a red line that I don’t think we should allow to be crossed.”

FE Commissioner celebrates ‘great year’ for colleges in annual report

Six colleges entered formal intervention last year, according to the FE Commissioner’s (FEC) latest annual report.

But Shelagh Legrave’s annual stocktake of the sector is unusually silent on the major issues facing the college sector.

Previous reports have highlighted the FEC’s key concerns about the issues affecting college performance. For example, last year’s report flagged a lack of staff to deliver T Levels and college support services, poor oversight of subcontracting, cyber-security risks and the impact of inflation on college finances.

This year’s report, which covers Legrave and her team’s work between August 2022 and July 2023, speaks of “a great year” for the college sector despite warnings from other regulators that under-funding and staff recruitment challenges were negatively impacting learners.

This much more upbeat report was deliberate, Legrave told FE Week, because she believes the sector is in a better position financially.

“It was deliberate in so far as I think funding-wise, we’ve moved forward, which is great. It’s never going to be enough, but there was a settlement in the summer which I’m absolutely delighted with.”

It comes in the week the Institute for Fiscal Studies published its annual report on education spending which highlighted how spending per college student in 2024/25 will still be about 10 per cent below 2010/11 levels despite extra government funding.

Legrave said that cyber-security “remains a threat,” the use of subcontracting is “really reducing” and there will “always be challenges around governance”.

These issues have instead, Legrave claimed, been discussed with colleges at the annual strategic conversations and it her termly letter to college leaders.

Legrave told FE Week: “I have used that mechanism to talk about the specifics. My overall view is colleges are in a stronger place than they were, they are working really closely with employers, they’re growing their numbers of apprenticeships and delivering on government priorities.”

Colleges were reclassified as public sector organisations in November 2022, during the year this annual report covers. The move brought in immediate new controls on college borrowing and new rules on seeking approval for high-paid senior roles and “contentious and novel” transactions, which bring colleges in line with public sector Managing Public Money guidance.

Despite not making it into her final report – “I have talked about this elsewhere” – Legrave said, “the biggest problem at the moment is Managing Public Money because of the lack of loans, particularly for colleges that have grown substantially in September”.

“Most colleges are in a good place, I think,” she said.

The annual report details the work of the FE Commissioner’s office, which includes eight deputy FE commissioners, 13 FE advisers, 11 national leaders of governance and ten national leaders of further education.

Legrave reiterated her personal “key performance indicators” which were outlined in her speech at last month’s Association of Colleges annual conference, and included helping colleges increase the number of apprenticeships by 10 per cent and growing the number of skills bootcamp participants by 25 per cent.

As of July 31, 2023, there were 15 colleges in intervention, up one from last year. During the year five colleges exited intervention, meaning that six entered.

The only intervention report published by the commissioner during that year was for Ruskin College, which praised college leaders for taking swift action to improve its safeguarding procedures following an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted inspection.

One college was dissolved in the year. St Mary’s College Blackburn became the third college to go through the college insolvency regime in October 2022 after failing to find a viable merger partner.

The report lists the merger of Central Bedfordshire College with The Bedford College Group, the merger of Greater Brighton Metropolitan College with Chichester College Group and the formation of the South Hampshire College Group as outcomes of FEC-led structure and prospect appraisal outcomes during the year.

Another structure and prospects appraisal was started, but the college withdrew, according to the report.

The FEC team “supported” 80 principals, chief executives and governing bodies during the year, up from 52 the year before.

Legrave also hailed the success of the first rollout of curriculum efficiency and financial sustainability reviews, where experts advise colleges on curriculum cost savings and financial planning. An early evaluation indicates that the reviews have saved participating 35 colleges between £250,000 and £1.2 million.

A recruitment round will be launched early next year for new FE advisers with expertise in apprenticeships and land-based education.

Addressing long-held diversity gaps in the FEC team, the report said: “The FE Commissioner hopes to increase the diversity within the team to more accurately represent the FE sector, and would particularly encourage applications from those who identify with characteristics which are currently underrepresented within the team.”

AI, soft skills and bespoke training: Six predictions for apprenticeships in 2024

The past twelve months have been transformational, with the explosion of AI and uncertainties surrounding the apprenticeship levy raising questions around the future of apprenticeships. Here are my predictions for what could be around the corner in 2024.

AI as a teaching aide

OpenAI introduced ChatGPT in November 2022, and since then it has shaken up the education sector and given us a glimpse at the future of learning. Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT excel as an educational sidekick, and we see apprenticeships being one of the sectors set to benefit the most.

Existing apprenticeship curriculums dictate that apprentices should divide their time between working and studying. With AI, these activities could be integrated into a cohesive learning strategy as the algorithm learns your schedule, workload and particular learning style. LLMs can adapt to almost any knowledge level, responding instantly and accurately to queries, generating their own relevant questions and adjusting their methods to complement your skills. They are also available 24/7, all year round.

For training providers, offering learners an informed and relatively inexpensive virtual tutor that supports their students individually will be a welcome resource. If 2023 is anything to go by, apprentices are set to become very familiar with AI in 2024.

More growth for bespoke apprenticeships

For many employers the traditional, one-size-fits-all approach to apprenticeships is starting to transform into a model of specialised courses, tailored to the company’s unique requirements. By guiding learning towards their specific business needs and values, employers can create a common knowledge base and culture.

Allowing apprentices to focus on areas directly relevant to their industry also creates a more engaging and effective learning environment that directly translates into more relevant skills, improved career readiness and better job satisfaction. Training providers are already offering this type of course as a recruitment solution, so we can expect their continued growth into 2024.

Changes to the levy

The apprenticeship levy has been a subject of political debate for a few years, with both major parties differing in their approach. Labour has produced a fully-fledged proposal to transform the existing arrangement into the ‘Growth and Skills’ levy, recommending the creation of a new expert body called Skills England and permitting firms to spend 50 per cent of their contributions on non-apprenticeship training, including modular courses and functional skills.

This proposal does present a risk to the apprenticeship sector, with the Department for Education forecasting that it would limit apprenticeship uptake to 140,000 a year, down from 336,000 in the 2022/2023 academic year. In response to this concern, Labour has also promised an additional spending commitment for apprenticeships in SMEs.

Ultimately, the exact future of the government’s role in apprenticeship funding remains to be seen, and largely depends on the specific details of the policy implementation.

More emphasis on soft skills

Recent data suggests a growing concern about the soft skills gap among university graduates as they transition into their professional careers. With our workplaces becoming increasingly technical, soft skills like presenting, communicating, emotional intelligence and teamwork can be neglected. Additionally, AI’s ability to execute sophisticated or routine tasks makes human-centric soft skills more necessary.

Apprenticeships, traditionally valued for their practical, hands-on approach to learning, are well positioned to bridge this gap because apprentices develop their on-the-job skills in conjunction with their technical education.

More technically skilled teachers needed

With our workplace technology becoming more complex, apprenticeship educators will require more technical proficiency to educate apprentices to business-ready standards. Teaching is continually made more difficult by the intense rate of technological development, requiring educators to frequently upskill.

We can fulfil these technical labour requirements by commissioning industry-expert trainers or partnering with cutting-edge private sector firms to assist in keeping curriculum delivery up to speed.

Changing demand for skills

As we noted last year, proficiency in digital and technical skills like data analysis, software development and digital marketing will become increasingly essential. This is still the case, with 27 per cent of the workforce lacking sufficient digital skills. As AI utilisation becomes mainstream, employers will require skills that complement and enhance the technology, so expect to see new apprenticeship opportunities arise in this area in 2024.

So here’s to another busy year for the sector. Happy new year!

Independent review launched to check efficiency and governance of Office for Students

An independent review to examine the efficiency and governance of the Office for Students (OfS) is underway, the government has announced.

Sir David Behan (pictured), former chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, will lead the review of the higher education regulator with the aim of concluding it in early summer 2024.

The inquiry is part of the government’s wider public bodies review programme, which examines the effectiveness of arms-length bodies. The Education and Skills Funding Agency was subject to its own independent review in 2021-22, which resulted in the body being stripped of its policy role.

However, the announcement of the OfS review comes months after a House of Lords committee criticised the regulator for a lack of independence from the government and for losing trust with “many of its providers”.

The OfS was set up in 2018 to be an independent body reporting to the Department for Education and parliament, with a brief to work with higher education providers to make sure that students succeed. It regulates more than 400 providers, including 153 colleges.

The House of Lords’ industry and regulators committee said the actions of the regulator “often appear driven by the ebb and flow of short-term political priorities and media headlines”. It added that it was “failing to deliver and does not command the trust or respect of either providers, or students, the very people whose interests it is supposed to defend”.

The committee also called the OfS out for “widespread concern that it simply does the government of the day’s bidding”, a perception not helped by the fact that Lord Wharton, the OfS chair, continues to take the whip of the governing party in the House of Lords, while simultaneously claiming that the organisation, as a regulator, is independent of the government.

Sir David Behan’s review will focus on how the OfS meets the requirements of the following four quadrants: efficacy, governance, accountability and efficiency.

He will be responsible for ensuring a “proportionate, rigorous and fair review that offers recommendations to facilitate continuous improvement”, the government’s announcement said.

A “challenge panel” will also be established to “hear from the lead reviewer, understand the evidence base and challenge emerging thoughts and recommendations in a rigorous and constructive manner”.

This was the year politicians finally realised the value of our sector

I’m ending 2023 far more optimistic than I started.

In January we were still reeling a little from an autumn statement in which the chancellor had talked a good game on skills but instead invested in schools. It felt like a kick in the teeth and an ominous sign for the future.

Fast forward 12 months, however, and there is much more to suggest that both colleges and post-16 education are viewed as investible propositions across the political parties.

The positive signs started in July with the additional funding announced by Gillian Keegan, which has already started to support better pay in many colleges. We cannot underestimate the significance of this: for the first time college pay was addressed by DfE alongside schoolteacher pay. This shows a recognition of how important pay is in both settings.

The focus on colleges continued in the prime minister’s speech at the Conservative Party conference when he backed a 10-year programme to transform the 16-to-19 education phase.

This is, of course, easily dismissed as a long-term plan that will not last the imminent general election. But that would be wrong given that the Advanced British Standard (not a great name, but that will not last) is based on principles we have been campaigning on for years. It includes more hours of contact time for every young person, at all levels, and a simpler menu of options across the so-called academic and technical divide to allow more breadth. Importantly, it signals a strong desire to open up technical learning to more young people, of all abilities and backgrounds.

The ABS consultation and developments also give us a prime opportunity to address other longstanding campaign ambitions: pay and recruitment, workload, capital investment, moving from competition to collaboration and better linking apprenticeships with what happens inside colleges and schools.

That ABS announcement was followed by Keir Starmer’s plan to support colleges to take on a new enhanced role as Technical Excellence Colleges, presumably with the investment to match. It built on Labour’s strong focus on increasing awareness of the importance of skills across all of their ‘missions’.

It’s a nice place to be after too many years of neglect

This theme of stronger recognition continued in October with our Colleges Week parliamentary reception, which felt different to previous years. Alongside Gillian Keegan, we also heard speeches from shadow skills minister, Seema Malhotra, and Lib Dem education spokesperson, Munira Wilson. That’s not particularly remarkable, but their words and clear desire to show how much they recognise, respect and endorse colleges almost felt as if they were competing to prove they were the college sector’s biggest supporter.

It’s a nice place for us to be after too many years of neglect.

There are plenty of other indications of a stronger understanding of colleges’ vital role and the importance of investment in post-16 education. Take, for example, the engagement we now have at national policy level with universities on developing a reformed tertiary approach. We’ve always believed that the education system needs thriving schools, colleges and universities as anchor institutions, working to their strengths and collaborating to help people navigate to what they want and need. My optimism is that we are starting to see wider agreement on how that might be achieved.

However, we cannot be complacent; there are still enormous challenges. Funding is still way below 2010 levels, pay lags too far behind schools and industry, qualifications reform could risk the education of tens of thousands, reclassification has brought unwelcome restrictions that hamper colleges’ ability to deliver and public finances look extremely tight for years to come.

All of that will keep us busy in 2024, but it is a relief to no longer need to keep fighting for a seat at the table; we are now engaged much more closely in policy formulation and implementation.

That brings its own challenges of course, because none of this is easy and there are rarely clear-cut obvious right (or wrong) policies. Compromise, scarce resources and competing views will always dominate education policy.

For me, it’s clear the college sector is now a force to be reckoned with in Whitehall. We need to use that influence wisely and carefully, but it’s a much better end to this year than last.

SEND apprenticeship mentor pilot planned by DfE

The government is planning to run a mentoring support pilot for apprentices who have learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD).

Training providers are now being invited to submit an expression of interest to take part in the trial that will be led by the Department for Education.

The DfE said it will test whether offering “targeted expert support, advice and training to the people providing mentoring to LDD apprentices results in a positive impact on the cohort, both in terms of satisfaction, as well as broader areas such as retention and achievement for these apprentices”.

Providers and prospective mentors will be offered a package of bespoke training, advice, and support in how to support people with LDD throughout the pilot, the DfE added.

It comes amid the early success of another pilot for LDD people, which aims to make apprenticeships more accessible through an English and maths exemption.

This one-year trial, launched in May 2023, allows people with a learning difficulty but without a pre-existing education health and care plan (EHCP) or statement of learning difficulties assessment (LDA) to work towards a lower level of functional skills than current policy requires.

Around 20 providers have been trialling a change to the rules that allows special educational needs and/or disabilities coordinators (SENDCOs) to conduct additional assessments and judge whether a learner without an EHCP or LDA – but with equivalent needs – can be approved for this flexibility.

Providers that spoke with FE Week about the pilot last month labelled the rule change as a “game-changer” as hundreds of people who found themselves blocked from apprenticeship opportunities were now enrolling on programmes thanks to the exemption.

The DfE hasn’t provided a timeline for the launch of the LDD apprenticeship mentor pilot, but interested parties have been told to contact lddmentoring.pilot@education.gov.uk for more information.

Advanced British Standard consultation: What you need to know

The government has this morning published its consultation on the Advanced British Standard, which runs until mid-March.

It doesn’t seem to have many more details of how it would all work than what was published when the plans were first announced (you can read our previous round-up here).

The plan to ditch A-levels and T Levels for new “major” and “minor” subjects, including compulsory English and maths, would take TEN YEARS to introduce (which is also ignoring a potential change of government).

Unions said it was “difficult to imagine a more pointless waste of energy and time”. Geoff Barton, leader of ASCL, added it was “headless chicken policymaking”.

Nonetheless, the government has published a 80-page consultation and is encouraging the sector to take part. So what do you need to know?

1. Remind us: what is the ABS again?

It’s worth reading our full explainer here as to the broad aims around the new qualification, which the government says will replace A-level and T Levels.

Instead, the ABS will “create a simpler menu of high-quality options and expectations, for the first time breaking down the divide between ‘academic’ and ‘technical’ study”.

The main aims are clearer post-16 options, more teaching time and a core of maths and English but ensuring students study a wider range of subjects.

2. There will be two ABS qualifications…

There will be the ABS and the ABS (occupational). Confused yet?

The first will be for the majority of students working at level 3. It will entail a minimum of three “majors” (academic and technical subjects that directly support progression into employment or further study).

There will also be a minimum of two ‘minors’, with maths and English at either of these levels and some EEP activities (but not much more details on the latter).

The ABS (occupational) is for level 3 students who “are clear they want to specialist in one subject area”, but they may have to do 1,725 hours because of industry placements.

They would study one “major” and one ‘double major’ – both of which are subjects likely to be covered by the current T-levels or alternative academic qualifications (AAQs) – and do two ‘minors’ in maths and English.

3. Industry placements for ‘some’ students

Previous proposals on the ABS were clear that it would mean the end of T Levels and A-levels.

Writing for FE Week shortly after the prime minister announced the ABS, skills minister Robert Halfon said that T Levels will “be the backbone” of the new qualification, which will “build on the success of A-levels and T Levels.”

All 16 to 19-year-old students would take the ABS, studying a mixture of ‘major’, ‘minor’ and employability, enrichment and pastoral (EEP) activities.

Some, but not all, students following the occupational route (see above) will do an industry placement as part of their ABS programme.

DfE “envisages” that students who double major in subjects with “occupational entry competence” will take an industry placement.

The consultation proposes the placements will be “based on the same principles” as the requirements for current T Level students, such as taking place in a workplace relevant to the training and be at least 315 hours.

All ABS students would have 1,475 guided learning hours, more than the current 1,280, over the two-year programme. Programmes could be around 1,725 hours including an industry placement.

4. Level 2 version and more English and maths for apprentices

A level 2 version of the ABS, which doesn’t have its own name yet, will have the same number of teaching hours as the level 3, but officials aren’t sure how to fill the time.

The consultation promises students an “appropriate breadth” of subjects, but they won’t be structured as ‘major’ and ‘minors’ like the level 3 equivalent.

Officials say it will be up to schools and colleges to decide how best to fill the 1,475 learning hours, such as by spending extra time on English and maths.

Students aiming for work or an apprenticeship can take the ‘level 2 occupational programme’ which would last 1-2 years. Or there will be a ‘one-year transition programme,’ similar to the T Level transition year, to progress to the full ABS.

Level 1 and entry-level programmes will not be included.

Young people on apprenticeships are also out of scope of the ABS, but the consultation suggests that officials are looking at extending the number of English and maths teaching hours for 16-19 year-old apprentices to match their classroom counterparts, ie 150-175 guided learning hours per subject.

5. What would the subjects look like?

There’s not much more apart from broad principles here, but the government says there will be no more “different qualifications offering similar version of the same subject with overlapping content”, for example a subject being offered both as an A-level and AAQ.

Level 3 subjects should “provide stretch and challenge”, be “suitably knowledge-rich”, provided “levels of specialisation” appropriate for 16 to 19-year-olds and have “clearly distinct titles and content”.

Majors will cover at least 90 per cent of the content covered by A-levels with between 300 to 350 guided learning hours (A-levels have 360 hours). Minors will have between 150 to 175 learning hours. Students will also do “at least 150 hours” of employability, enrichment and pastoral (EEP).

Meanwhile, they will also get more time with a teacher “to improve outcomes”. Currently “we expect students to undertake a large amount of independent study, and also offer less time with a teacher”, the consultation adds.

6. ‘Difficult’ for providers to offer ‘full ABS suite’

A bigger breadth of 16 to 19 subjects means “it may be difficult for all providers to offer the full range of ABS subjects”, the consultation adds.

But it adds “as a minimum, our aim is for all young people to be able to access any of the ABS subjects at a provider within a reasonable travel distance of where they live.”

However this will “pose greater challenges in rural areas and other areas with fewer accessible providers” – a problem that has beset the roll-out of T Levels, too.

The consultation only says they will “continue to engage the sector” on the “best ways to overcome these barriers”.

7. Students to get ABS ‘certificate of achievement’

There would still be specific grades for each major and minor.

But the current favoured option is to have a “certificate or statement of achievement recognising a student has completed their ABS programme and met the minimum attainment conditions to receive an overall award”.

This would “demonstrate to employers and post-18 providers student performance across the full programme.

“A certificate would note the marks or grade received in individual components, but there would not be an overall aggregate score or grade that sits above these marks.”

Alternative options include a certificate without any minimum conditions required to receive it, or an aggregate ABS score.

8. How to find more teachers? A question for another day…

Education secretary Gillian Keegan in her foreword admits “we will need to support the system to prepare for this change, taking time to build the workforce and provision essential to delivery”. Quite.

DfE has just missed its secondary school recruitment target for the tenth time in 11 years and a £7,000 pay gap between school and college teachers is exacerbating an FE teacher recruitment and retention crisis.

More teaching hours and compulsory maths and English will have “significant workforce implications for providers of 16-19 education, who already face teacher shortages, particularly in STEM subjects”, the consultation states.

So what’s the plan? Alas, not a question for today it seems. Consultation responses “will help us refine the design of the ABS, and in parallel, we will consider how best to step up recruitment and retention of our workforce”.

“We will further develop our plans for the workforce through the ABS White Paper”, which is promised “next year”.

P.S. What about adults?

Nearly a million adult learners take classroom-based qualifications that could be replaced by the ABS, but officials haven’t yet worked out how the new system would work for them.

One of the 58 consultation questions asks about potential impacts on other groups that take post-16 qualifications, such as adult learners and those in custody.

An interim equalities impact assessment, also published today, said: “further policy development should take adult learners into account.”