Skip to content
11 May 2026

Latest news from FE Week

Signs of weakness among units’ ‘strong’ providers

Training providers where barely half of apprentices successfully complete training are among the “strong” organisations picked to deliver the government’s flagship apprenticeship units.

Starts on the short courses could begin from Tuesday, allowing businesses to spend levy money on non-apprenticeship training for the first time.

Skills England guidance states that initial delivery is “limited to a targeted group of existing apprenticeship providers who already demonstrate strong performance in the occupational standards from which the units are drawn”.

But FE Week analysis found that while most providers have overall achievement rates above the national average of 65.4 per cent and a good Ofsted record, some recorded fewer than 20 total leavers and achievement rates just above 50 per cent last year. One had such low numbers that it does not have a published achievement rate at all.

And most of the selected apprenticeship unit providers do not record an achievement rate for the occupational standards their short courses are drawn from.

It comes after an FE Week investigation found grave provider concerns with the design, funding rates and payment model of apprenticeship units – with some warning it has put them off delivery.

[Story continues after the table]

[NOTE: If your provider is approved to deliver apprenticeship units but is not listed here it will be because the government’s Find Apprenticeship Training system was not updated before our snapshot was taken at 2pm on April 30]

Demonstrable strong performance?

To be eligible for the initial launch of 10 units, training providers must “already demonstrate strong performance” in delivering the apprenticeship standards or tier-two sector subject areas from which the units are drawn, based on 2024-25 delivery data.

Criteria states that providers must also be actively delivering apprenticeships, not have any indicators rated as ‘at risk’ on the Apprenticeship Accountability Framework, and be free from contractual funding restrictions.

Eight of the 80 providers listed during FE Week’s analysis had fewer than 20 apprenticeship leavers in total in 2024-25, and three of those had fewer than 10.

One – London Vesta College – signed up to deliver the three AI units and had just three apprenticeship starts in total last year. It had such low leaver numbers it does not record an achievement rate.

Another provider, Scotland-based Bragd LLP, is signed up for the three AI units after recording a 52.9 per cent overall achievement rate based on 20 leavers.

Five other providers listed to deliver units have an overall achievement rate of below 60 per cent.

Multiverse, which is prolific in the AI space and has grown in recent years to become England’s largest apprenticeship provider in terms of starts, is a noticeable absentee from the units list.

The firm, run by Euan Blair, has an overall achievement rate of 52.6 per cent. It was judged ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted in 2021 and is awaiting the outcome of a recent inspection conducted under the watchdog’s new report card framework.

It is unclear whether Multiverse was invited to deliver units.

A government spokesperson said: “We cannot comment on individual providers due to commercial sensitives but have standard processes for managing contracts to protect learner outcome.”

Employers can choose from lists of eligible training providers on the Find Apprenticeship Training real-time system.

Data dive

Skills England’s website shows the standards from which the AI units are drawn include the soon-to-be defunded senior leader and chartered manager (degree) apprenticeships, as well as machine learning engineer and artificial intelligence and automation practitioner.

The welding unit is drawn from the welder standard, both the EV charging point and solar PV units are drawn from the installation and maintenance electrician standard, while the permanent modular building assembly unit is drawn from the construction assembly and installation operative – permanent modular standard.

Three units – battery manufacturing, mechanical fitting and assembly, and electrical fitting and assembly – do not appear to be drawn from any specific standards.

FE Week found a minority of the chosen unit providers recorded leavers in the connected apprenticeship standards in 2024-25.

The government does not publish achievement data broken down by sector subject area tier two, so analysis of rates related to these criteria is not possible.

Our analysis of official data found examples of extremely low achievement rates for some providers on the specific standards from which the units are drawn.

Heart of Yorkshire Education Group is delivering six units, including EV charging point. It had 530 apprentice leavers in 2024-25 and an overall achievement rate of 66.2 per cent. But 30 of those leavers were on the installation and maintenance technician standard where EV charging is drawn from and which has an achievement rate of 28.1 per cent.

Nottingham College, delivering six units including EV charging point, has an overall achievement rate of 58.1 per cent based on 660 leavers, but a 43.3 per cent achievement rate for 30 leavers on the installation and maintenance technician standard.

Similarly, Hopwood Hall College is signed up for eight units including EV charging point. The Greater Manchester-based college has an overall achievement rate of 65.8 per cent based on 270 leavers, but a 43.5 per cent achievement rate for 20 leavers on the installation and maintenance technician standard.

To ensure consistency in our analysis, we included Ofsted grades under the old grading system of ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’.

The majority were ‘good’ and six were ‘outstanding’.

Four were ‘requires improvement’, but three of those – St Helens College, The Growth Company and Alphabet Training Group – have had recent inspections under the new framework and mostly received ‘expected standard’ judgments.

The Department for Work and Pensions told FE Week that “Ofsted inspection arrangements will be set out in due course” for apprenticeship units.

Seeking more than a sticking plaster for hospitalised teens

For over a decade, teenagers too sick to attend classes have been left without guaranteed education support after age 16 due to a long-standing gap in hospital education law.

A rule that provides schooling for the long-term sick up to age 16 was left outdated when from 2015 teenagers had to remain in education or training until 18.

The anomaly has left hospital school leaders using their own funds and charity partnerships to help seriously ill young people pursue FE courses.

Now, the Department for Education’s SEND reform consultation aims to amend the 30-year-old duty on local authorities and increase support to teenagers up to adulthood.

Hospital headteachers have welcomed the reform, saying it could reduce the risk of 16 to 18-year-olds falling through the gaps and prevent hospital schools from using their own funds to support learners transitioning to post-16 education.

But with pressures on children’s health services and mounting council SEND budget deficits, experts warned the changes could prove little more than a “narrow” technical fix that doesn’t guarantee dedicated post-16 funding.

Bedside education

There are around 35 hospital schools in England, each with multiple sites ranging from inpatient CAMHS units to at-home provision. Bespoke (and often bedside) education is provided for anxious school refusers, long-term ill young people and those with the most serious mental health difficulties.

Current DfE guidance suggests hospital education should be arranged for children with inpatient stays of more than 15 days.

Just over 17,000 under-18s have been unable to attend mainstream education due to serious healthcare needs, according to the latest data by the Children’s Commissioner.

Local authorities’ “section 19” duty to provide education arrangements is triggered when a child is admitted to paediatric wards, long-stay specialist units such as oncology, or psychiatric inpatient units, up to age 16. Ministers are considering correcting this “anomaly”.

Headteachers are providing unfunded provision and relying on charity partnerships to facilitate access to functional skills, work experience or volunteering for young people on the mend.

“Morally and ethically that’s the right thing to do,” said Cath Kitchen, chair of National Association for Hospital Education.

“There’s no way we’d say, ‘Sorry, you’re now in year 12, we won’t be funding you’.”

Medically vulnerable young people are not always classed as having special educational needs, though some have disabilities and qualify for funded provision via their ECHP.

“Many of those children with medical needs don’t have an EHCP and are reliant on third sector support,” added Sarah Johnson, founder of Phoenix Education Consultancy.

Expansion and enrichment

Extending the section 19 duty up to 18-year-olds could allow hospital education providers that already facilitate post-16 education, typically inpatient CAMHS units, to enrich their offer.

Therapeutic curriculum at Magpie Learning Centre, Leicester Children’s Hospital School

“We might be able to extend the offer or maybe employ teachers who can teach up to A Level, rather than trying to outsource it,” Kitchen said.

At The Leo Kelly School, one of six sites in Manchester Hospital School, provision is strictly bound by the section 19 duty and caters to around 60 children with anxiety, eating disorders and autism.

“When they get to the end of year 11, we start identifying an appropriate next destination for them so we encourage applying for college places or apprenticeships,” says Gwen Rees-Moffitt, deputy headteacher of Manchester Hospital School.

She explained that due to the “incredibly complex” needs of its learners, who are often bedbound from their conditions, the school frequently faces barriers to access “appropriate” FE college placements, partly from their historically poor attendance in mainstream education.

“They’re going from a small, nurturing, very bespoke education package to something that is only as flexible as the college can be under their own funding restraints,” Rees-Moffitt added.

She told FE Week that her hospital school would “absolutely welcome this change” proposed in the SEND white paper, “because we would then be able to support young people all the way up to 18”.

Former Leo Kelly school student Bethany Fletcher was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and spent two years in hospital with added complications. Fletcher passed her English and maths GCSEs but struggled to receive an offer to enrol at a sixth form college.

“She would have been one of those high achievers, but she had a really tough time of it with her health,” her mother Fiona said.

Joshua Pelled, chief executive of charity Bright Futures, which delivers education support programmes to re-engage sick young people, said the transition at 16 can become a “cliff edge”.

“They may be academically capable, but historic attendance, treatment demands, fatigue, fluctuating health and complex support needs can make mainstream sixth forms or colleges reluctant to offer a place,” he said.

Pelled welcomed the proposal to correct the funding anomaly but warned that it must not be treated as a “narrow technical fix”.

“There are already duties under the equality act and SEND framework to avoid discrimination, make reasonable adjustments and use best endeavours to meet special educational needs, but these duties are not always translating into confident, consistent practice,” he added.

Funding boost doubts

Local authorities pumped £120 million into hospital education this academic year via the dedicated schools grant high-needs funding block, a 6 per cent uplift from the previous year.

While local authorities are free to make discretionary arrangements with individual school needs, hospital leaders are doubtful about receiving any topped-up future funding while policy consultations are ongoing.

Kitchen said: “I don’t know if it will mean any additional funding.

“Hospital education funding is not ringfenced. If it was, I think that would make a big difference, as we’ve sadly got a postcode lottery.”

Hospital schools receive annual funding pots, but quantifying how much is dedicated to post-16 is difficult.

Leicester Children’s Hospital School executive headteacher Stephen Deadman said its CAMHS unit picks up “some” 16 to 18-year-olds but is ultimately funded for 15 beds regardless of age.

“I don’t know who’s going to be taking up that bed, whether it’s a 12-year-old or an 18-year-old. We’re funded for 15 beds.”

Deadman was dubious about the DfE proposal to extend funding to post-16.

“Just by saying local authorities’ duties increase to 18, it won’t necessarily help if they haven’t got any funding to do that,” he said.

Deadman, who is a member of the DfE’s complex needs group, told FE Week his hospital school had seen a real-terms cut in its budget, which has stayed at £3.6 million for the last two years.

Council deficits related to high-needs costs swelled to the point of government intervention last year, where the so-called SEND deficit “statutory override” was extended until the end of 2027-28.

The Local Government Association recently suggested that around eight in 10 councils were teetering on insolvency due to exorbitant high-needs funding.

Clear guidance needed

The DfE’s SEND consultation will close next month. Leaders have warned the “devil will be in the detail” of local authority SEND strategies.

“We need some detailed guidelines of what post-16 providers need to have in place so that all of the support doesn’t drop away when they turn 16,” Rees-Moffitt said.

The DfE is simultaneously consulting on whether to extend statutory guidance for managing medical conditions to post-16 providers.

Pelled added FE colleges should be issued national guidance on flexible admissions and attendance expectations for sick young people.

Association of Colleges senior policy manager David Holloway said he hoped the reforms would also address poor access for colleges to external health experts and an “inflexible funding model” for small groups of high-needs learners.

The reforms have earmarked £1.8 billion over three years for a new ‘experts at hand’ scheme, bolstering external support for students with SEND.

“I’m encouraging our members to contact their local authority to talk about how we can support them with experts at hand,” Kitchen added.

Meanwhile, the DfE’s 2018 rollout of mental health support teams (MHSTs) in colleges still remains much lower than in schools.

Just 41 per cent of learners in post-16 settings were supported by an MHST, compared to 70 per cent in schools, according to 2025 data.

Insolvency experts probe Acacia deal

Forensic accountants are investigating the apparent cut-price sale of a group of stock market-floated training firms to two shareholders.

The companies, which include the now-insolvent apprenticeship providers Acacia Training and Academy 1 Group, were part of investment group MBH Corporation PLC until their sale in 2023.

Insolvency practitioners took control of MBH and began probing its affairs in February 2024 after it failed to honour repayments on debts of at least £24 million.

Reports lodged with Companies House show investigations into the training companies’ sale are focused on whether their disposal to a connected company, known as Unity, achieved a “fair consideration”.

Joint insolvency practitioners Begbies Traynor and WSM Marks Bloom found Singapore-based Unity never paid for the companies, and instead agreed a £2.5 million, zero-interest loan that it now reportedly disputes “in full”.

It is “not known” if the companies were independently valued during the sale, the insolvency firms added.

Directors have a legal duty to act in the best interests of their company and shareholders, including achieving market value for assets sold before entering an insolvency.

According to the latest report published this month, “several lines of investigation” related to MBH remain active, and a specialist forensic team at Begbies Traynor is reviewing evidence that includes company audit files, email records and financial data.

While the reports provide an outline of the two-year investigation, which has cost almost £600,000, some details have been withheld amid concerns they would threaten ongoing financial “recovery prospects” and wider investigative work.

But the insolvency practitioners revealed they had sent the Insolvency Service watchdog a confidential conduct report on MBH’s directors containing “substantial information”.

FE Week understands the Insolvency Service is running a separate investigation into MBH, although a spokesperson declined to confirm this on the record.

Training company deals

Companies involved in the £2.5 million loan deal between MBH and Unity included Acacia Training, Logistica Training and Consultancy, Academy 1 Group Ltd, and UK Sports Training, as well as a care home in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

After the deal, the companies immediately moved ownership again, with Acacia Training, Logistica Training and Consultancy, and the care home being owned by Victoria Sylvester and entrepreneur Jeremy Harbour, who also owns Unity.

Acacia had almost 1,000 apprentices on its books before closing in December, leaving £383,000 owed to 87 employees.

At the time, CEO Victoria Sylvester blamed “exceptionally challenging economic conditions” for the company’s voluntary liquidation.

It is unclear whether investigations into the MBH sale affected Acacia Training’s collapse.

Logistica Training and Consultancy continues to operate as a training provider specialising in adult care training and is understood to have about 360 apprentices.

The care home, which MBH reportedly bought for £1.95 million in 2020, also remains open and is under Sylvester and Harbour’s ownership.

Two other companies sold to Unity – Academy 1 Group Ltd and UK Sports Training Ltd – were also briefly owned by Harbour and Sylvester before moving into what the Insolvency Service described as an “insolvency avoidance scheme”.

An investigation into the so-called “Atherton scheme” resulted in company directorship bans for three people who had helped dissolve hundreds of companies without following the correct process.

Academy 1 Group Ltd was a ‘requires improvement’ rated provider in the early years, sports, business and digital marketing sectors with about 100 apprentices.

Romford-based UK Sports Training Ltd does not appear to have delivered regulated training, although its Linkedin profile claims learners could access “fully funded” advanced learner loans.

The MBH ‘investment vehicle’

MBH was described as a “rollup” company or “investment vehicle” that raised investment by grouping together at least 23 small to medium-sized companies based across the world under a single ownership structure.

It raised £24 million via a bond that was floated on a German stock exchange in 2020 – including £17 million from investment banks Morgan Stanley, HSBC and BNY.

This scheme is also under investigation by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, FE Week has learned.

A prospectus published by MBH ahead of its stock market flotation in 2020 said the business owners who joined MBH still owned about 70 per cent of their companies and continued to manage them “autonomously”.

MBH was also 8 per cent owned by its founder, Unity, formally known as Unity Group of Companies Pte Ltd.

Neither Victoria Sylvester or Unity founder Jeremy Harbour have responded to requests for comment.

The gender gap in engineering starts at home

There is a significant gender imbalance both in engineering apprenticeship starts and, in the interest expressed by young people in progressing towards an engineering career. Official data shows that 51 per cent of the school age population is male, but they make up over 90 per cent of all apprentices starts in engineering and manufacturing technologies according to the most recent government data, up from 80 per cent in 2024-25.

In research commissioned by our High Value Manufacturing Catapult, young people in school years 10 to 13 were surveyed on their interest in apprenticeships. The results were depressingly predictable when it came to gender imbalance. However, one interesting indicator emerged that may provide a focus for addressing this in a different way.

Our survey data showed, as expected, that male learners were much more likely to be interested in pursuing further learning in engineering and manufacturing, transport and logistics, and agriculture. Female learners were more likely to be interested in health and science, education and early years and care services. The data started to get more interesting when it explored their intentions. Male learners were more likely to be aware of apprenticeships and taking proactive steps towards investigating them. Female learners were much more likely to report that they are not aware of apprenticeships at all.

On the face of it this seems obvious given that male learners are more likely to progress to apprenticeships. However, there is no immediately obvious reason why female learners reported a lack of awareness. To explore this further, we looked at how often apprenticeships are discussed in different social contexts; school, at home, in peer groups and in other social situations.

The data showed that learners who reported higher numbers of discussions about apprenticeships in a wider range of social contexts were also the learners that were more likely to be aware of, and be taking positive steps towards, apprenticeships as a progression pathway. The data also suggested that discussions at home were most impactful. This is very important as there is a significant difference in how male and female learners are impacted by this.

In the school environment there is virtually no imbalance in access to information about apprenticeships, with those reporting five or more conversations about apprenticeships at school being 47 per cent male and 45 per cent female. The difference comes when looking at the different social contexts. Over a third of males report discussing apprenticeships at home and in their peer groups five times or more, but only one in five females report the same. There is therefore evidence to suggest that a lack of discussion of apprenticeships in the home may be having an impact on female progression into apprenticeships.

As our data shows that female learners are much less likely to discuss apprenticeships outside of the controlled environment of school, this may be directly causing their lack of progression into those roles. It seems that whilst the education system is giving access equally, the rest of society is not.

This is not a simple thing to change. The responsibility for encouraging families to explore apprenticeships equally cannot fall on an already overburdened education system. But approaches like government-backed publicity campaigns, social media engagement and effective role-modelling might reach female learners and their families, and get the conversation going. Whilst there are no easy answers, it is clear that if we really want to address gender imbalances in engineering apprenticeships then we really do have to talk.

This isn’t just a funding gap, it’s a planning crisis

The recent DfE confirmation of a 0.5 per cent increase to the 16-19 funding rate has created a growing sense of dislocation across the post 16 education sector. While the figure may appear, on the surface, to represent continued investment, the reality within colleges and sixth form settings is far more complex. For many providers, this settlement is not simply lower than expected. It is fundamentally out of sync with financial planning assumptions that underpin responsible budget setting.

In recent years, providers have been asked to plan strategically, often over multi-cycles, to ensure stability, sustainability and appropriate growth. These plans are built in good faith on established funding trajectories, workforce expectations, and policy directions. In many cases, institutions had reasonably anticipated a 2 per cent uplift, reflecting historic patterns and the broader policy narrative around skills development, technical education and regional growth.

The shift to 0.5 per cent has therefore not only reduced real-terms funding but has disrupted the basis on which financial planning decisions were made. This creates significant challenge – budget setting processes that are designed to be forward looking are now being forced into reactive calibration. In practice, this means revisiting staffing models, renewing curriculum plans and reconsidering previously board approved growth strategies, often part way through the academic and financial year.

For some educational organisations, this has already resulted in substantial funding gaps. These gaps are not theoretical, they are material, immediate and operational. They translate into the use of reserves, delayed investment decisions and increasing constraints on the ability to respond to student demand. Where growth had been planned, particularly in areas of high needs or rising student populations, providers are now having to pause or scale back activity.

This creates a wider systemic tension. On one hand, policy continues to emphasise the importance of skills, progression and expanding access to post 16 education. On the other, the financial framework within which providers operate is increasingly restrictive. The result is a growing mismatch between expectation and capacity: ambition at policy level is not always matched by the resources required to deliver it on the ground.

The implications of this are particularly acute in relation to staffing and curriculum breadth. Colleges are already operating in a highly competitive labour market for teachers and support staff. Real-terms funding erosion places additional pressure on recruitment and retention. This risks narrowing the range of subjects and pathways that can be viably offered. Over time, this reduces learner choice and limits progression opportunities, particularly in technical and vocational routes.

Alongside these immediate pressures sits a broader question of system coherence. Recent DfE messaging has placed increasing emphasis on strong governance and organisational health across education providers. There is a clear expectation that schools and colleges should operate within robust, well-structured, and financially substantiable organisations.

However, this raises a fundamental question:  how can we demonstrate long-term organisational health when the cost funding mechanism underpinning our operations are increasingly unstable?  Financial resilience is not solely a matter of internal efficiency. It is also directly shaped by the adequacy and predictability of funding settlements.

If funding assumptions shift significantly after budgets have been set in good faith, the result is not just operational difficulty but structural strain. Education providers are then required to absorb volatility that originates outside their control, while still being held accountable for delivering stability, quality and growth. This creates a challenging environment in which strategic planning becomes increasingly difficult, with long-term investments decisions constrained.

The system then moves into a cycle of short termism, where planning horizons shorten and decision making becomes more reactive than strategic. This is particularly concerning in a sector where continuity, progression pathways and curriculum coherence are central to student success.

I’m not suggesting that fiscal constraints are not real, or that tough decisions are avoidable. But there needs to be alignment between policy intent, funding mechanisms and operational reality. Without this, structural pressures accumulate in ways that are not immediately visible but have long term consequences for capacity, quality and ease of access.

As the sector continues to adapt, there’s a growing need for honest dialogue about the relationship between funding levels, policy ambition and delivery expectations. Providers are ready to engage in that conversation, but it must be grounded in the reality of what is happening in institutions today, not just in high-level policy aspirations.

Creativity and collaboration helped us secure local T Level industry placements

Finding high-quality industry placements for T Level learners can be difficult. For the media, broadcast and production T Level, providers across different regions face common challenges, but those located on the doorsteps of industry ‘hubs’ such as Manchester and London do have a headstart. For those of us based further away from obvious opportunities, we have to get creative. But the results can be fantastic for our learners.

Richard in Norfolk

We want learners to gain genuine exposure to their industry on their placement, building their skills and fueling their enthusiasm. We don’t want them to spend hours just running the photocopier and doing tasks that could be done anywhere. My learners at City College Norwich specialise in being events and venues technicians as part of their media, broadcast and production T Level, so local theatre venues are one option for placements. However, other less obvious local opportunities have also produced invaluable placements. While we have had to be flexible in our course delivery to accommodate the industry’s seasonal and project cycles, the outcome is well worth it.

One example is our local folk festival, Folk in the Field. Initially, our learners were asked to design some festival projects, which were judged by the festival’s organiser. Impressed by the work, he invited our students to join his festival on a two-week residential this summer, running their own stage. They will be involved in all parts of the process from putting up fencing and organising logistics to working with staff on the main stage.

Another opportunity arose after attending one of the Education Training Foundation’s (ETF’s) Industry Insights days for T Level delivery staff. Visiting the Royal Opera House, I connected with their staff who lead on education partnerships and we are now working together on a distance learning project pilot. This offers learners the balance of visits to the opera house with the ability to complete many placement hours remotely within college. This flexibility particularly supports us in ensuring each young person has a placement that suits their individual needs.

Chloe in Berkshire

At Kennet School in Berkshire, we’ve taken a proactive and collaborative approach to helping students access high-quality placements. Like Richard, setting up placements for our students has meant focusing on removing barriers, especially ensuring placements are local enough to be affordable. As a school, we put a great deal of energy into building strong relationships with employers. We spend time preparing organisations for placements and setting clear expectations, which means that students and employers consistently have a positive experience.

Our students specialise in content creation and production for their T Level and we’ve benefited from the flexibility of working with an additional supply-chain employer to support them in completing placement hours. We’ve developed a process where our students begin with an ‘umbrella’ placement that introduces them all to production, including access to a real set, which they’ve been genuinely thrilled by. They then go on to pursue their own placements across supply-chain areas, such as lighting, sound engineering or film dubbing. The confidence they develop after these experiences is remarkable.

Although much of the work in this industry is project-based and seasonal, this has still opened up some fantastic opportunities. One example is a local film festival for young people, Evolve. Our students will be attending in June and helping with recording and producing promotional material for social media and the website – an experience that gives them real industry credits and hands-on production work.

Crossing regions

Industry placements are a challenge for most providers, so cross-regional collaboration and learning from others is great for sparking ideas. We were introduced to each other following ETF’s T Level leadership mentoring programme, which supported us with reflecting on challenges and trying new things, including building our social media presence to support with forming employer partnerships.

Solidarity with other practitioners and shared learning has boosted our confidence, and that has fueled our ability to think outside the box when it comes to placements and our wider practice. It is ultimately our learners who then reap the benefits with placement opportunities that leave them excited about their course, and much better prepared to join the workforce.

Colleges are losing learners before they even enrol

Colleges and ITPs do a lot around learner recruitment. Campaigns, open days, outreach. There’s no shortage of effort going into getting people through their doors.

They’re not short of interest or visitors to their websites. They lose prospective learners after that.

A website visitor asks a question. It might be about funding, eligibility, or whether they can fit a course around work. It might come late in the evening, between shifts, or while they’re looking at other options on their phone.

In my experience, around 60 per cent of enquiries arrive outside standard working hours, when most institutions have nothing but a contact form or a voicemail waiting.

What they get back is usually a form they have to fill in, or a message saying someone will respond later.

That is where things start to break, because the context FE is working in has changed.

Right now, close to a million people are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Some have low-level qualifications or none at all. Many have already disengaged once and some won’t try again.

At the same time, colleges are dealing with more adult learners coming back into education, more learners with additional needs, and more people trying to fit learning around unstable work or caring responsibilities. It’s a fragile pipeline.

For all these learners, that first interaction carries such a lot of weight. If someone is unsure whether they qualify, or worried about cost, or just not confident asking the question, they are not going to push through a slow process. They are not going to fill in a form and wait for a reply. They are deciding whether education is for them at all.

If the answer isn’t there for them, they don’t follow it up. They drop out before they’ve even started.

Colleges work with many learners for whom English isn’t their first language. The enquiry process often assumes a level of confidence in written English, in forms and in systems. If the first step depends on that, some people won’t take it. That’s a barrier sitting right at the start of their journey.

And it doesn’t show up properly in the data. It happens before enrolment, before conversion is measured, before there is anything to report. But it has a direct impact on who comes through the doors, and who never does.

Colleges already invest heavily in reaching these learners. Outreach, partnerships, community work, employer links. The grassroots effort is there; I’ve seen it. But it is being lost at the point of contact. That’s where a significant drop-off sits.

It’s easy to point to funding or staffing. Those pressures are real. Teams are stretched and demand is rising. But this is also about how the system is set up.

Most enquiry processes still assume there is time. That the learner will wait, that someone can come back to them later.

This is 2026 and that assumption doesn’t hold anymore.

People are comparing options. They are making decisions quickly. They are doing it outside standard hours, often while juggling everything else in their lives. If they ask a question and don’t get an answer, they move on. Not just to another college or ITP, but sometimes out of learning altogether.

If the sector is serious about widening participation, this is the point that needs to change.

Not just how we attract learners, but how we respond when they reach out.

We must remove the friction, making it easier to ask a question, easier to understand the answer and easier to take the next step.

At AskEd, that’s what we’ve focused on – making sure that when someone asks a question, they can get an answer straight away in a way that works for them, including in different languages and outside standard hours. Because that moment someone decides to look at your website is more important than many admit.

Get it right, and someone takes the next step. Get it wrong, and they’re gone.

AI can help learners think like examiners, if we use it properly

T Level learners often understand their subject. The real challenge for them is showing that understanding in extended exam answers.

In my finance classroom, learners were regularly struggling with 9-12 mark questions based on case studies. They could identify key ideas in the scenario but their answers often stayed descriptive. Points were repeated, evaluation was thin and arguments lacked structure. In other words, they knew the content but did not always know how examiners expected them to write.

This is not unique to my classroom. Extended responses in technical qualifications demand something quite different from many learners’ previous exam experience. Instead of recalling knowledge, they need to interpret information, analyse options and justify decisions.

That is a big leap.

Many learners tell me that the questions feel vague. Words like “analyse” or “evaluate” appear in exam papers, but learners are not always sure what those words actually look like in a strong answer. Mark schemes emphasise analysis and evaluation, yet students rarely see examples of high-band responses that show how these skills are applied.

So I tried something different.

Instead of treating artificial intelligence purely as a risk to assessment integrity, I wanted to see whether it could help students understand how examiners think.

Over the course of a half-term, I introduced what I now call an AI examiner feedback cycle.

Students first answered extended-response questions independently. Only after completing their answers were they allowed to use AI tools such as ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot.

They would upload their response and ask the AI something like:

“Act as a T Level examiner. Assess this response and explain what would be needed for it to reach the highest mark band.”

The feedback highlighted strengths, pointed out missing evaluation and suggested ways to strengthen the argument. The learners then asked the AI to generate a high-band model answer.

The crucial step was not copying that response. Instead, learners compared it with their own work and analysed the differences.

Where had the model used case-study evidence more effectively?
Where had it justified decisions more clearly?
How had it structured the argument?

Students then attempted another extended-response question and repeated the process.

After several weeks, the change in how they approached these questions was noticeable.

Answers became more structured. Learners began introducing points, applying case-study evidence and then explaining or evaluating the implications. They also became more confident using evaluative language and considering alternative outcomes within a scenario.

Perhaps most importantly, learners said the process helped them understand what examiners were actually looking for. Instead of seeing mark schemes as abstract criteria, they could see how those expectations translated into real answers.

This experience also made me reflect on how we talk about AI in education.

Much of the conversation focuses on preventing misuse. That concern is valid, but it can also lead us to overlook the ways that AI might support learning when used carefully.

In further education classrooms, teachers often struggle to provide detailed written feedback on extended responses as frequently as learners might need. AI cannot replace teacher expertise, but it can offer an additional layer of feedback that helps their learners to practise and refine their thinking.

Used thoughtfully, AI can help learners unpack assessment expectations and develop stronger analytical writing.

The real question for the FE sector isn’t simply whether AI should be allowed in classrooms.

It is how we use it to strengthen learning.

And sometimes, the most powerful use of technology is simply helping learners to see their work through the eyes of an examiner.