Ministers are being urged to bring funding for a scheme supporting looked-after young people in post-16 education in line with rates paid in schools, after an evaluation found wide inconsistencies across England.
A report into the national rollout of the pupil premium plus post-16 pilot, published this week, highlights significant variation in allocations. Some councils received as little as £110 per student, compared with £2,630 per pupil premium plus funding for looked-after children aged under 16.
Pilot leads said the additional funding – used to boost engagement and attainment among disadvantaged learners – was helping to “push back” the cliff edge of support at age 16. However, they warned that a lack of parity with school funding was placing pressure on provision.
The research tracked three cohorts of local authorities that joined the pilot between 2021 and 2025 and found persistent gaps in funding and delivery.
In 2023-24, councils received an average of £413 per student – around six times less than the £2,630 available for school-age pupils.
Virtual school heads called for the Department for Education to overhaul the post-16 funding formula so it mirrors the statutory pupil premium plus in schools, alongside providing long-term funding certainty.
Although funding was confirmed for 2025-26, it remains unclear whether the programme will continue beyond that point.
Two-tier system
The post-16 pupil premium plus pilot launched in 2021 with £3 million in funding for local authorities to appoint virtual school heads. These leads work with colleges, training providers and social workers to improve outcomes for looked-after young people and care leavers aged 16 to 18.
Thirty local authorities joined the first cohort, followed by an additional 28 in the second year and a further 94 from 2023-24.
DfE has spent around £40 million on the scheme in total so far.
The evaluation explored the programme up to the 2023-24 academic year and found earlier cohorts received higher overall allocations. Cohort 1 areas were awarded an average of £94,706, compared with £57,539 for those joining in cohort 3.
This reflected a funding cap that ensured councils in cohorts 1 and 2 did not see reductions of more than 15 per cent year-on-year. The cap was removed in 2024-25, meaning all authorities are now funded using the same formula.
Researchers said this change, alongside the expansion of eligibility beyond further education colleges to all post-16 settings, including apprenticeship providers, contributed to falling per-student rates.
Estimated funding per learner stood at £900 in 2021-22 and £920 in 2022-23, before dropping to £413 after eligibility widened in October 2023. Across the full 2023-24 academic year, this equated to an average of £355 per learner.
In 2023-24, average rates varied by councils depending on when they joined the pilot: £522 for councils in cohort 1, £440 for cohort 2 and £361 for cohort 3.
The report warned this was creating a “postcode lottery”, with allocations ranging from £110 to £1,257 per learner.
“This is despite DfE’s attempts to make funding allocation equitable across virtual schools and again suggests a postcode lottery effect in real terms,” it said.
Flexibility limits evaluation
Some variation also stemmed from how local authorities chose to use their funding.
Across all surveyed virtual school heads, the majority of funding (53 per cent) in 2023-24 went towards direct work with young people. Activities included tuition, provision of IT equipment, ESOL, mentoring, targeted NEET prevention work and enrichment activities.
The remaining funds were directed toward joint working and the virtual schools (23 per cent) and “support” for post-16 settings (21 per cent).
However, researchers said these activities were not mutually exclusive.
“For instance, where virtual school heads have chosen to allocate all or most of their funding to create a dedicated post-16 role in the virtual schools, other activities and outcomes are expected to flow from that role relating to all three types of activity,” the report said.
“The flexibility of the funding has allowed virtual schools to tailor support to local needs. However, variation between levels of funding, what this equates to per young person in real terms, the level of the virtual school’s pre-existing provision or staffing, and the variation in what the funding is used for creates a potential postcode lottery in terms of the level and type of support available.”
The report added: “While structured procedures existed for approving exceptions, the flexible application of funding criteria could lead to inconsistencies across local authorities, creating a potential postcode lottery in access to support for looked-after children and care leavers.”
Leaders called for a revised funding model that is not purely per-student, suggesting a guaranteed allocation to fund at least one dedicated post-16 role in each authority, topped up with individual allocations per eligible young person.
Around 75 per cent of virtual school heads reported using funding to create new posts or expand existing roles.
They also called for multi-year settlements, warning that short-term funding cycles were hindering strategic planning.
One lead said: “Our school improvement plan is centred around three-year goals in our journey – unfortunately, the time-limited element means many plans we have for post-16 have often been short notice or one-off projects, nor can we enhance our structure further with permanent or longer-term posts.”
The Department for Education has been approached for comment.
Chief executive Bill Jones tells of his route to Luminate’s top job via TEFL training, how the group is juggling Leeds’ teenage population spike, and the potential for colleges taking over cash-strapped universities
Before becoming chief executive of the third-largest education group in the country, Bill Jones faced the most challenging moment of his 11 years as its deputy principal, and the ultimate test of his own core values.
A teenage population spike in Leeds arose at the same time as Luminate had stretched itself thin to increase its market share, causing the perfect storm of surging demand and depleted cash reserves.
Luminate’s leaders would have to decide whether to risk burning through their remaining cash to lease new buildings, or play it safe and turn young people away.
In the end, they chose “to stretch our available cash reserves to their limits rather than have more NEETs in Leeds”, says Jones.
In January 2025, Luminate’s cash balance was £2.4 million, equating to six cash days, against a target of at least 25. The situation required “very careful management”, but it was “ultimately worth the sleepless nights”.
Since Jones took over from Colin Booth as CEO in January, Luminate’s cash forecasts have remained tight, fuelled by £2.4 million of in-year growth funding this year as it continues expansion to meet demand. But they are “much improved” on last year.
Bill Jones
Pudsey pride
New sixth form colleges don’t come around very often, but despite the risks, Jones is proud of Luminate’s new Pudsey Sixth Form College, which opened in September and recruited 150 students towards its target of 200.
Opening academic provision in Leeds allows the group to free up space for more technical and vocational provision.
However, Luminate opposed the previous government’s decision to approve a new sixth form college in Keighley, where the group already runs a college providing A Levels.
Jones believes that the “ideology of markets deciding” where to open educational provision, rather than being led by demand, has “led to sub-optimal outcomes and inefficiencies across the country”. At the time, Booth lobbied fiercely against the plans, which were later quietly shelved.
Spaces for places
Booth was never afraid to stick his head above the parapet to defend the rights of the underdogs of the FE world, and Jones appears to be cut from the same cloth.
Bill Jones of Luminate with Jeffrey the grouchy cockapoo
But being new in post, he occasionally throws anxious glances at his head of communications, fearing he has put his foot in it with his candid nature.
“You’re looking uncomfortable,” he says, looking across at her again. She casts a strained smile back at him.
Lying at our feet is Jeffrey, Leeds City College’s cockapoo therapy dog.
Unlike Jones, who comes across as warm and approachable, Jeffrey is “a bit grouchy” as “he’s fed up with people stroking him and prodding him”. An unfortunate frame of mind for a therapy dog.
We are sitting in Jones’s office at his Park Lane campus in Leeds, which is bustling with science and healthcare students.
To house this cohort in the future, Luminate wants to create a new health science academy in a nearby office building called Livingstone House.
Luminate received £8 million in extra post-16 capacity funding from a £20 million package for Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire (as the two areas with the highest teenage population spikes). Much of that went on a 127-year lease for Livingstone House.
The funding was meant to create up to 1,500 extra places, but it was not enough.
The building’s air distribution system was designed to circulate enough air for around 100 people on each floor. Jones needs it to be able to accommodate at least double that number. This means just “one or two” of the building’s six storeys will be ready by September.
Build, Bill, build
Lately, there is barely a corner of Luminate’s estate that has not been subject to building work, funded through a £32.1 million Department for Education loan, plus various capital transformation and post-16 capacity funding pots.
The last two years have not been plain sailing. The owner of a neighbouring business park threatened to launch a judicial review challenging Luminate’s plans to rebuild Harrogate College.
Although this never happened, Luminate had to seek DfE approval to divert money the department had lent them for that rebuild to spend instead on a construction project at its Park Lane campus in Leeds, after hitting cashflow challenges. The FE Commissioner was consulted.
An issue also emerged around a Park Lane block not fully meeting DfE specifications for an educational building, which was deemed by Luminate’s board to present a “reputational risk” with the DfE.
Luminate’s board at the time expressed “some reservations in light of the financial challenges and risks”, and the “conflicting priorities” of a much-needed IT replacement programme and the group’s inability to progress its staff pay award.
Actual income was £3 million lower than budget, and the group’s loan covenants were “significantly closer to the threshold than they had been in the past”.
Luminate’s Park Lane campus
HE domination
While cashflow and construction issues have caused Jones frustrations, he lights up as the conversation moves to an area he is much more upbeat about; the potential for much closer collaboration between colleges and universities. For him, this is “part of what’s so exciting about working in FE at the moment”.
With universities’ finances hitting the buffers and the sector unlikely to be bailed out by any future government, Jones believes we will soon see the first FE college group taking over its local university.
Would he consider Luminate ever doing so?
“Absolutely, if it was in the interests of students and meeting regional skills needs,” he says.
He believes “the more forward-looking” universities and college groups are already “beginning to have those conversations”.
Jones points to a “really interesting paper”, Radical collaboration: A playbook, which charts possible types of collaboration between education partners. He believes that “it doesn’t have to be forced or one party taking over the other party”, and “federations or strategic alliances” will become “more and more common”.
“What could be so powerful about it is the ability to co-create pathways from people’s starting points through to where the jobs are. It’s definitely one to watch.”
Luminate is already well-versed in HE provision. It operates a higher education institution (Leeds Conservatoire) as a wholly owned subsidiary, as well as its own university centre in Leeds.
But Luminate’s particularly large HE portfolio has left it exposed to the difficulties that market is facing; the latest finance record shows HE numbers at FE colleges are down 30 per cent in the last three years.
“Universities have been trying to replace the international students that they’ve lost with domestic students, so there’s more competition,” says Jones.
Luminate’s HE provision has declined recently, but Jones says “we’re growing our way back out again by making our courses niche, and employer focused – so not the sort of thing that’s duplicated in universities”.
Bill JOnes with his former boss, Colin Booth
Staying in Yorkshire
Luminate generated £143 million in income in 2024-25, which is not far off that of FE’s national college groups. But Luminate is firmly rooted in West and North Yorkshire, and Jones has no intention of expanding its geographic footprint.
Jones claims Luminate is “not predatory” and is “about place”. He believes that “distant” national groups “can’t have that responsiveness to local needs when the people making the decisions don’t understand the communities or even the region, never mind the nuances of the local communities”.
Luminate also sponsors a Leeds-based multi-academy trust, White Rose Academies Trust, made up of three secondaries and a primary school. Luminate experienced challenges in its chains of command over the MAT – “there was a vision to have a collaboration that perhaps was a little bit ahead of its time,” Jones admits.
Attempts were made two years ago to merge the MAT with another trust, which never came to fruition.
Jones says these days the college group has a “really good” relationship with its schools, one of which, Leeds West Academy, Luminate collaborated with to build the new Pudsey Sixth Form College. But there are “grey areas” in terms of the management structures of college-sponsored MATs.
Bill Jones as a baby
Teaching to travel
Jones may have seemed destined for a career in education; growing up, he was head boy at his school in Tamworth, Staffordshire, with a primary school teacher mum and PE teacher stepdad.
But their experiences put him off the idea of teaching, and it was only after graduating with a philosophy degree from the University of Liverpool at a time when “graduate jobs were hard to come by” that he succumbed to the idea of teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) as a way to explore the wider world.
He started off his travels in Madrid, but grew so fond of its late-night party scene that he “got stuck” there for two years rather than continuing his globetrotting. But his fear that he might end up like his middle-aged TEFL teaching colleagues who were still on “exactly the same salaries” as him prompted him to return to England and do a PGCE.
Bill Jones as a youngster
Champion for ESOL
His TEFL experience makes him a passionate advocate for the value of English teaching provision in communities. He sees Greater Lincolnshire’s recent decision to stop funding ESOL as “incredibly short-sighted, entirely politically driven through a very peculiar lens and very, very damaging”.
“Were it to happen in Leeds, it would create a very large problem where people are not able to access the provision that engages them and gets them into employment where there are huge shortages,” he says.
Greater Lincolnshire’s mayor Andrea Jenkyns was MP for Morley, near Leeds, for nine years and “visited our college many times”.
Jones points out that illegal immigrants cannot access ESOL, which is what makes the policy “so pernicious”.
“We’ve got to be careful about that becoming more widespread in the UK post an election,” he adds.
Andrea Jenkyns
His visionary boss
As he climbed the career ladder at successive colleges, Jones says he always tried to see the principals he worked under as potential role models.
“You learn from them what to do and what not to do, as much as anything.”
His first teaching job in England was in a small inner-city college, East Birmingham College, where he taught maths and A Level sociology (a new course at the time) instead of English, the subject he had intended to teach.
His college’s “controversial and outspoken” principal at the time, Tony Henry, did not believe in having staff-only areas of the college or his own office, and was known to make tea for his cleaners.
Henry was “visionary” when it came to qualification reform, and was “constantly travelling to the US” to research their model of foundation degrees, which at the time were unheard of in England.
Jones credits Henry with inspiring him to become a “civic leader” by showing him that “the power of FE is not just about how many students pass qualifications, you can do a lot more than that as a leader”.
Jones says Leeds is now a place that exemplifies Henry’s concept of colleges “at the centre of their communities”. The city has “visionary leaders who have come together” from the local authority, universities and NHS trusts as well as its colleges.
The Leeds Anchors network of large employers pools their resources and shares joint targets; its initiative to keep procurement spend in the local area has, Jones says, brought “millions of extra pounds into the city”. Its members have agreed to make a “concerted effort” to recruit people from “priority neighbourhoods” with higher levels of social deprivation, to help close the inequality gap.
Bill Jones
Accidental leader
After leaving east Birmingham, Jones moved gradually northwards toBurton upon Trent College, then Rotherham College of Arts and Technology and The Sheffield College, where he spent six years as executive director of planning and performance. He started at Luminate in 2015 as deputy principal for teaching and learning.
Luminate is unusual in that it gives its academic managers “a lot of responsibility”, as they are held to account for their own budgets.
Jones says this takes some getting used to for new staff from other colleges, whose response is sometimes “if I’d have wanted to do budgets, I would’ve been an accountant”.
Jones points out to them that “every decision you make in the classroom, about class size, guided learning, hours, resources, and types of teachers, has a direct impact on the finances. So if you’re interested in pedagogy, you should be interested in financial management.”
These days, Jones spends his weekdays in Leeds, where he likes to run along the canals and make the most of the city’s thriving independent music scene; “I’m an indie kid at heart, I just like loud guitar music.” At weekends, he returns to his family home in Derby.
He claims to have ended up as Luminate’s CEO “by accident”, as the idea of getting promoted to the top job is “not what drove” him.
Booth gave him “complete autonomy” as his deputy, and he would have been “quite happy” to stay in that role.
But he felt the leadership team at Luminate had built a “genuinely tertiary, inclusive, successful institution with improving outcomes and staff morale”. He did not want their success to be “jeopardised” by a new leader “coming in with a completely different way of operating”.
Since becoming CEO, not much has changed; except that occasionally, Jones finds himself “looking round and realising there’s nobody else to look to”.
On Social Prescribing Day today, the national conversations focus on the vital role of the voluntary and community sector in supporting health and wellbeing. But there’s a critical gap that risks limiting its impact, just as the NHS seeks to redefine prevention.
The government’s health mission aims to create a fairer Britain where people live well for longer, recognising that health is shaped by more than clinical care. Tackling inequalities requires collaboration across sectors, including organisations like WM College, London embedded in the communities most affected.
Social prescribing reflects this shift.
It recognises that loneliness, low confidence, poor mental health and economic inactivity cannot be solved through medical intervention alone. They require sustained, community-based responses that rebuild confidence, connection and purpose.
FE colleges already deliver this every day, at scale. At WM College, we see this first-hand: adults referred through wellbeing networks rebuilding confidence through creative learning, often taking their first steps back into structured activity after periods of isolation.
So why do colleges remain largely absent from the systems designed to deliver health and wellbeing?
At a time of unprecedented NHS pressure, this is no longer a minor oversight.
The NHS 10-year plan places prevention and neighbourhood health at its core, with Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) tasked with shifting from reactive care to earlier intervention and joined-up provision.
But intent alone will not deliver this shift.
Social prescribing pathways rely heavily on the voluntary sector which is vital, but often constrained by short-term funding. If social prescribing is to operate at scale, the system must draw on existing infrastructure.
Colleges are exactly that.
They are anchor institutions with the space, workforce and reach to deliver high-quality provision – already engaging many of the individuals social prescribing is designed to support.
For many, entering a college is not seen as a health intervention, but as a positive step forward. That distinction reduces stigma and enables re-engagement – particularly important given rising economic inactivity.
Social prescribing helps stabilise wellbeing. But too often it lacks a clear onward pathway, meaning impact can plateau.
FE provides the missing link connecting wellbeing to skills, confidence and employment. NHS England recognises that people with little or no English are more likely to experience poorer health outcomes. Only 65 per cent of people who could not speak English reported good health in the 2011 census, compared to 88 per cent of those who spoke English well. They’re more likely to face healthcare inequalities, including significant barriers and delays in receiving care.
ESOL classes do more than teach language – they build belonging, reduce isolation and prevent mental ill-health. Yet this impact is rarely funded through social prescribing.
As Integrated Care Boards shift toward strategic commissioning for population health outcomes, excluding FE is a failure to align delivery with policy intent.
Where partnerships do exist, they’re often fragile – reliant on individuals and vulnerable to bureaucracy and staff turnover – rather than embedded in system design.
Integrating FE fully into social prescribing would mean recognising colleges as core partners within neighbourhood health models, embedding them in commissioning frameworks and aligning health, skills and employment funding to support joined-up outcomes.
Funding remains a critical barrier. When patients cannot afford medicines, the NHS subsidises them. The same principle should apply to social prescriptions. If a GP refers someone to a wellbeing activity, colleges are often expected to provide it free, absorbing the cost. A prescription is a prescription – and it should be funded as such.
The need for preventative support is growing, and national conversations – including the ongoing inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Further Education and Lifelong Learning – increasingly recognise the role of adult education in driving health, wellbeing and economic resilience.
These agendas are converging. But policy has not yet caught up with practice.
If we fail to act, we risk maintaining a fragmented system where health, education and employment operate in parallel – missing a critical opportunity for individuals, communities and the public purse.
Further education is not simply a pathway to skills. It is part of the UK’s health infrastructure.
And it is time our systems were designed to reflect that.
When my students arrived at Shrewsbury Prison for our overnight residential, they were singing and dancing on the coach.
An hour later they were in prison jumpsuits, choosing their cells for the night.
Each cell contained nothing but a metal bunk. The heavy doors clanged shut. The reality of the environment settled in.
The aim of the trip was simple: to bring criminology and psychology to life. Students took part in escape-room challenges across A Wing, explored the history of punishment through a guided tour, and debated the realities of prison life in the same corridors where inmates once walked.
But the most interesting learning moment of the trip did not happen during the formal activities. It happened later that evening when the structure faded away.
Learners from different classes, many of whom had barely spoken to one another before, began playing games. Hide and seek echoed down Victorian corridors. Small groups gathered on landings talking and laughing together in what could only be described as impromptu circle time.
At first glance, it looked like chaos. In reality, it was something much more valuable: play.
Resilience and independence
In education we often associate play with early years. Somewhere around the age of 11 we quietly remove it from the learning environment and replace it with seriousness, structure and assessment. But teenagers still need play.
Psychologist Peter Gray has long argued that play is one of the primary ways young people develop social competence, resilience and independence. Through playful interaction, young people practise negotiation, cooperation and emotional regulation in ways that structured activities rarely replicate.
In other words, play is not a distraction from development, it is part of the mechanism that drives it. What I witnessed in that prison wing was exactly that process happening.
Students who normally sit in separate classrooms were suddenly mixing naturally. Conversations were flowing. New friendships were forming. Students who can sometimes be quiet or withdrawn in lessons were confidently participating in group games. The environment had changed, and with it the dynamics between students.
A prison, a space historically designed for isolation and control, had unexpectedly become a place where connection and community flourished.
Of course, the trip had taken weeks of planning, risk assessments and organisation. Experiential learning always does. But moments like that remind me why it matters.
Further education students are navigating one of the most complex periods of their lives. Many are managing anxiety, uncertainty about the future and the pressures of adulthood arriving fast. In that context, opportunities for genuine social connection are not just enjoyable, they are developmentally important.
Play allows teenagers to experiment socially without the pressure of performance or assessment. It gives them a space to negotiate friendships, develop confidence and regulate emotions in ways that traditional classroom environments often struggle to facilitate. And perhaps most importantly, it reminds them that learning environments can be human.
Bringing people together
When we reflected on the trip afterwards, several learners said they would happily do it again.
What stood out was how aware they were of the way the evening had unfolded socially. Some even complimented classmates for starting the games that brought everyone together.
What began as hide and seek soon evolved into sardines, with students squeezing into the same hiding places and encouraging others to join in.
Perhaps most importantly, some of the younger learners said they now felt they had someone in the year above they could approach if they needed support. In a single evening, students who had barely spoken before had created connections that may last far beyond the trip itself.
As educators we often talk about engagement strategies, retention and wellbeing initiatives. Sometimes the solution is simpler than we think.
Give young people a space where they feel safe enough to laugh, explore and play together and learning will follow.
That night in Shrewsbury Prison certainly proved it.
AI is increasingly shaping how recruitment works. CharityJob’s latest research shows young people are particularly concerned about its impact on fairness, transparency and access to opportunity.
Somewhere between clicking ‘apply’ and receiving a rejection, a growing number of people are disappearing from the recruitment process altogether. There’s no feedback. No interview. No opportunity to explain who they are or what they could become.
CharityJob’s latest research into AI and recruitment raises some uncomfortable questions about how hiring is changing. Artificial intelligence is often framed as a tool that makes recruitment faster and fairer. In reality, for many young jobseekers, I often wonder, could it be doing the opposite?
Young people are the most uneasy about AI’s growing role in recruitment. Those aged 24 and under are consistently more concerned than older candidates about its impact on job opportunities and fairness. They are also the most likely to say they would rather a recruiter reviewed their application than an algorithm.
That matters enormously for young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). This group includes 16 to 24-year-olds navigating disrupted education, caring responsibilities, health challenges or periods of unemployment. Many are actively engaging with further education, training providers and employability programmes to get back on track. There is a risk that younger people, particularly those already facing disruption, feel this uncertainty most acutely.
Yet CharityJob’s research suggests even recruiters themselves are uneasy about this approach. Only around three in ten recruiters currently use AI in hiring. And just one in five say they trust AI’s recommendations. The majority oppose its use in final hiring decisions. The research also shows that nearly two thirds of candidates would feel disadvantaged if AI were used to screen their application, rising further among younger respondents. At the same time, almost seven in ten candidates say it has become harder to stand out as more applicants use AI to optimise CVs and cover letters.
For young jobseekers, this creates a double bind. They are encouraged to show motivation, transferable skills and individuality, yet are competing in a system that they perceive to be increasingly rewarding standardisation and pattern-matching.
Recruiters themselves are not convinced that AI improves fairness. Fewer than one in four believe it makes recruitment fairer. And confidence in its ability to reduce bias has fallen sharply over the past year. Concerns about transparency, overreliance and the risk of overlooking strong candidates remain widespread.
According to our research, AI use appears to be focused on driving efficiencies in things like scheduling interviews and sending bulk responses, rather than at the early screening stage, where decisions matter most.
While AI use is highest among candidates aged 25-49, younger candidates under 24 stand out not for heavier usage, but for significantly higher levels of concern about AI’s impact on fairness and job opportunities. For under-24s, AI already feels like a threat rather than an opportunity: 86 per cent are concerned about its future, 91 per cent want a human recruiter, not an algorithm, reviewing their application, and 67 per cent believe AI is reducing job opportunities. What they are asking for instead is transparency, proportionality and human judgement at the points that matter most.
Yet transparency is exactly where the system is currently falling short. More than nine in ten candidates believe recruiters should be open if they are using AI to assess applications, but most say they have never been told whether this is happening. On the employer side, the picture is just as concerning, with nearly eight in ten recruiters admitting they have no formal guidelines on the use of AI in recruitment and offering little or no guidance to candidates.
In the absence of clear policies, young jobseekers are left guessing. They don’t know when AI is being used, how decisions are made or whether their skills are being assessed fairly. If we are serious about widening access to work for young jobseekers, AI cannot be allowed to become another invisible barrier. Young people don’t need the odds stacked further against them. They need a fair shot and someone, preferably an actual human somewhere in the process, willing to actually look.
When Ofsted confirmed the removal of the overall effectiveness grade, I welcomed the decision. For years, that single-word judgement dominated headlines, banners, leadership discussions and tender requirements.
It was a blunt instrument that consumed unnecessary deliberation time during inspection and likely skewed decision-making. Its absence should, in theory, take some of the heat out of inspection.
But removing the overall grade does not remove the culture that grew around it.
A new challenge is emerging as inspections under the revised framework take place: a branding problem with the grading scale.
Under the previous framework, the centre of the bell curve of inspection outcomes broadly sat above ‘good’. Sector shorthand evolved accordingly. Leaders aimed for at least ‘good’. Governors asked whether provision was ‘good’. Staff knew where they stood if feedback suggested they were working at a ‘good’ standard.
Under the revised framework, that centre sits above ‘meets expectations’. That is the structural shift Ofsted has made. Even so, more ‘needs attention’ grades are being awarded than ‘requires improvement’ were previously, as Ofsted has highlighted.
Yet in many organisations, I’ve noticed a translation happening. People mentally convert the new scale back into the old one. ‘Strong’ becomes the new ‘good’. ‘Meets expectations’ is interpreted as something less than acceptable.
That is not what the framework intends, and I’d argue it’s within our gift to address this rather than wait for an unlikely change in the framework.
Culture takes years to unravel
This matters because any inspection system brings both intended and unintended consequences. When grades were removed from teaching observations, the intention was to reflect extensive research showing both the damage caused by grading individual lessons and the lack of validity in judging teaching quality from a single observation.
Yet the culture built around grading lessons took years to unravel. Even where providers stopped using grades, teachers still asked the same question at the end of feedback conversations: “But what grade would that have been?”
The culture did not disappear simply because the system changed – something social scientists call cultural lag.
The revised inspection grades risk following the same path. Even without an overall effectiveness judgement, organisations can recreate the same pressure if they interpret the framework through the lens of the old system.
The phrase ‘meets expectations’ can sound modest. In everyday language it may imply adequacy rather than strength. But within the inspection model, it means something quite different.
It describes provision that is working as it should. Learners are benefiting. Systems are functioning. Standards are being delivered. While ambition for improvement is essential, it should not come at the expense of balance.
‘Meeting expectations’ can, and should, be regarded as success. If you have been through an inspection recently, you’ll know it’s not easy to hit every indicator in the toolkit, and I don’t think we should shy away from calling it a checklist with nuance.
Perhaps the issue, therefore, is not the wording itself but the narrative attached to it.
This matters particularly for governing boards or senior leaders further removed from the mechanics of Ofsted inspection, such as employer-providers or universities.
Understanding recalibration
Without clear explanation, some will understandably anchor the new scale to the old one. And that risks recreating the high-stakes pressure that the reforms intended to reduce.
Those furthest from the inspection process, yet accountable for outcomes, need support from leaders to understand the recalibration. The most common outcome now is ‘meets expectations’. That’s where the bell curve sits.
The revised framework’s success may depend less on Ofsted and more on how the sector chooses to use it. We can avoid the public flogging that poorer overall grades once triggered, normalise honest conversations where attention is needed, and celebrate meeting expectations as well as exceeding them.
Leaders have an opportunity to shape the narrative. That means being clear, internally and externally, about what the new grades represent. It means briefing governors and employers carefully.
The framework has shifted. The culture needs time to catch up.
In the three years since generative AI entered the public consciousness, it has moved faster than any technological shift in our history. In 2025 the skills and education sector had to grapple with how to equip people for that shift, leading to a year of profound tension.
We were caught between an economy sprinting toward an AI-driven future and a regulatory system that moves at a more measured pace.
Skills England in its AI skills for the UK workforce report characterised it as “slow curriculum responsiveness to emerging AI tools and sector-specific needs”.
The Department for Education and Skills England have now made admirable progress. By launching a dedicated level 4 AI apprenticeship standard, committing to a faster approvals process and signalling the start of shorter ‘apprenticeship units’ from next month, the government is paving the path that employers and providers have been walking for months.
The key question now is how to measure the quality and impact of these skills programmes.
Existing measures that merely tell us whether a learner passes a programme do not adequately capture the value delivered. It does not tell us whether the government’s aims on AI skills have been delivered – nor does it demonstrate to employers the return on their investment.
AI’s rapid growth means we must keep pace with best practice in measuring successful outcomes, just as we’ve broadened the scope of what an apprenticeship can be.
UK businesses couldn’t wait that long. So providers innovated within the system we had. At Multiverse we integrated AI training into relevant existing standards, like business analyst.
Broadly, it worked: we’ve equipped thousands of people with the skills to harness this powerful technology. Those skills have had real-world impact: bringing down waiting lists in hospitals; offering charity support services to more people; and enabling small businesses to innovate at a fraction of the typical cost.
But businesses didn’t yet know exactly what AI skills they required and for whom; and not all of our assumptions on what would work came right.
Measuring what matters
Apprenticeships by nature require skills to be applied on the job. It’s not easy to capture the success of that only through an assessment at the end.
That’s why we measure success in other ways too: things like costs avoided, revenue generated, issues solved for local residents, and better patient outcomes. And at a learner level, we track promotions and pay rises; nearly half of our apprentices secure a promotion.
Yet the qualification achievement rate (QAR) captures none of it. The primary measure of apprenticeship quality is still whether a learner crossed a finish line – not what they built along the way.
QAR is a lagging indicator. It measures against decisions made up to two years ago or more. In AI, two years may as well be 20.
If a learner gains the skills they need to secure a promotion and then moves into a new role before reaching an end-point assessment, the system records that as a failure of retention. But in reality it’s a triumph of social mobility and economic impact.
Better success metrics exist in other areas of education. The Higher Education Statistics Agency’s graduate outcomes survey, tracking salaries and career paths, is a great example: has your study enabled you to advance in your career and earn more?
We know training pays dividends. The Learning and Work Institute found how those who access training see a 15 per cent salary uplift across their lifetime compared to those who don’t. Why not measure the size of that prize?
The UK has the potential to lead the world in AI adoption, not least because of its world-class education systems. Our regulatory frameworks should incentivise innovation and impact.
Only then will we move from surviving the AI transition to truly leading it.
Two Northampton colleges are proposing to merge to offer local students a “wider range” of courses and strengthen their finances.
Northampton College and land-based Moulton College – which exited government intervention two years ago – are aiming to merge by January 2027, according to a joint statement today.
The colleges said merging into a single £70 million turnover group will improve local access to courses and open up progression routes that “neither organisation” could deliver alone.
They also promised to become a “more resilient organisation” that can respond to changes in policy, funding and local community needs.
Jason Lancaster, principal of Northampton College, said: “Exploring a merger gives us the opportunity to build an organisation that can meet these expectations and better serve our students and communities.”
An announcement on Moulton College’s website said governors at both colleges have now approved plans to “explore the benefits” of a merger.
It added: “A final decision will be made by the corporations of both colleges once this work is complete and all considerations have been carefully evaluated.
“There is still a long way to go but we are aiming towards January 2027 for completion.”
Public feedback is invited through an online form that allows questions or comments to be submitted.
Its most recent accounts, for 2024-25, show it ended the year with a surplus of £300,000 from a total income of £28 million. The colleges teaches around 4,000 students and employs 400 staff.
Moulton College principal Oliver Symons, who joined in 2024, said: “This is an exciting opportunity to bring together the strengths and expertise of both colleges.
“Our goal is to offer students more choice, clearer progression routes and improved access to specialist facilities. Employers will also benefit from a single, stronger partner that is responsive to local skills needs.”
Northampton College, a general FE college, currently has about 7,000 students and 640 staff.
The college ended 2024-25 with a surplus of £3.3 million on a total income of £45 million.
Northampton College is located in the eastern suburbs of Northampton, relatively close to Moulton College, which sits on the outskirts of the town.
Officials said this latest unit has been created following a “rapid consultation” with employers and sector experts to help meet the needs of a new gigafactory under construction in Somerset for global battery business Agratas.
It was developed at pace through Skills England’s new ‘investment and infrastructure skills service’, which was set up to identify where internationally mobile investors and large infrastructure projects face skills challenges.
Industry had told officials that the existing 36-month level 3 battery manufacturing operative apprenticeship was too long and broad in scope for the imminent skills needs of the gigafactory.
A special design workshop was held in early February with the Electrification Skills Network, and representatives from the north east and west midlands battery clusters, followed up by further consultation with Agratas, wider employers and academic experts.
Skills England said this is an example of its new fast-track approach to delivering apprenticeship updates and new apprenticeship units “that are critical to the major projects in just three months”.
The units are designed to be short course alternatives to apprenticeships and are fundable through the reformed growth and skills levy.
Phil Smith, chair of Skills England, said: “This new gigafactory will create thousands of jobs and apprenticeships in the south west and beyond. I’m proud of Skills England’s work at pace with sector experts to find a skills solution that works for them.
“The new battery manufacturing apprenticeship unit will be a valuable addition to the growth and skills levy offer. By working together, we are building the jobs of the future, keeping skills training at the cutting edge.
Officials said the new battery manufacturing unit was launched today (March 23), but it is unclear when delivery can begin.
Like the other seven apprenticeship units, no funding band or typical duration has been assigned. This information is expected to be communicated to the sector from April 1.
Units will be restricted to employed learners aged 19 or older and involve 30 to 140 hours of training, delivered over one to 16 weeks. Learners will need to pass a “skills test” at the end of their course.
The other seven units are in AI leadership, electric vehicle charging point installation and maintenance, electrical fitting and assembly, mechanical fitting and assembly, permanent modular building assembly, solar PV installation, and maintenance and welding.
Initial delivery will be restricted to a “targeted group” of existing apprenticeship providers that already show “strong performance” in the occupational standards linked to the units.
Today’s announcement suggested just one provider will offer the battery manufacturing apprenticeship unit for Agratas. It said UCS College Group signed a memorandum of understanding with the employer “which will see it lead with delivery of training for the new gigafactory”.
Agratas’ new gigafactory, near Bridgwater, in Somerset, is estimated to generate over £700 million in annual economic value to the south west and 4,000 jobs once fully operational.
