Colleges are calling for the power to carry out assessments of their own apprentices instead of relying on external bodies after new research suggests assessor capacity is causing lengthy delays.
Forty-three per cent of colleges claim to have waited three months or longer for apprentices to receive their end-point assessment (EPA) once they have reached gateway and 82 per cent have experienced delays of more than a month.
But the body representing end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) warned the findings were “at variance with broader-based research” conducted by Ofqual, while another expert said allowing colleges to mark their own homework would reduce trust and confidence in the apprenticeship system.
Capacity concern
Apprentices have had to pass an EPA to fully achieve their apprenticeship since 2017.
The assessments are carried out by independent and regulated EPAOs, chosen by the apprentice’s employer or training provider.
FE Week understands the government is concerned that the cost, complexity and limited capacity of EPAOs is hampering apprenticeship completion and achievement rates.
In a drive to cut red tape, ministers announced last month that colleges and training providers will soon be allowed to sign off on parts of their own apprentices’ assessments.
College bosses want the government to go a step further and bring EPA fully in-house.
Natalie Wilson, vice-principal for curriculum and skills at Luminate Education Group, said: “The current system places impractical pressures on colleges, particularly within the current funding environment. Empowering colleges to be more closely involved in the delivery of EPA could improve the experience for apprentices while also reducing the financial and administrative pressures on colleges.”
Report author Clare Barker, a senior policy manager for skills and industry at the AoC, said: “The delays identified … make a compelling case for colleges to take charge of their own EPAs, to break down barriers to apprentices’ career progression ensuring they can complete in a timely, straightforward manner.”
Source: AoC
But experts warn that allowing colleges to conduct every aspect of EPA is risky.
Simon Ashworth, the deputy chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, agreed there were issues around capacity, leading to delays “especially around the peak demand periods between April and July”. Providers and employers “should be able to contribute towards EPA”.
However, allowing institutions to mark their own homework would decrease “trust and confidence”, he said.
Accuracy doubts
Rob Nitsch, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, which represents many EPAOs, cast doubt on the accuracy of the AoC’s findings.
He pointed to Ofqual research, presented at this week’s Apprenticeships and Training Conference, which showed 78 per cent of an unspecified number of EPAOs did not consider that the “availability of assessors impacts on the timely delivery of assessment”.
“The implication that there would be betterment if colleges delivered assessments is not substantiated by the evidence contained in the [AoC] report; for example, there is no analysis of how college-delivered EPA would address the shortcomings,” Nitsch said.
He added that the “evidence on the ground” is that AoC’s recommendation “does not represent the views of all apprenticeship providers, including colleges, nor does it properly consider the preference employers have for independent assessment”.
Colleges were responsible for just over 58,000 (17 per cent) of the 340,000 apprenticeships starts in England in 2023-24. AoC’s data on EPA delays was based on responses from 83 colleges.
‘A challenge we would be happy to address’
Chris Todd, the chief executive of Derwentside College, said that bringing EPA in-house “would be challenging to deliver in the short term” , but was a “challenge we would be happy to address”.
“The key to successful implementation here is to agree a manageable transition and timetable for the change, allowing colleges to develop their capacity prior to implementation.”
The AoC also used Individual Learner Record (ILR) data, submitted by 170 colleges, to find the cost of EPA to colleges has been consistent at 13 per cent of their apprenticeship income for the past three academic years.
In 2023-24 apprenticeship payments to colleges totalled £261.3 million and EPA cost was £34.2 million.
However, the AoC said the true cost was likely to be a higher percentage because of the cost of resits and the additional physical resources required that were not taken into account by the ILR data.
Latest Ofqual data shows that 90 per cent of all apprentices pass their EPA at the first attempt.
AoC’s survey found 34 per cent of colleges worked with 11 to 20 EPAO and 11 per cent worked with 21 or more, which “creates additional administration burden”.
Todd argued that EPA should be scrapped altogether as it was “not necessarily needed or wanted by many employers”.
“It’s very expensive to operate, you only have to look at some of the awarding bodies to see that their profit margins have risen (and continue to rise) as a result of the growing volume of EPA activity. This is all money that is going outside of the sector and away from learners.
“If EPA was removed, we could move back to an assessment regime more akin with what we do in other provision types, at a fraction of the cost, and with little impact on quality.”
A DfE spokesperson refused to say whether the department would consider allowing colleges to conduct their own EPA.
Employers say their “confidence is waning” as the government drags its feet on widening the apprenticeship levy.
Skills ministerJacqui Smith told FE Week’s annual Apprenticeships and Training Conference that the Department for Education was trying to introduce levy spending flexibility “within a constrained resource”. Ninety-nine per cent of the last year’s budget was spent.
She repeated the government’s view that that apprenticeship spending needed to be “rebalanced” towards young people, highlighting a significant fall in apprenticeship starts of almost 40 per cent since 2015-16 for those aged under 25.
“We have to prioritise,” she told delegates.
Initiatives such as foundation apprenticeships aimed to give young people “a foot in the door”, but the minister was clear that fiscal constraints meant “tough decisions” about “what we fund in the future”.
Reforming the apprenticeship levy into a “growth and skills levy” and allowing employers to spend their contributions on other training routes was a key pledge in Labour’s election manifesto.
The minister told The Financial Times last month that the government’s ability to allow money from the apprenticeships budget to be used for non-apprenticeship training would depend on how much funding the DfE received at the spending review in June.
The department’s apprenticeships budget increased to £2.7 billion in 2024-25. Ministers now plan to remove level 7 apprenticeships from the levy funding, which could free up about £240 million – although a final decision on how many will be chopped is yet to be announced.
Smith said: “Without additional amounts, we will need to make decisions about how we can deliver that [election manifesto] flexibility within a constrained resource.”
Scrapping level 7 won’t yield savings for years
Rob West, the Confederation of British Industry’s head of education and skills, told FE Week that the “inflexibility” of the apprenticeship levy was “making it increasingly difficult for firms to find, hire, and upskill talent within their organisations”.
“Confidence is waning as the government continues to treat the levy as a tax, preventing firms from fully investing in upskilling their own workforce.”
Jane Gratton, the deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said a “lack of clarity” about the future of the growth and skills levy was creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses”.
She said that some employers told the BCC they had put training plans on hold until they heard what alternatives would be funded in future.
She called on the government to set out a clear timeline for reform, although threats of cuts to the levy before it has been established “are worrying and destabilising”.
Sector leaders argue that the Treasury is shortchanging businesses because it keeps more than £800 million of employer levy contributions in its own coffers instead of distributing it to spend on apprenticeships.
Smith previously said she had “made this point to the Treasury”.
Simon Ashworth, the deputy chief executive and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the government was in a “straitjacket” on apprenticeship funding unless the Treasury freed up more of the unallocated levy top slice.
“With 99 per cent of last year’s budget spent, there’s little room for manoeuvre—scrapping level 7 apprenticeships won’t yield savings for years.
“Any short-term flexibilities won’t kick in until August, while broader reforms remain a slow, phased rollout. Until the programme budget more closely matches the levy take, it’s imperative funding priorities are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of apprenticeship standards, rather than introducing further non-apprenticeship flexibilities.”
‘To govern is to choose’
Gareth John, the chief executive of First Intuition Cambridge, told Smith at at the conference that he knew of “many employers” who had filled apprenticeships starting this September and October based on level 7 funding being in the levy.
Smith said that she heard his “point” about ensuring sufficient notice, but said when the announcement on the programme’s future was made, only those who had already started a level 7 would be supported until its completion.
“The decisions around level 7 are, I’m afraid, an example of the choices that you need to make when you have limited resource.
“To govern is to choose and we have to prioritise. We’ll announce as soon as possible the final decisions with respect to level 7 apprenticeships.”
There has been ongoing uncertainty over future funding of level 7 apprenticeships since prime minister Keir Starmer announced in September that some would no longer be funded through the apprenticeship levy.
Since then, employers and training providers have demanded clarity on when and how much funding will be removed for level 7 apprenticeships, and how new programmes, such as foundation and short apprenticeships, will be funded.
Scrapping all level 7 apprenticeships would save about £240 million a year from the maxed-out apprenticeships budget, which ministers want to reallocate towards “other priorities”.
Skills minister Jacqui Smith told the Apprenticeships and Training Conference earlier this week that an announcement on the reforms was “imminent”.
Janet Daby, who speaks for the government on skills in the Commons, this afternoon declined to answer a direct question on the future of levy funding for level 6 apprenticeships.
She was challenged by shadow education minister Neil O’Brien, who suggested ministers could place level 6 in the firing line next because “that’s the first place the money will go”.
“We keep asking, but without ever getting an answer. I invite the minister today to rule out axing level 6 apprenticeships in the way they are doing with level 7,” O’Brien said.
Daby said level 6 apprenticeships were “a core part of our offer”, adding “decisions on training and funding through the levy in the future will be guided by Skills England”.
O’Brien hit back: “I think that was a very clear not ruling out of doing exactly what they’re doing to level 7 apprenticeships to level 6.
“Ministers are clearly looking to keep their options open, not just on level 7, but on level 6 as well, which is very, very concerning … a real backward step and a real wrecking ball to a lot of the progress made on apprenticeships over the last decade.”
Jaws on the floor
That wasn’t the only part of Thursday’s debate that left O’Brien riled.
He was visibly frustrated when trying to get an answer from Daby on whether or not it was government policy to allow up to 50 per cent of Labour’s reformed growth and skills levy funding to be spent on non-apprenticeship training.
Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said in December: “We remain committed to reforming the failing apprenticeship levy and turning it into a growth and skills levy with up to 50 per cent flexibility for employers.”
Phillipson’s comments were consistent with Labour party messaging when it announced pre-election it would reform the apprenticeship levy into a more flexible growth and skills levy.
But the 50 per cent threshold was notably missing from the Labour’s manifesto – and sector experts have said it will be impossible to meet.
Neil O’Brien
Daby deviated from her boss’s December remarks and today refused to confirm the 50 per cent threshold.
“I don’t want to put a target or limit on flexibility. This will be led by what employers need, driven by Skills England analysis,” she said.
O’Brien didn’t let up.
“Employers will be jaw to the floor, agog at what is going on with the DfE here. What is the policy? What an extraordinary situation. What a shameful situation. Unbelievable.”
“The government said that it would allow employers to take up to 50 per cent of the money and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Now, that either is the policy still, or it is no longer the policy. Which of those two things is the truth?”
Daby replied: “I will get back to him, and I’ll make sure there’s a written response.”
O’Brien could then be heard responding: “Absolutely unreal. Unreal.”
The committee will reconvene on Tuesday.
They keep changing their mind: -Lab in Opposition: 50% can go elsewhere -20 November: Min says 50% policy "under review " -9 December: SoS says govt still committed to 50% -13 March: Min says "I'll have to get back to you" >So chaotic for employers.
The higher education regulator has confirmed it will reopen its register of providers and restart conferring degree-awarding powers in August.
The Office for Students (OfS) suspended a range of regulatory activities in December to allow it to prioritise struggling university finances.
Alongside closing its register, the office also paused applications for degree-awarding powers and a university title.
While the regulatory hiatus was always billed as temporary, the August deadline would “remain under review”, according to the OfS’s original announcement.
However, the watchdog has now confirmed it will not resume these activities before August.
In a statement on Thursday, it said: “These temporary changes will end in August 2025, and the OfS will reopen for new applications and resume paused assessments on a staggered basis.”
Registrations were paused for 18 providers, with degree-awarding applications halted for 20.
Waltham Forest College, which was affected by the registration closure, told FE Week at the time that it forced “carefully planned” courses developed in response to employer demand in limbo.
Affected providers had been contacted, the OfS said.
Two thirds of colleges have been forced by local authorities to enrol SEND students even though they could not meet the young person’s needs, new data suggests.
The Children and Families Act 2014 includes a “duty to admit” young people with an education, health and care (EHC) plan.
Local authorities conduct a consultation process by which places for high needs students are commissioned. But if a college says it cannot meet a particular applicant’s needs, the local authority can still direct the college to admit the applicant under this “duty”.
A new Association of Colleges (AoC) survey, completed by 67 colleges, found that 69 per cent said they had their consultation replies of not being able to meet students’ needs overruled this year.
This happened in 10 or more cases for a quarter (25 per cent) of respondents, while two colleges reported this happened around 30 times.
One anonymous survey participant said the practice “has been difficult and concerning.
“We have had instances of violence, putting staff and learners at risk because information was not shared.”
Another said: “These have been mainly students from special schools with a track record of significant aggressive behaviour to other students and staff. We have explained that these students may require regular physical intervention. We have advised the local authority that [we cannot safely] address the needs of these students and they simply impose the student on us.”
The data showed that 44 per cent of colleges said the “duty to admit” rule was directed by their local authorities for less than 10 applicants.
David Holloway, AoC’s senior policy manager of SEND, said: “The government has said that the direction of travel of future SEND reforms will be towards greater mainstream inclusion, however our report shows that local authorities’ financial difficulties are being passed on to colleges – creating a disincentive for colleges to embrace those students who need the most support.
“This is why we have called for increased collaboration and strategic planning between colleges, government and local authorities to ensure that colleges can continue to provide inclusive and effective education for all students.”
Late payments
The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated the 2024 national high needs budget currently totals nearly £11 billion.
High needs funding is split into three payments, the first of which is the 16 to 19 per student funding formula and the second (element two) is £6,000 of support. Both are paid by the ESFA. The last, element three, is additional top up funding to pay for further support costs, paid by the local authority.
Though colleges estimated an average of £3.2 million per college for high needs budgets, only 38 per cent said their local authorities consistently engaged them in strategic planning.
Almost one quarter (23 per cent) said local authorities consistently took account of the financial viability of provision, but then failed to actually cover college costs.
Once costs have been agreed, 80 per cent of colleges surveyed experienced delays in payment.
Just one-fifth (20 per cent) said that payment schedules were established before the start of the autumn term and adhered to.
Almost one-third of colleges (32 per cent) reported that there were still outstanding payments by the end of the academic year.
One college said it was carrying the high needs costs of elements two and three for up to six months before payments are made because “element two and additional element three payments are made following the end of each term”.
Capital City College boss Angela Joyce reveals how her racing driver dad showed her life in the fast lane – and she now even runs a cattery in her downtime
Angela Joyce is not your typical college leader. With boundless energy and a willingness to take on challenges others would shy from, she reveals her passion for tackling complex problems drove her rapid rise to the top of one of the country’s largest college groups.
While many are perhaps fearful of Ofsted inspectors, Joyce married one (Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills). They share their Warwickshire home with a menagerie of horses, chickens, sheep, and up to 74 cats. Because alongside her job as chief executive of Capital City College, the country’s second-biggest college group, she runs a cattery.
Despite a gruelling four-hour daily commute to and from London, Joyce also finds time for showjumping and was once a national cross-country runner.
But taking on Capital City College in January 2024 was a relatively safe bet. She took on her previous two roles, leading Peterborough Regional College and then Warwickshire College Group, when both faced headwinds.
A “constant theme” is she has “never been shy of tackling big issues, asking difficult questions, and taking things on that maybe others might seek to avoid”.
“For me, I always need the next challenge,” she says.
Angela Joyce’s husband Paul Joyce
Power couple
Paul is also taking on a fresh challenge; after 20 years with the inspectorate he moves to North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College as deputy principal this summer.
While being married to Paul has given Joyce “an insight into a civil servant’s perspective,” she has taught him “the reality of running a large college”. They have “raised the roof a couple of times in our house” during “healthy debates” over policy.
And though she can be eyed with suspicion by recently-inspected college principals, she dismisses the idea she’s got the inside line because “at home we have other things to talk about. Like cats!”
Joyce’s own pet cats (Bertie, Basil and Beatrice) are, like her, big personalities – literally. They are Maine Coons, the largest non-hybrid cat breed. Bertie, who weighs 10kg, likes to sleep on Joyce. (“I can still breathe, just about.”)
Fortunately, she has “never needed” more than four hours of sleep a night and believes you can “train your body to get used to that amount”. Paul is “the opposite” and “could fall asleep on a washing line!”
One of Joyce’s large Maine Coon cats
Fast cars to FE
Joyce credits her dad, a former Formula 1 racing driver, for her can-do attitude and “fairly direct, straightforward” way of communicating.
Her background is different from many FE principals who wear their working-class roots as a badge of honour. Her dad had quit racing for a safer career as an entrepreneur and would pick her up from her grammar school to take her back to their smallholding in Buckinghamshire “driving anything from Land Rovers to Jaguars to a Beetle. He always loved his cars”.
He taught her to drive with “one proper driving lesson an hour before my test,” during which he took her to 50mph in her Metro before yanking on the handbrake.
Fortunately, she passed first time; “otherwise, I would’ve been disowned!”
Joyce was “raised with a mindset of ‘be whatever you want to be’,” but her background means she does not “buy into the story that we’re misunderstood [in FE] because nobody [in power] has been through college”.
“Just because I didn’t go to college doesn’t mean I value what we do any less,” she says.
One-college ethos
Joyce is finding it “nice to be back at this end of the country” after years working in the Midlands.
Capital City College is made up of three legacy colleges spread across 10 sites across central and north London, working relatively independently of each other.
Since taking over as CEO she has dropped the ‘group’ from its brand name and embarked on a “one-college ethos,” so management structures now look “across the group”.
In 2023-24, the college achieved earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) of £5.3 million and an operating deficit of £4.6 million. It is banking on growing student recruitment and additional cost-efficiency measures to turn around the deficit this year.
Angela Joyce
With the London Growth Plan published a few weeks ago and the college now drawing up a five-year plan, Joyce is pleased to have “as many knowns as we can” in terms of policy direction, and believes “exciting times” lie ahead.
She wants to grow the college’s reputation – despite having 38,000 students “we’re probably the least well known” – and is exploring markets outside London and abroad.
Joyce says: “The great thing about being at the start [of the planning process] is you just go, ‘what’s the art of the possible? And how do we narrow that list?’ If there’s more runways at Heathrow, what doors does that open?”
Animal ambitions
Joyce has an appreciation of the challenges faced by employers, particularly small businesses, from her experience running the cattery.
The Joyces acquired the business six years ago with the ethos that “if you enjoy what you’re doing, you do it well” – and she loves cats.
But the only time Joyce’s brain “just focuses on one thing” is when she is eventing with her horses, which involves dressage, show-jumping and cross-country competitions. “I have to focus, otherwise we’ll end up in a heap!” she says.
Angela Joyce’s athletics medals days – her club Parkside (Harrow) AC ; London Marathon medal (sub 3hrs 40mins time) ; and medal placing her third best cross country runner in England – helping her compete in the European Cross Country Championships.
In her youth Joyce excelled as a long-distance track and cross-country runner and competed in the European cross-country championships.
At Loughborough University she studied sports science and English in the same year as Paula Radcliffe, so it was a triumph “just to get a place in the team”.
After her degree, she did a PGCE in preparation for becoming a physical training officer for the Royal Air Force, but ditched the idea after realising it meant committing to 15 years of service.
After getting “under my father’s feet,” he encouraged her to use her qualified teacher status, so she taught English and PE in secondary schools in Leicestershire.
When an opportunity arose to develop new sports provision for Moulton, a land-based college in Northamptonshire, the job became the “making” of her FE career and her marriage (she met Paul there).
With no staff or facilities for her 15 BTEC sports students, Joyce made use of the sprawling 450-hectare estate by arranging horse riding, clay pigeon shooting, sailing in a reservoir and “a lot of cross country running”.
By the time she left nine years later, sport was “huge” there with a rugby academy in partnership with the Northampton Saints, a football academy with Northampton Town Football Club and a basketball academy that won the national championships.
Joyce loved the opportunity FE gave her to innovate in her curriculum and delivery, and her next role aged 30 was as vice principal for curriculum and quality at Peterborough Regional College.
When she attended that year’s Association of Colleges conference, Joyce suspects some attendees were “convinced someone had brought along their PA” when they spotted her, given her relative youthfulness. “Nobody would talk to me,” she recalls.
“Now it just makes me chuckle.…I probably did feel a bit on the edges in settings like that, but it didn’t hold me back.”
Then, at 34, Joyce became the principal. At the time, Peterborough had “massive quality issues” and Joyce was working “24-7”, convinced she should “have all the answers”. She still works 24-7 but has since “learned the art of developing a team” around her.
Angela Joyce showjumping
Warwickshire woes
Joyce joined Warwickshire College Group (WCG) when it was simply ‘Warwickshire College’ and all the sites, some of which were once independent colleges, had been branded as ‘Warwickshire College’.
Joyce saw this wasn’t working so “pulled” Rugby, Royal Leamington Spa, Warwick Trident, Moreton Morrell and Pershore colleges “back out to their original identities”. Joyce believes that, like Capital City College Group, there is “huge benefit to thinking and acting as one college” – but while also “respecting the individual personalities, cultures and communities within a group structure”.
Then she merged the group with what was South Worcestershire College, reverting its two campuses back to their historical names of Malvern Hills College and Evesham College.
She took on WCG knowing it was financially stretched – its debt was over 50 per cent of income – but “wanted the challenge”.
Testing time
As someone who “always has a plan”, Joyce considers Covid was the most “testing time” of her career because she found herself “running out” of options. Forty per cent of Warwickshire’s income was commercial, with lockdowns shutting down those operations overnight.
Previously she rejected as “absolute nonsense” the idea that being a college leader was a lonely job. But Joyce recalls the loneliness she felt sitting in her front room thinking, “if I can’t balance the books, what am I going to do?”
Her “brilliant team” who she spoke to every day at 4pm kept her going, and after they returned to office life, the 4pm catch-ups were kept to “just chat for 10 minutes” and keep spirits up.
The focus on paying down debt meant the college’s financial health improved in 2020/21 despite low or negative operating surpluses. But in 2022 reclassification “changed the game”, as the group’s “really good” relationship with its bank was “taken away overnight”.
Then a funding audit in 2023 resulted in a clawback (still to be finalised) which hit the college hard.
Another of Angela Joyce’s Maine Coon cats
“When you’ve got some money in the bank, a bit of clawback doesn’t hurt you that hard, because you pay it back and it doesn’t hit the headlines,” Joyce says. “When you’re financially challenged, and reclassification means your overdraft facilities have been removed overnight and you can’t work with your bank, it’s a slightly different story.”
Last year after Joyce had left, Warwickshire requested government bailout loans totalling £4.7 million to cover its existing bank loan and swerve insolvency, and a financial support package was approved by the Department for Education.
Joyce says its financial position when she left was “a lot, lot better when I left than when I arrived” and points out that she and her team “maintained the quality” of provision; “Ofsted came and went with grade twos every time… students were first and foremost”.
Comfortable deputies
Joyce has no regrets about the decisions she made. She is “really proud that the college continued in quite a big geography”, that “key partnerships”, such as with Jaguar Land Rover, were maintained and that “difficult decisions meant that actually we paid off the debt. If we hadn’t I’m not quite sure where we’d have been”.
She believes characters like her who are willing to take on challenged colleges are becoming a rarity, which “very much” concerns her.
“A lot of people” in FE are “happy being number two” because “as principal you’re exposed as the ultimate decision maker”, she says.
While reclassification has “made [leadership] more difficult,” the FE sector is also partly to blame for “not being great at celebrating success”.
Joyce says: “We’re very quick to lay blame and point fingers, but this is a tough job. When the likes of me retire, are there enough people coming forward? There are probably easier things – like running a cattery!”
The phrase “the middle solves the riddle” has been used to describe the UK’s productivity and skills gap at levels four and five, which is often highlighted as the problem. But an equally pressing challenge lies at the lower end of the skills ladder particularly at level two. For many, without access to entry-level apprenticeships, progression to higher levels is unlikely.
Level 2 and 3 apprenticeships in decline
Apprenticeship starts grew 1.3 per cent in the first quarter of this academic year. However, growth is concentrated at levels four to seven (over 9 per cent). Levels two three apprenticeships continue to decline, by 7 and 0.7 per cent respectively.
This is particularly significant for younger apprentices. Over half of level two apprentices are under 19, compared to one in 10 at levels four to seven. Yet 16-18 numbers remain stagnant. In the first quarter of 2024-25 just 32 per cent of all apprenticeships were started by under 19s, with little change in the last five years. Meanwhile, the number of young people not in education, employment, or training is rising: over 13 per cent of 16–24-year-olds in mid-2024, up from 11 per cent two years earlier.
The government is seeking to address these concerns with new “foundation” apprenticeships, the relaxation of functional skills rules and shorter apprenticeship durations.
But is there a problem with the apprenticeships themselves?
There are currently 132 different level two apprenticeships. Many struggle to attract meaningful learner numbers. In 2023-24, activity was recorded across 146 level two standards yet:
• 40 standards had under 10 starts.
• 37 had between 20 and 100 starts (100 is probably a minimum threshold for longer-term viability, competition and choice).
• Just 69 standards accounted for 97 per cent of all level two starts.
The top 10 level two apprenticeships represent over 53 per cent of total starts, none of which align with the eight government-designated growth sectors. Nor do they facilitate progression into these sectors, although two key underpinning areas, construction and health, are represented. Several are in low-paid, low margin industries. HM Forces training is undoubtedly valuable but probably replaces training that would have taken place anyway.
However, one feature of successful apprenticeships is their broad appeal. Niche apprenticeships such as express sortation hub operative (10 starts) have limited accessibility and exclude most SMEs. Young people and career advisors are unlikely to be aware of them, limiting uptake.
Such narrowly focused apprenticeships risk obsolescence as job roles evolve. Many could be consolidated into broader, more flexible standards; a general “horticulture” apprenticeship could encompass both sports turf operative (130 starts) and golf greenkeeper (410), offering greater career flexibility while maintaining sector-specific customisation.
General education in lower-level apprenticeships is lacking
Apprenticeships include limited general education – typically 100 hours of functional skills training, now relaxed for adults. This was already far less than Germany (480 hours) and Norway (588 hours).
Most sectors require transferable skills that span multiple job roles. Robust level two apprenticeships could embed these foundational skills – including emerging areas like artificial intelligence – while allowing for employer-led specialisation. Planned changes to end-point assessments may facilitate this.
Reform does not require drastic overhaul. Some apprenticeship standards should be phased out – but only if broader alternatives exist. Entry-level apprenticeships should be designed to function as stepping stones into high-growth sectors. Adding another layer through foundation apprenticeships may be unnecessary when existing structures could be improved.
A need to strengthen apprenticeship pathways
While level three apprenticeships share some of these challenges, specialisation becomes more relevant at higher levels. Rather than resembling a ladder, progression routes should resemble a tree – broad and strong at the base, with branches extending upwards and outwards into specialist high-value careers.
The government’s plan to de-fund most level seven apprenticeships will not increase level two or three starts but will weaken progression routes. Meanwhile, removing functional skills requirements for adults is bound to deter some employers from hiring younger apprentices and risks diluting the value of apprenticeships. Both policies jar with the government’s stated goal of breaking down barriers to opportunity.
The proposed level two business support assistant apprenticeship is a welcome addition, but the notion that all apprenticeships must be tied to distinct occupations needs reconsideration. Why not create a broad “business” apprenticeship that equips learners with transferable skills across multiple office roles? Such flexibility would improve accessibility and long-term employability.
Without well-structured entry-level apprenticeships, moving up the ladder (or climbing the tree!) and reaching the “middle”, becomes significantly harder.
I hope Skills England will work to avoid unintended consequences of apprenticeship reforms that could limit rather than expand opportunities.
The project, entitled DIRT and TOES, was focused on revolutionising the assessment and feedback process. It was driven by a desire to maximise student outcomes while simultaneously reducing teacher workload and sought to test the effectiveness of two innovative methodologies: TOES (Taxonomy of Errors Session) and DIRT (Dedicated Improvement and Reflection Time). This is the story of that project, its challenges, triumphs, and the lasting impact it had on both students and staff.
The traditional model of assessment and feedback in education can often resemble a cumbersome and inefficient machine. Teachers find themselves burdened with an overwhelming workload and a cycle of marking, providing feedback, and managing resubmissions. This often involves painstakingly writing comments on student work, pointing out errors, and suggesting improvements, a process that can be incredibly time-consuming, especially with large classes and heavy teaching loads. Students, on the other hand, frequently receive feedback that they either don’t understand due to its complex language or educational jargon, or simply ignore, leading to a cycle of repeated errors and frustration. They might glance at a grade but fail to delve into the detailed comments designed to aid their improvement. This disconnect between teacher effort and student engagement with feedback can be demoralising for both parties. This system, while well-intentioned, can inadvertently contribute to a negative learning environment, impacting attendance, behaviour, and ultimately, student achievement. When students feel overwhelmed or unsupported by the assessment process, their motivation can plummet, leading to disengagement and even absenteeism. Moreover, the pressure on teachers to constantly assess and provide feedback can lead to burnout and a diminished sense of job satisfaction.
Linzi Smithies, Advanced Practitioner in Land-based Animal Science and Equine at Derby College, experienced these challenges firsthand. Working closely with both teachers and students, she witnessed the frustrations and inefficiencies of the traditional assessment model. Passionate about supporting teachers and learners, she sought to find a solution to alleviate the burden of assessment while enhancing the learning experience. She recognised the need for a system that not only provided meaningful feedback but also empowered students to take ownership of their learning and development. “Assessments, assessments, assessments,” she explained, “it can sometimes be a burden. And we all know it…we all know that sometimes we dread the assignments coming in, not only the number of assignments that we may have, but also, the quality of work that comes through.”
Smithies understood that the sheer volume of assessments, coupled with the often-disappointing quality of student work, created a vicious cycle that negatively impacted both teachers and learners. She envisioned a different approach, one that would foster collaboration, encourage self-reflection, and ultimately lead to improved learning outcomes.
The inspiration for the DIRT and TOES project stemmed from a Derby College initiative, which Smithies and her team further developed and refined. Recognising the potential of this approach, they applied for and received a grant from the Skills and Education Group Foundation to conduct a rigorous study, exploring the impact of these methods on student outcomes and staff workload. This funding was crucial in allowing the team to dedicate the necessary time and resources to develop the project, collect data, and evaluate its effectiveness. The Foundation’s support underscored their commitment to innovative approaches in further education and their belief in the potential of the DIRT and TOES methodology.
TOES, or Taxonomy of Errors Session, is a structured peer feedback process designed to empower students to identify and address errors in their work before final submission. A robust TOES feedback sheet, written in accessible language, guides students through a systematic review of their peers’ work. This sheet breaks down the assessment criteria into clear, understandable components, prompting students to identify “what went well” (positive aspects of the work) and “even better ifs” (areas for improvement). The use of accessible language is paramount, ensuring that students can readily understand the criteria and provide meaningful feedback without being hindered by jargon or complex terminology. The TOES process is carefully implemented within a dedicated classroom session. This dedicated time allows students to engage in meaningful peer feedback in a safe and collaborative environment. The emphasis is on support and improvement, rather than judgment. Students are encouraged to view the feedback process as an opportunity to learn from each other and enhance their own understanding of the assessment criteria. It fosters a sense of shared responsibility for learning, where students become active participants in each other’s development.
After receiving peer feedback through the TOES process, students are given time to reflect on the comments and make necessary revisions to their work. This iterative process of feedback and revision significantly improves the quality of student work before it is formally assessed by the teacher. It allows students to address any misunderstandings or errors before they are graded, leading to a greater sense of confidence and ownership in their work. Moreover, it reduces the likelihood of students making the same mistakes repeatedly, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.
DIRT, or Dedicated Improvement and Reflection Time, focuses on the crucial stage of incorporating teacher feedback after assessment. Instead of simply receiving a grade and moving on, students are given dedicated time in class to engage with the feedback provided by their teachers. A structured DIRT sheet prompts students to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses, identify areas for improvement, and formulate action plans for future assignments. The DIRT process encourages students to actively engage with feedback, rather than passively receiving it. This active engagement fosters a deeper understanding of the assessment criteria and empowers students to take ownership of their learning. It moves beyond simply acknowledging a grade to understanding the specific areas where they excelled or fell short and developing concrete strategies for future improvement.
The DIRT and TOES project was initially implemented with Level 3 second-year Animal Management students at Derby College. The results of this pilot study were remarkable. Compared to the same cohort from 2018 (pre-COVID), the pass rate for assignments decreased by 37%, while the distinction rate increased by 6% and the merit rate by a significant 31%. These statistics demonstrate the profound impact of the DIRT and TOES methodology on student achievement. The shift towards higher grades suggests that students were not only learning more effectively but also demonstrating a greater understanding of the subject matter.
These impressive quantitative results were further supported by qualitative data gathered through student questionnaires and focus groups. A staggering 90% of students felt that the TOES assessment had enabled them to identify problems they had not seen themselves, and they felt that this process would help them achieve better grades in the future. Students across different levels emphasized the importance of well-developed and differentiated TOES and DIRT forms to maximize the effectiveness of the approach. The feedback from students highlighted the value of peer assessment in identifying blind spots in their own work and the importance of structured reflection in understanding and applying teacher feedback.
The success of the pilot project led to a wider rollout of the DIRT and TOES methodology across Derby College. Over 400 teachers received training on how to effectively implement these strategies in their classrooms. Early feedback from this expanded rollout has been overwhelmingly positive, with numerous staff members praising the adaptability of the materials and the positive impact on student learning. Teachers appreciated the flexibility of the DIRT and TOES framework, allowing them to tailor it to their specific subject areas and student needs. They also noted the positive impact on student engagement and motivation, as well as the reduction in their own workload due to the improved quality of student work.
One teacher commented on, “The way these [materials] can be adapted for your own approach but sets out a good standard.” This quote encapsulates the essence of the DIRT and TOES methodology: providing a clear framework for assessment and feedback while allowing for flexibility and individualization. Another highlighted the development of crucial life skills, stating the scheme can, “Improve confidence and communication skills.” This underscores the broader benefits of the project, extending beyond academic achievement to the development of essential skills that will serve students well in their future careers and personal lives. The potential for inclusivity was also recognized, with one teacher noting, “It will give me more ways of engaging SEND students and ensuring I’m more equipped to give them the best opportunity to achieve.” This highlights the project’s ability to cater to diverse learning needs and create a more equitable learning environment for all students.
The impact of the DIRT and TOES project extended beyond improved grades and reduced workload. It fostered a positive learning culture within the classroom, where students felt empowered to support each other’s learning. As Smithies explained, “It’s about the culture you create within your classroom, and allowing them students to step out of that box in a safe environment, and allowing them to not criticise, but support others by giving them even better ifs…it’s giving them the ability to be able to look at something and go, oh, that might not be quite right. How can I get that across to others in a positive manner, or that was amazing. I feel confident about giving them positive feedback.” This emphasis on creating a safe and supportive learning environment is crucial for fostering student engagement and encouraging them to take risks in their learning.
The project also instilled valuable life skills in students, teaching them how to provide constructive feedback, identify areas for improvement, and take ownership of their learning. These skills proved invaluable as students progressed to higher education, employment, and apprenticeships. The ability to self-reflect, seek feedback, and continuously improve are essential.
Reflecting on the success of the project and the transformative power of funding from Skills and Education Group, Joe Mcloughlin, the Foundation and External Affairs Manager said:
“The work undertaken by Linzi and her colleagues at the Derby College Group is exceptional and clearly demonstrates the positive changes that can be achieved when support is given for innovative ideas from experienced staff. Although perhaps less immediately eye-catching than the new equipment for colleges or the educational trips for students that our Foundation also supports, this enhanced pedagogical practice is no less important to our work, and its contribution to improved outcomes for all should be celebrated.”
A good board that provides the right levels of scrutiny and support is vital to a college’s success.
But through my work as a national leader of governance and on external board reviews, it is clear many boards struggle to recruit governors and find it particularly hard to ensure that boards reflect the diverse make-up of their communities.
There are six main challenges when it comes to recruiting FE college governors.
Limited awareness and understanding of the role
Many potential candidates are unfamiliar with what governance in FE entails, which deters them from applying. Unlike school governance, which is widely recognised, FE governance is often less visible to the public.
Attracting skilled and experienced candidates
A good board has a wide skillset and should include financial acumen, legal expertise, HR experience, strategic planning capability and industry knowledge. There are also college-specific needs – a college serving rural communities needs governors with experience and knowledge of land-based and estates challenges and opportunities, while a college in a locality with a dominant industry or business needs a governor with specific knowledge of that area.
Finding individuals who possess the skills and can commit their valuable time voluntarily can be difficult. This can be particularly challenging in rural areas where the pool of potential governors can be much smaller.
Time commitment and workload
FE governorship demands significant time and effort. Governors should attend meetings fully prepared, having read meeting packs sometimes over 250 pages long. They’re also expected to review reports, engage with stakeholders and contribute to strategic planning. The level of responsibility – and liability – can be daunting, particularly for those with busy careers and family commitments. It is not unusual for new governors to find the workload overwhelming and leave after a few months.
Diversity and representation
Ensuring diversity is another major challenge. The FE sector clearly serves a broad demographic, including young people, adult learners and those from different socio-economic backgrounds and ethnically diverse communities. However, boards often lack representation from women, ethnic minorities and people with lived experience of FE. Undoubtedly, this under-representation can hinder a board’s ability to reflect and respond to the needs of its community. But some colleges don’t take board diversity seriously enough. I was told by one chair that the board ‘had diversity sorted’ as 50 per cent of his governors were women. The board, full of university-educated professionals, had no representation from the ethnically diverse communities the college served. Group-think was also an issue– there was only one perspective on the board and challenge suffered accordingly.
Competition with other sectors
There is stiff competition for governance roles across different sectors, including schools, charities and corporate boards. We must compete with these opportunities, many of which offer greater prestige, better networking opportunities or even financial incentives.
Recruitment processes and support
So, there any many challenges – but we don’t help ourselves. Too many colleges struggle with outdated or ineffective processes. Too often vacancies are not advertised widely enough, and the application and onboarding processes are overly complicated and bureaucratic. There are some great recruitment companies who work particularly well in the sector, but if cost is an issue, as it often is, it’s always worth talking to fellow governors about their own networks – or using LinkedIn to find suitable candidates.
Additionally, inadequate support and training for new governors can lead to high turnover rates, as individuals feel unprepared or exhausted by the role’s demands. Chairs have key roles to play in supporting and easing governors in, particularly around the lexicon and language of FE which can be impenetrable to those new to the sector.
I observed a board meeting last year in which a student governor without a meeting pack sat for over two hours looking completely bemused. No help was offered.
Recruitment of student governors brings its own challenges – working around timetables, part-time jobs and lack of confidence and board experience – but good student governors bring invaluable perspectives which include lived experience.
But the time commitment and challenges of governorship are worthwhile. Governors develop new skills, gain leadership experience, expand professional networks – and most importantly, help impact students’ lives. Seeing students succeed due to well-governed institutions is a powerful motivation for many governors, as is the knowledge that in helping to provide a pipeline of talent for local organisations, they’re also helping to improving the community their college serves.
