Skip to content
21 July 2026

Latest news from FE Week

McFadden’s skills adviser to stay on with bigger remit

Pat McFadden’s expert adviser on skills has had his role extended to the end of the year, with a widened remit now covering artificial intelligence, apprenticeships and reducing NEETs.

Praful Nargund’s appointment, which reports directly to the secretary of state for work and pensions, began in January as a six-month post due to end this month.

The unpaid role will now run until the end of December, with an increased minimum commitment in the department increased from 2 to 2.5 days a week.

Nargund announced the extension himself on social media yesterday alongside an amended press release from January containing a rewritten remit and job description. He confirmed he would continue alongside his role as director of the think tank The Good Growth Foundation.

The role description initially led on supporting the transfer of adult skills policy from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions.

It now includes advising on the secretary of state’s AI priorities by “working with officials to apply technology to labour market interventions and build the department’s long-term capacity to respond to the impact of artificial intelligence on work and employment”.

It also now includes supporting the government’s target of 50,000 additional youth apprenticeships and the department’s wider agenda to cut the number of young people not in education, employment and training.

Nargund was appointed by McFadden as a direct ministerial appointment, a method that doesn’t require open recruitment. Unlike special advisers, direct appointees are not civil servants and do not hold any executive authority.

He was Labour’s parliamentary candidate in the Islington North constituency in the 2024 general election, standing against the party’s former leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

He served as a governor at Capital City College and was a member of Labour’s council of skills advisers.

McFadden spoke at a Good Growth Foundation event last week to float a new bursary aimed at the apprenticeship “benefits penalty”.

 

David Gallagher, NCFE chief executive, 1980–2026

“David seems to revel in non-conformity,” one of David Gallagher’s college reports read, “but no doubt his natural ability will get him through.”

Gallagher told FE Week in 2021 that he was suspended three times during his A Levels, and could account for only one of them. He had finished the paper with half the time left, decided he had done enough, and walked out of the hall.

He came close to being thrown out of education altogether. Twenty-five years later, he was running one of the country’s oldest awarding organisations.

Gallagher, NCFE’s chief executive since March 2019, died on Sunday, July 5, aged 45, six months after telling the sector he had cancer. He is survived by his wife and two sons.

‘I want to be a decent human being again’

The youngest of six, Gallagher grew up in Middlesbrough with a father working the North Sea rigs and a mother retraining as a social worker. School, when it came, had little to teach him. “I never really felt like I needed teachers,” he said. “I just needed work setting.”

By 14, he had given up on it. Then his mother was diagnosed with a brain tumour, and afterwards had a stroke, and could not work again.

He turned down university, took a job at BT, was out too often and in debt, and got by with a gift for solving problems. “I was a high-functioning lunatic, really,” he said.

At 24, it caught up with him, in a run of losses that arrived together: his job, a close friend’s father, his girlfriend’s mother, and then his girlfriend dumped him. “I spent a lot of time looking in the mirror,” he said, “and I didn’t like what I saw.”

That was what pushed him towards education and skills. “I thought, I want to be a decent human being again,” he told FE Week. “It wasn’t wildly altruistic.”

The boiler test

He became a personal adviser on New Labour’s welfare to work programme, working with people whose histories of abuse, neglect, prison and care made his own difficulties look small. He took to getting up two hours before work to make sure clients reached their appointments with him.

Petrina Lynn, then the Learning and Skills Council’s head of skills for the north east, hired him. She was the first real leader he had worked for, he said, and “my second mum”.

Senior roles at Working Links and Ingeus followed, through the turbulent arrival of payment-by-results contracting, and later a spell as commercial director at Babington. Colin Scott, who mentored him at Working Links, remembered a young colleague who challenged the status quo “sometimes over zealously”, and who joked years afterwards that he had learned to “nod his head and wag his tail” instead.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, who knew him from those years, said what stood out was “his commitment to social justice and making sure everyone has a fair chance in life regardless of background”.

Interviewing at Working Links, Gallagher was asked what one thing he would introduce to the sector. Professional recognition for frontline advisers, he said. “I find it baffling people have to have a licence to fix my boiler” when nothing qualified the people who helped someone rebuild a life.

In 2011 he founded the Institute of Employability Professionals, building qualifications from level 2 to level 4 and an apprenticeship standard. He called it the achievement he was proudest of.

Eighteen months to the top

He joined NCFE in September 2018 to run its end-point assessment business. Six months later he was chief executive.

He inherited an organisation he thought had lost its thread, and asked 13 senior leaders why they came to work. “I got six different answers, and seven people who didn’t know.”

He turned NCFE back towards its charitable purpose: half a million pounds into a WorldSkills UK Centre of Excellence, a £1 million assessment innovation fund and backing the Good for Me Good for FE campaign.

NCFE was one of the first two awarding organisations contracted to deliver T Levels, and Gallagher led it through significant Ofqual intervention when early delivery went wrong. He was unusually willing to talk about it, later calling the experience “brutal but necessary” and offering to help others avoid it.

‘A waterfall of mistrust’

At the Federation of Awarding Bodies’ 2023 conference, he described a “waterfall of mistrust” running through the sector, and said the toll of regulatory pressure on professionals’ health was something the sector should resist

He served as FAB’s vice chair for two years and was elected chair last December. He never took up the post, standing down after his diagnosis.

FAB chair Tim Bennett-Hart said Gallagher’s openness about his failures as well as his successes was “refreshing”. “It is a profound shock to know that he will not return to challenge our thinking.”

Rob Nitsch, FAB’s chief executive, said Gallagher “had a bold vision and was tenacious in its pursuit”, and was “always ready to assist others”. Ofqual chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham, whose organisation Gallagher spent much of his time challenging, called him “an extremely experienced and knowledgeable force in the vocational sector”.

‘He took chances on people’

Philip Le Feuvre, NCFE’s chief operating officer, worked alongside Gallagher for six years and described him as both boss and friend. Gallagher “believed passionately in the potential of people”, he said, giving them opportunities and building their confidence “with his relentless positivity”. When things went wrong, he stood by them.

He was also forever fired up about the next idea. “He used to joke that my job was 90 per cent about reining him in,” Le Feuvre said. And he was uncompromising about where work stopped. Gallagher took calls from the school run and the side of a pitch, but his boys came first, and he expected the same of his staff.

Ben Rowland, chief executive of AELP, said he “was never afraid to speak plainly, challenge constructively or stand up for what he believed was right”. David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, pointed to “a shared commitment and passion for a fairer and better education and skills system”.

Zoe Lewis, principal and CEO of Middlesbrough College, remembered a Boro lad “through and through”, who talked about serious things with “his renowned twinkle in his eye”.

The chef and the essay

Gallagher’s last article for FE Week ran a year ago this week. It attacked the idea that technical education should be made to look academic, and led on a question he thought answered itself: would you hire a chef on the strength of an essay about sauces, or would you taste their cooking?

Then he set the policy argument aside and wrote about his sons. One a natural sportsman, the other having to work at it. One who remembered and regurgitated, one who needed to learn a thing several ways before it stuck. One who followed the rules, one who challenged them without hesitation.

He would never say one was better than the other, he wrote. He loved them for their differences.

‘Look out for each other’

The morning after he told the sector about his diagnosis, Gallagher woke to hundreds of messages and filmed a reply on his phone.

He thanked everyone, said he felt fortunate, and asked for one thing back.

Be kind, he said, and not only to the people closest to you. Let someone out at a junction. Hold a door. Make somebody a cup of tea. Give a colleague credit for a job well done. Send a note to someone you have not spoken to in years.

He knew how it sounded. “I’m not being all sanctimonious,” he said. “I’m often in too much of a rush to be kind.”

He signed off: “Look out for each other, and I’ll see you soon.”

Colleges caught offside by rules on staff send-offs

Colleges are still breaking government spending rules on exit payments almost four years after they were reclassified as public bodies, FE Week has found.

The Treasury’s ‘managing public money’ rules mean that FE colleges need Department for Education sign-off before making large staff severance payments, including those worth £50,000 or more.

But DfE figures released via a freedom of information request show that in 2024-25, of 28 special payment requests, six colleges made “retrospective” requests once cash had already been paid out. Officials subsequently rejected four of these requests.

In 2023-24, the first full academic year following reclassification, 35 special payment requests were made, 12 of which were retrospective and half of those were rejected.

This academic year, data running up to June shows that colleges made five retrospective requests, with officials rejecting two so far.

In cases where DfE officials or ministers refuse to support retrospective requests, colleges can face extra government scrutiny, including formal intervention, and are forced to publicly flag the rule breach as a regularity “qualification” in their financial accounts.

In its 2024-25 accounts, Windsor Forest Colleges Group reported making a £23,282 special severance payment to a former junior staff member “without the requisite approval” from the DfE. Colleges were required at the time to request approval for payments worth more than three months of the recipient’s salary.

According to the college’s recent board minutes, CEO Gillian May told governors the rule breach was an “oversight” by the HR and finance teams that only “came to light” after the sum was paid.

May, who left the college in May to become a deputy FE commissioner, said the payment was significantly higher than the employee’s three-month figure because the potential costs of going to an employment tribunal were a bigger risk.

She added the DfE rejected the request as it did not want retrospective approvals to be “taken as precedent”.

A spokesperson for Windsor Forest Colleges Group declined to comment on why its former staff member was threatening court action, or what internal steps it has taken to avoid future rule breaches.

Capital City College breached the rules the year before, after making a special payment in 2024 without “documented approval”.

According to its 2023-24 accounts, the breach occurred because the college “anticipated” approval so made the payment in advance “to minimise potential costs”.

The DfE initially approved the sum but later changed its decision to “non-approval” because the payment had already been made.

A Capital City College spokesperson said: “Severance payments have a role to play where they are in the best interests of all concerned and represent value for money.

“We hope to avoid situations where such payments are necessary, and the case cited dates back to 2024.

“The appropriate steps were followed with the DfE, with no action taken against the college.”

Severance payments are a routine part of an employee’s job ending and can include outstanding salary, holiday pay and redundancy pay, as well as compensation or a contribution to legal costs.

LTE Group, one of the largest colleges in the country, made 58 severance payments in 2025, down from 91 in 2024.

However, it only made one special severance payment in 2024-25, worth £7,100.

Only ‘exceptional’ circumstances

The Treasury’s managing public money rules are designed to ensure public sector bodies such as colleges, government departments and quangos are working to “high standards of probity”.

Guidance for colleges, set out in the DfE’s college financial handbook, says special severance payments should only be made in “exceptional” circumstances as they can set a poor example to the public by appearing to “reward failure”.

It adds: “Colleges must not use special severance payments as an easy alternative to proper management action, to avoid difficult decisions, disciplinary processes, unwelcome publicity, or reputational damage.”

Currently, colleges must ask for approval before making special severance payments of £50,000 or more, if they are included in an exit package of £100,000 or more, are made to a staff member earning more than £174,000, or if the payment is made alongside a confidentiality agreement or other “novel, contentious or repercussive” aspect.

In recent years, the DfE has updated its rules, including by removing a three-month salary trigger for approval where the payment was under £50,000, and increasing the higher earner threshold from £150,000 to £174,000.

Next year’s handbook clarifies that government approval is also required from next month if legal advice determines that a college has more than a 50 per cent chance of winning a claim at an employment tribunal or in arbitration.

The highest value of special payment requests came in 2023-24 when they totalled £1.7 million.

Good money management

Association of Colleges deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt said the managing public money rules were placed on colleges without notice in November 2022, when colleges were once again classified as public sector organisations.

He added: “Some of the rules make sense, but it never made sense to require civil service sign-off for some quite trivial decisions.

“In the three-and-a-half years since these changes, we’ve had some cases where colleges didn’t apply the rules properly and where they had to seek retrospective approval. But we’ve had just a handful of qualified audits on their accounts and, as time has gone by, the DfE has raised some of the thresholds to limit their checking.

“Ultimately, college governing bodies and senior leaders are the ones responsible for managing public money. In the main, they do this very well.”

BIIAB locked out of door supervisor training over ‘concerns’

Awarding organisation BIIAB has been blocked from registering learners on three security qualifications after Ofqual raised serious concerns.

The intervention covers the level 2 door supervisor, level 2 door supervisor (refresher) and the level 2 security officers qualifications awarded by BIIAB, which is a subsidiary of Skills and Education Group.

Learners who registered for the courses on or before July 2 can continue their studies, but under additional controls.

Between them, those qualifications accounted for around 24,800 certificates in the year to March 2026, over 90 per cent of BIIAB’s private security sector certificates issued.

Ofqual said it would not publish the full details of its legal direction due to the “sensitive nature” of “some requirements”.

The regulator said it took action to protect public safety after “serious concerns” emerged about how BIIAB was delivering door supervisor and security qualifications.

BIIAB must carry out additional assurance work to ensure the validity of results and qualifications of current learners, Ofqual said.

The crackdown builds on regulatory action taken last September, when BIIAB was required to carry out further checks before issuing results for certain qualifications.

BIIAB issued 18,100 certificates for the main door supervisor award in that period and 6,660 for the refresher, which licence holders must now complete before they can renew. Fewer than 50 certificates were issued for the security officers award. It’s unclear how many training providers will be affected.

Ofqual has been working with the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to tackle qualification fraud as part of its counter fraud action plan.

BIIAB suspended one of its training providers in 2023 from using its qualifications after a BBC exposé uncovered fraudulent training.

The awarding body was one of just six awarding organisations approved by the SIA to deliver door supervision, public space surveillance (CCTV) and security guarding courses.

The SIA has now removed BIIAB from its course finder tool for the three listed qualifications.

Integrity of qualifications ‘at risk’

Amanda Swann, Ofqual executive director for delivery, said: “It’s important for public safety that people who hold these qualifications must have received the appropriate training.

“The public needs to be confident that people working in the security sector are properly qualified.

“We will not hesitate to take action where our conditions have not been met and the integrity of qualifications is at risk.”

Emma Beal, interim chief executive of BIIAB and CEO of Skills and Education Group, said: “We are aware of the situation and are working with Ofqual on a specific matter related to a small number of qualifications within our BIIAB portfolio.

“Quality assurance, our customers and learners remain our highest priority.”

Tim Archer, SIA executive director of licensing and standards, said: “Protecting the integrity of the SIA licence and mandated entry-level training that SIA licensed operatives require is essential for both public safety and public trust and confidence in private security.

“The public needs to be confident that people working as private security operatives have undergone the training required by the SIA to the standards set. We welcome this action by Ofqual.”

NAO: Construction skills package faces ‘risks’

The government faces “significant risks” to delivering its promise of 60,000 new construction workers by 2029, a spending watchdog report has warned.

This includes how potential workers, training providers and employers respond to its £625 million “construction skills package” announced in March 2025, following the Labour government’s pledge to build 1.5 million more homes over the next three years.

The package includes £98 million for an industry placements programme, £100 million for construction focused skills bootcamps, and £38 million for new foundation apprenticeships, as well as a cross government and industry “constructions skills mission board” set up to help address sector challenges.

Estimates of additional construction workers created by the package that have been shared with the National Audit Office (NAO) include 25,600, or 42 per cent of the total, through the industry placement programme, 15,900, or 26 per cent, through skills bootcamps, and 10,000, or 16 per cent, through foundation apprenticeships.

But an NAO report published today warned that the initiatives’ success is “uncertain” due to a reliance on employer confidence, which is facing “challenging trading conditions”.

Internal assessments of the package’s show wavering confidence since the package’s announcement in March 2025, with confidence falling to ‘red’, or unlikely, in October due to delays in agreeing policy decisions about the industry placement initiative, agreeing devolution arrangements with the Treasury, and “staffing shortages”.

This red rating came a month after the machinery of government change saw responsibility for the package handed to the Department for Work and Pensions from the Department for Education.

Since April the rating has been at ‘amber’, or probable, following external “advisory support” brought in by the DWP to help agree an internal “portfolio reporting approach” ahead of most initiatives starting. The government is moving closer to publishing updates on the package’s progress, the NAO said.

The government audit body recommended that the DWP and DfE, which both have responsibilities for initiatives, should “strengthen” how they oversee the package and maximise value for money.

They should also consider how to respond to “lower-than-expected” performance data and provide “greater transparency” about how the programme is progressing through annual updates.

Government estimates suggest that 317,000 more workers will be needed to meet the 1.5 million new homes pledge, 130,000 for the plan to upgrade five million homes with solar panels and heat pumps, and 445,000 for new infrastructure such as schools, prisons and hospitals.

However, in the 2025-26 academic year, as at April 2026, only 74 learners started foundation apprenticeships, against the DWP’s assumption of 1,000 for the full year.

Other initiatives in the package include £90 million for an enhanced high value course premium for construction and safety training, £75 million for free courses for jobs courses, £100 million for construction technical excellence colleges, and £80 million for project-based capital investment.

The NAO noted a lack of evidence about whether initiatives such as construction technical excellence colleges and the teacher and industry exchange programme are effective.

But it said the government is taking “sensible steps” to develop them, including a “co-design” approach to technical excellence colleges and sharing best practice while the exchange programme is being tested from “ground up”.

However, hopes that 25,600 more workers will come through the industry exchange programme are “ambitious”, they added.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the public accounts committee, said: “Today’s NAO report sets out the scale of the challenge for the construction sector: delivering the government’s ambitions would mean an unprecedented expansion of the construction workforce.

“As a chartered surveyor, I see first-hand a sector already stretched by acute skills shortages, high vacancy rates and an ageing workforce.

“While the £625 million package to train up to 60,000 workers is welcome, this alone will not be enough: we will ultimately need hundreds of thousands more workers in the sector.

Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said: “The government is taking action to address shortage of skilled construction workers as part of its ambitious commitments for housing, infrastructure and energy efficiency.

“Success will depend on employers having the confidence and capability to offer placements, apprenticeships and jobs.”

A government spokesperson said: “This government is committed to building the homes and infrastructure Britain needs to grow, and delivering thousands of job opportunities across the country.

“After years of underinvestment left a dire shortage of construction workers, we are supporting businesses to take on the staff they need through hiring incentives, foundation apprenticeships, and our £625m package to support up to 60,000 more workers by 2029.

“The opportunities are there – we urge businesses to come forward and take them up.”

Construction’s risk-based assessment foundations to be copied across sectors

A risk-based approach agreed with the construction industry will be extended to apprenticeship assessment reforms across all sectors, Skills England has confirmed.

The move means concessions secured by construction employers following months of lobbying are not unique to the sector. Skills England will assess each apprenticeship occupation according to its level of risk, allowing assessment requirements to be tailored across safety-critical sectors including engineering, manufacturing, food and drink, automotive, nuclear and life sciences.

A Skills England spokesperson told FE Week: “Risk profiling is an important part of the apprenticeship assessment reform process and will continue to be moving forward for all sectors.

“We have learnt a lot from our work with the construction industry on how we can deliver these reforms in a way that meets sector needs.

“There will not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, we are looking at risk within each occupation to understand the nuances and how we can best support learners and employers.”

The government’s original reforms prompted opposition from a coalition of construction and built-environment organisations, which warned the changes risked “dumbing down” apprenticeships and allowing unqualified learners to pass.

A wider alliance of employers from the government’s industrial strategy priority sectors later lobbied ministers over concerns the reforms could weaken assessment across other safety-critical industries.

The reforms replace the end-point assessment model with new assessment plans that introduce sampling of knowledge and skills, give mandatory qualifications a stronger role in some standards and remove the independent assessment of behaviours.

Skills England paused the reforms for construction in December and established a construction taskforce involving industry bodies, the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) and the Building Safety Regulator.

The taskforce this week said it had now agreed a methodology that uses risk profiling to tailor assessment requirements according to the level of occupational risk.

Occupational groups will be able to mandate assessment methods, reduce the use of sampling for higher-risk skills, set tolerance levels and align assessment plans with industry competence standards and card schemes where appropriate.

Skills England told FE Week it had adopted a risk-based approach throughout the reform programme, but said its work with construction had helped refine the model and improve consensus-building between occupational groups and government officials.

No special treatment

Rob Nitsch, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said the outcome reflected months of coordinated lobbying.

“Whilst it has been overly painful and taken too long to shape up, it is pleasing that we are now seeing a standard-by-standard approach across all sectors that reflects the risk profile of individual apprenticeship occupations,” he said.

“The construction taskforce has been a significant contributor to the wide-ranging alliance that has got us to this point; employers and apprenticeship assessment organisations, with support from the federation, have also stood up to ensure that we now have an approach that is safe and appropriate.”

England has around 700 apprenticeship standards. Around 300 have already begun or completed the assessment reform process this year, and the rest – including those deemed to be a safety-critical occupation – are due to start in the coming months.

Several employer bodies said they either expected or had already begun adopting risk-modelling approaches with Skills England.

Louise Cairns, chief executive of the National Skills Academy for Food & Drink, said her sector had not yet received formal confirmation but expected risk profiling to be applied.

“The food and drink sector is highly regulated and high risk in many occupations,” she said.

“Risk profiling should not be exclusive to construction but done for all sectors and occupations as a matter of course to retain the credibility of apprenticeships.”

However, she warned several food and drink assessment plans had already been reformed.

“My concern is we have already had several apprenticeship assessment plans go through the process, where if risk profiling was done I am certain Skills England would have allowed us to mandate more knowledge and skills. I will be going back to them to seek guidance.”

The Institute of the Motor Industry also welcomed Skills England’s confirmation.

“It is encouraging to hear that, prompted by enquiries from FE Week, Skills England is now committed to building on its work with the construction industry to ensure that safety-critical apprenticeships are fit for purpose for other sectors,” an IMI spokesperson said.

“We look forward to working with them to discuss how automotive apprenticeships must take into account the ever-increasing complexity of vehicles on UK roads – from high-voltage electric systems to connected digital technologies and emerging hydrogen powertrains.”

‘Skills England actually listened’

Meanwhile, Enginuity has spent recent months working directly with Skills England to develop a separate risk-profiling model for advanced manufacturing.

Chief executive Ann Watson said discussions began after employers feared engineering could become “the next construction” in terms of widespread employer concern.

“We did, I think very positively, get to a point where Skills England were actually listening,” she said.

Enginuity has since developed a model that allows employers and Skills England to jointly assess occupational risk before determining appropriate assessment methods for each standard.

Watson said highly safety-critical occupations, such as aerospace, would require robust assessment, while lower-risk occupations could justify greater use of sampling.

She added that the model had deliberately been designed so other sectors could adopt it rather than being limited to manufacturing.

Cogent Skills, representing nuclear and science employers, said Skills England had advised it was developing a risk-based approach and the sector anticipated the construction model would be rolled out more widely.

The organisation said employers now wanted clarity on how the approach would work in practice where apprenticeship standards span industries with very different levels of risk.

For example, engineering standards can be used in workplaces ranging from vending machine servicing to nuclear facilities, meaning any risk model would need to reflect widely differing safety requirements.

Trethewey guides AQA into the vocational skills landscape

For most people, AQA is synonymous with GCSEs and A Levels, processing 3.6 million GCSE, AS and A Level entries each year from 1.1 million students.

But lately, England’s biggest awarding bodies have been making headlines for all the wrong reasons; looming strikes at AQA, controversy over executive bonuses at City & Guilds, and a rebuke from Ofqual over exam breaches at Pearson.

Former teacher, Ofsted deputy director and self-confessed policy nerd Anna Trethewey wants to shift that narrative. She is leading AQA’s most significant strategic shift in years: expanding beyond its academic heartland into technical education, apprenticeships and adult skills.

AQA has “huge ambitions” to deliver the first wave of V Levels and new level 2 qualifications, and is eyeing future T Level contracts.

For an organisation with a reputation built on academic examinations, it is a bold move. But Trethewey insists it is an obvious one.

“Hand on heart, we’re a big education charity. We have the resources and the social commitment. Why wouldn’t we be working with young people and adults across education?”

A vocational vocation

This will not be its first venture into vocational qualifications; an attempt over a decade earlier was a “damp squib” because AQA still spoke “academic language”, Trethewey says.

This time feels different.

In 2022, AQA acquired Training Qualifications UK (TQUK), an awarding and end-point assessment organisation which works with around 120 colleges.

“We’re known for our scale and trusted for our credibility,” Trethewey says. “But TQUK really understands the FE sector and wider adult skills landscape.”

The partnership is gathering momentum. TQUK recorded 173,000 registrations in 2025-26, with registrations increasing by 21 per cent in the first quarter of this academic year, and it enjoyed its strongest ever spring.

Construction EPA Company joined the group in 2025, shortly followed by the major apprenticeships and adult skills training provider Realise.

Anna Trethewey at Realise training centre in Cleckheaton

Squiggly career

Trethewey understands how life-changing adult education can be, as her own mother left school with just two O Levels and returned to education in her 50s to retrain as a counsellor.

Mother and daughter would “sit there grumbling together” over their essays while Trethewey studied for her A Levels.

While her mum taught her about “the power of second chances”, her father was head of learning technology at the local Bromley College, championing online learning years before digital education became fashionable.

Performing arts was the hook that kept Trethewey engaged at school, and she is proud that AQA continues to offer loss-making qualifications such as GCSE dance which might otherwise disappear.

Last year, 63 of AQA’s 114 qualifications operated at a loss, creating an £8.2 million deficit.

“That’s the right thing to do,” she says. “Nobody else will offer some of them, and it’s critical young people continue to have access to those qualifications.”

Trethewey still somehow resembles a rock musician (she used to sing in a band called Starry Smooth Hounds) with her distinctively edgy style.

She speaks about education with the calm assurance of someone who has viewed it from many angles in her “squiggly” career; teacher, researcher, think tank director and Ofsted deputy director.

Yet a common thread exists: trying to understand why some young people flourish while others quietly fall behind.

Her LinkedIn background is not the standard corporate image but shows her accompanied by young people from AQA’s student advisory group that she chaired.

Anna Trethewey singing as part o Starry Smoot Hounds band

Teach First

Trethewey was a poetic practice master’s student at Royal Holloway when she landed a poet-in-residence placement at a primary school in Slough.

That led her to the Teach First programme, which placed her in a secondary school in Lewisham where fewer than one in ten pupils achieved five good GCSEs.

Like many trainee teachers, Trethewey arrived believing education could solve almost anything.

“I was idealistic – you throw your heart and soul into it.”

The reality proved more complicated. She quickly realised schools could not compensate for problems beyond their gates.

But there were victories. One pupil, newly arrived from overseas, barely spoke despite being “incredibly bright”.

After almost three years of patiently building trust, he agreed to read to her during a library lesson.

“It was quite profound,” she says. “He decided he trusted me enough to use his voice.”

Trethewey helped establish a sixth form with a particularly vocational flavour. It began with a small sports qualification, which “gave young people a pathway they weren’t going to get otherwise”.

More importantly, it kept young people in an environment where they felt safe.

“They didn’t always have that in their wider lives.”

Anna Trethewey with her former band Starry Smooth Hounds

Answering the burning questions

Trethewey later moved to the City of Norwich School, where she was made deputy head of English, before leaving the school sector to join education researcher Loic Menzies as the first full-time employee at his fledgling think tank, LKMco.

She was partly driven by a sense of injustice.

Ofsted’s then chief inspector Michael Wilshaw had described some teachers as “lazy”, suggesting they “do not know what stress is”, but Trethewey felt that curriculum reforms had caused teachers’ workload to “grow and grow” during her seven years in teaching.

These days she is a “voice of caution around the AQA table”, warning about the pitfalls of the “change load coming onto schools and colleges”.

The move set her on an exciting career journey, but Trethewey admits that even now she misses pupil “banter”.

LKMco (later rebranded The Centre for Education and Youth (CFeY) and closed last year due to funding constraints) had no political patrons or large institutional backers. Everything depended on securing individual research commissions.

“We punched above our weight,” she says.

This independence gave it “freedom” to pursue awkward questions without worrying whether it aligned neatly with political agendas.

“We didn’t have a board that would push us in a particular direction, or say, ‘could you not look at that? It’s politically awkward for me’.”

Among the think tank’s most influential work was its research into teacher recruitment and retention, as Trethewey tried to answer the workforce questions that had frustrated her as a teacher.

She thought that staff incentives should be wider than “golden handcuffs”.

Her husband benefits from working at a London primary school that offers free childcare to the children of staff, which Trethewey believes “drives loyalty”.

Her research around flexible working, workload reduction and childcare support later appeared in the government’s teacher recruitment and retention strategy.

“You don’t always know where the breadcrumbs will lead,” she reflects.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills.

More ties

Trethewey then joined Ofsted on secondment in a strategy role, intending to later move into “a grown-up corporate job”.

Instead, she stayed at Ofsted for over two years and later returned as deputy director with responsibilities covering SEND, alternative provision and local area partnerships.

There were “a lot more ties” being worn in Ofsted meetings than she was used to, but beneath the boardroom formalities she discovered an organisation wrestling with many of the same dilemmas that policymakers, school leaders and colleges face every day.

SEND was “a really hard, fraught space”, she says.

And one children’s services director told her they almost wished inspectors would simply judge their area ‘inadequate’ to strengthen their case for additional funding.

The conversation “resonated” with Trethewey.

She was troubled by rising numbers of children educated in unregulated alternative provision beyond the reach of Ofsted inspection, with some operating without proper fire escapes, qualified teachers or adequate safeguarding arrangements.

“Some local authorities’ safeguarding audits of those wider alternative provisions are brilliant, some are thinner,” she adds.

While welcoming recent legislation giving Ofsted stronger powers to investigate illegal schools, Trethewey worries that significant loopholes remain.

Tackling the “corners of education where the most vulnerable are often hidden” is “critical for any government… but it goes down the to-do list when there’s so much going on”.

No afterthoughts

Trethewey is now preparing for AQA’s biggest transformation in its 123-year history.

V Levels, and new level 2 foundation certificates and occupational certificates are due to arrive from September 2027.

The timetable for these new qualifications “feels punchy,” but “deliverable”.

But she hopes level 2 foundation certificates and occupational certificates will not become an “afterthought”.

“If we don’t get the design right because we’re rushing, they risk undermining the very purpose we’re trying to achieve,” she says.

Pearson currently holds 16 of the 20 T Level licences, but future procurement rounds will be an open market.

“Watch this space,” Trethewey says. “If it’s in the best interests of learners and we think we can do something of quality, why wouldn’t we?”

AQA is not short of potential cash to expand; it has over £88 million of free reserves.

Trethewey believes there is also a “real need” to look at introducing more vocational pathways for 14 to 16-year-olds, which incoming prime minister Andy Burnham reportedly has his eye on.

If you wait till 16, you might have lost them along the way,” she says.

She worries that while new qualifications may enable young people to keep their career options open, apprenticeships are in short supply and higher technical routes are “patchy”.

“It becomes a difficult conversation with young people if we’ve told them we’re keeping every door open when, actually, some of those doors aren’t there”.

Eye on AI

Meanwhile, AI poses a growing threat to the integrity of qualifications.

Two years ago, AQA broke new legal ground by securing injunctions against social media influencers promoting exam cheating online.

AQA is “always looking for ways to clamp down” on them, but Trethewey takes a pragmatic view that “there will always be bad actors looking to make a fast buck”.

The scourge of AI-generated coursework has strengthened her belief in the value of supervised assessment.

Yet AI also presents opportunities.

AQA has been trialling AI systems capable of identifying unusual marking patterns across live GCSE papers. Where anomalies are detected, senior examiners review the scripts before any decision is made.

Trethewey is emphatic that humans remain responsible for every final mark.

Elsewhere, AQA is experimenting with technology that improves the legibility of handwritten scripts and streamlines burdensome administrative tasks, such as ordering new certificates.

This “low-hanging fruit” is where AI’s immediate value lies.

“But if you lose confidence in public examinations, you’ve lost everything,” she says.

Devolution drama

Trethewey also sees potential in devolution. Realise already works closely with several mayoral combined authorities, delivering programmes ranging from bus driver training to smart energy skills.

Burnham may allow qualifications to be shaped at a regional level, and this week Reform UK’s education spokesperson Suella Braverman said their “skills revolution” would have “regional dedicated qualifications at their heart”.

But Trethewey does not believe that qualification content should be decided regionally; “it is right that there are national benchmarks, and my certificate here in London means the same thing as your certificate in Redcar”.

She would like to see the “moratorium” that has been in place on new adult skills qualifications since 2020 overturned, because “we need to inject energy in that space”.

But she fears a “race to the bottom” as the government launches new programmes tackling NEET numbers.

Realise has an adult skills centre near Bradford, where the community had previously become sceptical of providers delivering “one-off courses and leaving”.

“How do we stitch together something genuinely sustainable, rather than just chasing the latest funding pot?” Trethewey asks.

“It’s so important [these providers] stay and get the trust of the community… as AQA moves into this space, we’re only doing it if we can do it properly.”

Trethewey sees her role leading AQA’s vocational expansion as “a bloody privilege”.

If she succeeds, the organisation best known to GCSE and A Level learners may soon become just as familiar to colleges, adult learners and apprentices.

She claims AQA has no need to abandon its charitable status to achieve its goals.

“I’m not having to run for short-term profits – that’s a really privileged place to be in”.

 

England’s apprenticeship rethink should look across the Atlantic

When skills minister Jacqui wrote to Skills England on June 22 to commission an urgent review of apprenticeship funding, she did something British ministers rarely do. She admitted a well-intentioned policy produced the opposite of its intended result, concluding “…the apprenticeship system is in need of reform.”

Apprenticeships among 16–24-year-olds fell by 40 per cent over the previous decade. More than half of new apprenticeships went to learners over 25. An employer levy to open the career ladder became a way to subsidize incumbent workers. The first rung of the career ladder was missing.

Across the Atlantic, the U.S. was watching, though not carefully. It never had a national apprenticeship system. It has a patchwork of federal goals that shift with presidential administrations, federally registered programs, state agencies, and industry intermediaries.

The National Apprenticeship Act hasn’t been substantially updated since 1937. Yet, as England resets, the U.S. experience offers something useful. It’s not a model to copy, but a set of contrasts illuminating what England got wrong and possible alternatives.

The U.S. model avoided England’s specific failure by design and historical accident. Because there’s no single national levy that employers pay against their payroll, the U.S. system never developed the English dynamic, where employers use training funds to retrain current workers.

American employers must choose to sponsor or join a registered apprenticeship program. That creates different problems. For example, scale is harder to achieve. But the system isn’t captured by the most convenient participants at the expense of young people starting work.

The U.S. has also unevenly invested in youth pathways. High school apprenticeship models in states like Colorado, South Carolina, and Indiana allow students to earn and learn before graduation, with pathways into postsecondary programs. These aren’t yet mainstream. But they represent the logic that England’s new foundation apprenticeships and relaunched level 2 route want to recapture.

The American weakness flips the English one. Where England over-centralized and allowed a levy-funded system to be captured by the most powerful participants, the U.S. under-centralized and produced a fragmented landscape that employers find difficult to navigate.

One analysis shows U.S. completion rates remain below 50 percent. At least four states have fewer active apprentices today than in 2016. Despite a manufacturing reshoring agenda that depends on skilled workers, manufacturing accounts for only about 4 percent of active apprentices.

Youth access is where both countries clearly fall short, in different ways. In England, levy money drifted away from young people to existing employees. In the U.S., the first step on the career ladder was always harder to find. Those aged 16 to 18 are particularly underrepresented. The term “youth apprenticeship” has no consistent federal definition.

Three things are worth considering as Skills England rebuilds the system.

First, employer incentive structures matter more than levy design. The new commitments, 100 percent training cost coverage for 16–24-year-olds at small firms and a £2,000 hiring payment, are steps forward. They target employers most likely to hire young people new to work. U.S. intermediary models show that reducing employer burden can be more important than increasing employer funding.

Second, the pathway matters as much as the program. U.S. states making the most progress have built connected sequences from secondary school through registered apprenticeship to degree-level credentials. Adding entry-level programmes without aligning schools, colleges, employers, and credential bodies isn’t enough.

Third, completion deserves as much attention as starts. The U.S. processes more cancellations each year than completions. Britain’s target of a 70 per cent achievement rate is the right priority. Hitting it requires addressing the practical reasons apprentices leave early. For example, there are weak mentoring, financial pressure, and transportation problems. Measuring outcomes after the fact isn’t the same as preventing the exit before it happens.

Britain’s June 2026 reset and America’s current debate over apprenticeships are attempts to solve the same problem with different tools. The first rung of the career ladder is the hardest to build. Neither country has yet made it reliably available to every young person who needs it. There’s more to learn from each other’s mistakes and accomplishments than either side acknowledges.

 

FE has lost something primary schools get right

In primary school, every student has a person.

A teacher who knows them, their moods, their friendships, their worries, the way they walk in when something isn’t right. There is consistency, familiarity, and a clear sense of belonging.

By the time students reach further education, that person has disappeared.

Instead, they are passed between subject specialists, registers and reporting systems. Known in fragments. Tracked in spreadsheets. Measured in attendance percentages and submission dates.

And yet, we expect more from them than ever before.

As a college teacher, I teach around 90 to 100 students across multiple levels. I might see each group once or twice a week, often for a limited number of hours. In that time, I am expected to track attendance, monitor wellbeing, understand who has an education, health and care plan (EHCP) and everything about it, notice friendship dynamics, support academic progress, chase coursework, and produce meaningful reports multiple times a year.

All while delivering lessons, meeting targets, and feeding data into systems that suggest I “know” my students.

The truth is, I know parts of them.

But not enough to be their person.

Further education sits in a strange, often overlooked space. Students are no longer children, but they are not yet fully independent adults. This period is marked by significant personal changes, identity development, fluctuating confidence, increasing mental health challenges, and growing external pressures.

This is not just anecdotal, it is ecological. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory reminds us that development does not happen in isolation. It is shaped by the systems around a young person, relationships, environments, and daily interactions. When those systems become fragmented, so too can a student’s sense of stability and belonging.

And yet, this is the stage where we remove consistency.

We assume independence means distance.

It doesn’t.

What if FE borrowed something simple from primary education?

A “college class teacher” model.

Each group would have a consistent, central teacher, someone who sees them regularly, not just to deliver content, but to know them. A person responsible not just for data, but for connection. Someone who notices when attendance dips before it becomes a statistic. Someone who understands the quieter students, not just the loudest voices.

This is not about adding another layer of administration. It is about refocusing what already exists.

Belonging is not a soft outcome. It is a predictor of engagement.

Abraham Maslow reminds us that belonging sits at the core of human motivation. Without it, progress in learning becomes harder to sustain.

Students who feel known are more likely to attend, more likely to participate, more likely to ask for help, and more likely to stay.

We talk endlessly about retention, attendance, and outcomes, but rarely address the simplest question:

Do students feel like they belong to someone – and somewhere?

From a teacher’s perspective, this is not about reducing workload. It is about restoring purpose.

Most of us did not enter further education to become data managers. We came to teach, to guide, and to support. But when relationships are fragmented, so is our impact. We are left trying to piece together a full picture of a student from limited snapshots, while being held accountable for outcomes that depend on connection.

Give us the space to know our students properly, and we will do what teachers have always done best: show up, notice, care, and make it count.

Because spreadsheets do not change lives.

People do.