Parliament is debating the merits of introducing a statutory duty of care for higher education providers. The dicussion has been prompted by years of pressure from families and student campaigners, including ForThe100, and is being amplified by groups organising around sexual violence and institutional accountability.
It is tempting in FE and skills to see this as an HE issue. But that would be a mistake. Even if any new legal duty is initially framed around HE, the expectations that sit behind it will travel quickly through the rest of the system, including FE colleges without HE provision and independent training providers.
Under the proposal, a statutory duty of care would place a legal obligation on institutions to take reasonable steps to protect students from harm, including harassment, sexual violence and serious welfare risks.
The trigger would not have to be a formal complaint, but whether the institution knew, or ought to have known, that a learner was at risk.
This goes further than current regulatory requirements. HE providers are already subject to Office for Students conditions on complaints handling and harassment and sexual misconduct.
Those requirements focus on having effective processes in place. Duty of care would test whether an institution’s actions meet a legal standard of reasonableness in preventing and responding to harm. That distinction matters, and recent events outside education underline why.
Allegations of widespread sexual harassment at McDonald’s UK, involving large numbers of young workers and apprentices, have prompted legal action, union intervention and government-facilitated mediation.
The central question being tested there is not whether policies existed, but whether the organisation took reasonable steps to prevent harm and respond consistently when risks were known. That is precisely the territory a statutory duty of care in education seeks to occupy.
That same question is now being asked, in a different form, of education providers responsible for both young and adult learners.
Many FE colleges delivering HE are registered with the OfS. Others deliver HE through franchise or validation arrangements. In both cases, partner universities will expect equivalent standards of learner protection across the whole delivery chain. Once universities face heightened accountability for student safety, weaker practice in partner colleges becomes a reputational and contractual risk.
But the impact will not stop with HE provision.
FE colleges already carry statutory safeguarding duties for under-18 learners, and Ofsted tests safeguarding culture, leadership oversight and how providers identify and respond to risk.
As national debate sharpens expectations around adult learner safety, it will become increasingly difficult to justify weaker arrangements for adult FE learners. The expectation may not be written in the same legislation, but it will surface through inspection, governance scrutiny and public perception.
ITPs should also assume they will be drawn into the spotlight. Many deliver apprenticeships where learners spend most of their time in workplaces. That creates distinctive risk.
Harassment or abuse may occur off-site, disclosures may happen outside the classroom, and responsibility can appear blurred between employer and provider. In a climate where Parliament is debating institutional responsibility for learner safety, a provider will still be expected to demonstrate what action it took when concerns were raised.
So what does preparedness look like?
First, clear and accessible reporting routes for learners and staff. If someone feels unsafe, they should not have to navigate informal networks or guess who to contact.
Second, consistent case handling. Long and fragmented email chains and ad hoc notekeeping make it difficult to prove reasonable steps were taken. Structured recording, defined responsibilities and documented follow-up provide confidence for learners and evidence for leaders.
Third, leadership oversight. Governors and senior leadership teams need visibility of welfare trends, not just isolated incidents. Without reliable data, providers cannot identify patterns or intervene early.
None of this depends on waiting for legislation. New legislation around duty of care is unlikely to arrive overnight. It will probably emerge through OfS conditions, Ofsted expectations and contractual demands from partners. The effect is already being felt, and providers are being watched more closely on how they protect learners.
Duty of care may begin in HE but its influence will reach across FE and skills. Providers that recognise that early will be better prepared for future regulation, stronger partnerships and, most importantly, safer learning environments.
The first results are out – and the outcomes of Ofsted’s inspections under the new education inspection framework look encouraging.
After last year’s extensive consultations, there’s an argument that all’s well that ends well. But employers and providers need to be confident that inspections will still be conducted fairly throughout 2026 and beyond.
The Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) has supported providers scrutinised under the new regime, although not enough yet to flag up definitively what our members believe is good or bad about the experience. However, we can offer pointers for those preparing for inspection in the coming months.
A key observation is inspectors are closely following the toolkit when making visits, even using it as a checklist, so providers should use the document as the template for preparation.
But following this simple recommendation won’t on its own guarantee a positive outcome. As FIN called out last year, the toolkit contains some frustrating ambiguities: What is meant by “typically”, and how often is “regularly” – every month or every six months?
Providers, and hopefully inspectors, should apply common sense in interpreting what is required to secure an expected or strong standard.
“Embedded” and “transformational” practice were seen in recent inspections as evidence of being strong across the board. At this stage though, it is not clear whether being consistently strong with no improvements required merits the awarding of “exceptional”. It will be interesting to see how many independent training providers achieve the highest standard compared with, say, sixth-form colleges.
Providers must be ready to showcase evidence and push for the award of a strong standard if they feel it’s deserved. Our members report that to meet an expected standard, perhaps even more evidence is required than under previous frameworks.
In terms of process, not every lead inspector wants to watch a presentation from the nominee at the start of a visit. Providers may instead be given a template to follow by Ofsted as an opening brief.
As expected, inclusion is a major feature of the new framework, whether it’s part of a monitoring visit or a full inspection. Providers should know the barriers to be overcome by every learner and be prepared to present evidence on how overcoming them is being achieved, and the distance travelled.
Furthermore, the provider should proactively identify the barriers rather than waiting for the learner to declare any. Again, in this respect, Ofsted is referring to all learners, not just the ones with special or additional needs.
Safeguarding is another area for particular focus. Inspectors will expect leaders to have undergone safeguarding training. One inspector wanted to see the name and phone number of the provider’s safeguarding officer in the safeguarding policy document, even though names can often change.
In a visit before Christmas, a nominee felt that repeated questions from the inspectors on inclusion and safeguarding were a means of establishing whether a strong standard had been achieved.
FIN keeps emphasising to members of all provider types, including employer providers, the importance of maintaining strong governance, and the recent inspections have underlined this requirement. With our support, members are preparing presentations to inspectors on this.
One aspect that hasn’t changed is Ofsted wishing to see evidence of good careers guidance. It’s advisable for each provider to have a strategy document for CIAG and to show it to the inspection team. Inspectors are less likely to dig further if the approach seems sound.
During the consultation period last year, we wanted Ofsted to recognise it must understand the context in which each individual provider operates. The early inspections indicate that providers should ensure the Ofsted teams are on top of this because our members feel they aren’t. For example, do inspectors appreciate that where apprenticeship standards incorporate a professional qualification, apprentices might not be interested in completing the programme once the qualification has been achieved?
It’s too early to confirm that FIN was justifiably concerned about whether inspectors would be consistent in their judgements under the scorecard system. But based on recent inspections, we hope to see much greater recognition of individual leaners’ distance travelled than inspectors’ reliance on achievement data.
Poor progress in English and maths tracks “right back to primary school” and requires intervention at the earliest stage to break the “treadmill” of GCSE resits in post-16 education, Ofqual’s chief regulator has said.
Sir Ian Bauckham was quizzed by MPs on Parliament’s education committee today for the first time since his pre-appointment hearing in December 2024.
Here’s what we learned…
Tackle the ‘root cause’ of poor English and maths
The chief regulator said he “agreed” with the committee’s September 2025 report into further education that expressed “strong views about the treadmill of resits” in colleges.
Government mandates students who have not achieved a grade 4 pass in English and/or maths GCSE by age 16 study towards these qualifications as a condition of their post-16 places being funded. Most resit the exams.
Bauckham outlined his concern that a big contributing factor was “too many” students in primary education not reaching the expected standards in English and maths.
He told MPs that there is “no point” in a student who has spent 11 years studying English and maths and “only achieved a grade one or grade two repeatedly sitting an examination in the hope that by luck, one day they might scrape enough marks to pass”.
Bauckham urged the government to “look at the root causes of students making so little progress” and try to “address that much earlier on”.
“It tracks right back through primary, through secondary, to try to ensure that we don’t have students who have got these gaps in their learning,” he said.
He added that Ofqual is working “intensively” with the Department for Education on promised new level 1 “stepping stone” qualifications for students struggling with English and maths but could not give a date for when they could arrive in schools and colleges.
V Levels should not be dictated by T Levels
Bauckham was also questioned on his response to last year’s curriculum and assessment review, of which he was an observer on the review panel.
“What I witnessed was a very rigorous, very thorough overview of the whole curriculum, assessment and qualifications landscape in England,” he said.
He told the committee that he found independent reviewer Becky Francis’ recommendations to be “broadly sensible” and did not think anything was left out of her final report.
Regarding the proposal to introduce V Levels as small vocational qualifications to sit between T Levels and A Levels, Bauckham warned that the development should prioritise “distinctiveness”.
“The policy intention is not to force V Levels into a mould dictated either by T Levels or A Levels, but to create and then maintain a distinctiveness for V Levels,” he said.
The government’s consultation on V Levels closed yesterday.
AI ‘not ready’ to solely mark work
Bauckham said he wasn’t convinced that AI was ready to be the only marker of student work and exams.
That was because it still makes mistakes and is hard to challenge.
He added that it can be used to quality assure and detect “unexpected” patterns in examiner marking but hallucinations meant it is not yet ready to undertake sole marking.
Bauckham also cast doubt on how contested exam grades would be reviewed if they were marked by a “complex series of algorithms inside an impenetrable black box”.
And he said he had “signalled my anxiety” to the DfE about the use of AI cheating in qualifications with extended writing coursework.
He said there is “relatively little” of this coursework, but highlighted history and English A Level, where 20 per cent of the qualification is extended writing.
The chief regulator has commissioned a “significant piece of work internally at Ofqual to ascertain the extent to which this risk is being realised at the moment and what the options might be in any reform of those qualifications for closing down that risk and assuring ourselves of the integrity of these qualifications”.
He added: “I would not be being transparent if I didn’t say I am concerned about that, I visited a number of providers up and down the country, spoken to teachers and a number have raised this with me.”
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
MPs also asked the chief regulator to comment on the “significant” number of fines handed out last year to awarding bodies for regulation breaches.
Bauckham said Ofqual had used its legal enforcement powers on more than two dozen occasions last year, including handing out fines and imposing special conditions.
After “inheriting” a large backlog of cases when he became chief regulator, partly due to covid, Bauckham admitted that Ofqual did not always prioritise closing cases quickly and his ethos was to send strong messages to exam boards when there are breaches.
“Justice delayed is justice denied applies in this circumstance,” he said.
“It feels to me as if those powers were given to us by Parliament, not only to send clear, strong messages to exam boards and to the sector that where there are breaches that are potentially damaging for the integrity of the qualification or for students, they are sanctioned and clear, strong messages are sent,” he added.
“I’m particularly keen that that’s done in a timely way.”
Boards didn’t like Bauckham’s new ‘rebuke’
Ofqual recently gave itself new powers to publicly “rebuke” rule-breaking awarding bodies where the case is not serious enough to warrant a financial penalty.
Bauckham told the committee that following a consultation with exam body chief executives, he concluded that public shaming was the right approach.
“We got very sharp feedback from awarding organisations who said they would find it a very difficult thing to receive indeed,” he said.
He added that it would lead CEOs to have difficult talks with their boards and even impact share prices of publicly listed awarding bodies.
“They didn’t like it very much, which gave me assurance that it might be effective.”
Admissions might sit in one application, assessments in another, progress reviews elsewhere, and finance, procurement, and governance in separate tools. Staff spend hours switching screens and re‑entering data; managers wait for reconciliations before acting; compliance teams piece together spreadsheets for audits. The result is lost time, blurred visibility, and added stress that no one can afford.
The problem: why fragmentation costs FE time and clarity
Evidence across the sector highlights the challenges of disjointed technology. For example, the Department for Education’s 2024–25 Technology in Schools survey revealed barriers FE teams know well: difficulty integrating systems, uneven digital strategies, and infrastructure gaps that add workload and slow adoption of new tools. Similarly, Jisc’s transformation work notes that fragmented estates and duplicated processes are among the biggest obstacles to efficiency, recommending shared services and common data models to cut duplication and standardise practice.
These constraints don’t reflect a lack of effort or skill. FE staff consistently go the extra mile to keep learners supported and employers engaged, often juggling complex timetables with quality activity and pastoral care. Yet when the learner record is split across platforms, early interventions come later than they should. Reviews take longer because attendance, off‑the‑job (OTJ) hours, and assessment outcomes are pulled from different sources. Funding teams wait for reconciliations across separate dashboards, so deadlines tighten and audits become a scramble. In short, energy drains away from teaching and coaching, and time – the most valuable resource – is lost to chasing data rather than acting on it.
A 2024 study by EDUCAUSE showed that manual processes and legacy systems absorb hours that should be used for service improvement, with staff reporting significant time lost to rekeying, duplicative tasks, and tool sprawl. FE providers face the same reality, amplified by evolving policy demands and inspection cycles that expect timely, routine evidence rather than special reports created at short notice.
When data is scattered, risk grows. Leaders need coherent, real‑time views of achievement, retention, in‑year QAR (Quality Achievement Rate), and employer engagement to steer programmes effectively. If information is slow to compile or inconsistent between systems, reporting becomes reactive, and weak signals are missed. Jisc’s 2024–25 Digital Experience Insights findings underline the wider implications: digital maturity is not just about access to tools, but about how consistently and coherently processes work together over time.
This has implications for inspection readiness. Ofsted’s FE and Skills approach asks providers to show impact using evidence that emerges from everyday practice: how curriculum intent translates into implementation, how inclusion is embedded, and how safeguarding works in reality. That means the systems staff already use should surface the right information without extra effort. If key documentation and data sit in different places, teams spend days piecing a story together, even when the underlying practice is strong – an avoidable burden in a sector where capacity is already tight.
Funding compliance adds further pressure because requirements are precise and timelines unforgiving. The DfE’s 2024–25 Apprenticeship Funding Rules set clear expectations on initial assessment, recognition of prior learning, progress reviews, and training plans. Alongside this, the Individualised Learner Record (ILR) specification requires providers to record OTJ hours at the end of the practical period – to the nearest hour, fully evidenced – a task that is straightforward in a unified system and brittle when hours live in spreadsheets or separate trackers.
The direction of travel raises the bar. From August 2025, the DfE began phasing in minimum OTJ hours per standard, decoupling OTJ from time on programme and shifting emphasis to planning and evidence at the level of the apprenticeship standard. Providers relying on different tools for OTJ logs, KSB evidence, and gateway checks will face additional reconciliation work at exactly the point when staff need to be supporting learners and collaborating with employers.
Learners feel the impact of disconnected systems every day. Research consistently shows that while access to digital tools matters, learners value consistency and usability just as highly – and both depend on joined‑up processes rather than systems pieced together at review time. When induction, initial assessment, plans, and reviews run in one place, learners can see progress and act on feedback quickly. But when information is scattered, things slow down: actions sit in one system while plans live in another; attendance gets updated after reviews; and notes hide in email chains instead of the learner record. Those small delays add up, and timely support slips through the cracks.
Employers notice the same friction. They want a clear picture of progress, OTJ training hours, and skills development – and they need to know what’s next to support on‑the‑job learning. Without a single source of truth, conversations turn into a cycle of manual updates and spreadsheets. When everything sits together – the commitment statement, training plan, review notes, and milestone evidence – employers can make decisions confidently, and tutors spend more time coaching instead of compiling.
Capacity is one of the biggest challenges for FE teams. Every extra login, every mismatched report, and every manual update adds pressure to already busy schedules. When systems work together, those small frustrations disappear. Staff spend less time chasing data and more time focusing on learners and employers. The result is a calmer, more productive environment where energy goes into teaching and support rather than administration.
Security and governance tie these issues together. As estates grow more complex, each system becomes a potential point of vulnerability and a different set of practices for identity, logging, retention, and audit. The National Cyber Security Centre advises public services to strengthen governance, manage supply‑chain risk, and reduce exposure through better architecture; the National Audit Office warns the threat to public services is “severe and advancing quickly,” with legacy systems and skills gaps compounding risk. Consolidation is therefore not just about convenience – it is about resilience: fewer systems to secure, clearer accountability, and simpler evidence that policies are being lived in daily practice.
Any modern strategy depends on up‑to‑date, real‑time insights rather than looking back at old, aggregated data. Leaders need in‑year QAR, attendance trends, cohort risk, and funding indicators at their fingertips to adjust intent and implementation before impact is locked in. If analysis requires multiple exports and manual joins, it arrives too late to change the outcome.
The solution: OneAdvanced Education – built for FE, not around it
To tackle fragmentation without complexity, OneAdvanced Education provides a full apprenticeship management suite, Education Analytics, finance, spend and governance solutions, and intelligent AI capabilities – all held in the cloud and integrated back into our on-premise ProSuite applications. And, as ProSuite functionality progressively moves into the cloud, this will deliver a future-ready, comprehensive environment that simplifies delivery even further, with one version of the truth.
Many FE providers will already recognise bksb (now Assessment and Learning), PICS (now Learner Management System) and Smart Assessor (now ePortfolio) – all are widely used across FE. Within OneAdvanced Education, these sit inside one interface with a single login. For apprenticeship delivery, the workflow brings onboarding, ILR data, initial assessment, progress reviews, OTJ tracking, KSB alignment, gateway checks, and employer engagement into a coherent journey. Evidence is captured once and stays current; employers see progress without chasing; and audit trails reflect real work rather than reconstructed paperwork.
With OneAdvanced Education, everyday tasks are shaped around the realities of FE roles, but now they flow more smoothly and take less effort. In practice, bringing information together reduces back‑and‑forth and helps staff act sooner. It also makes conversations with learners and employers clearer, because everyone can see the same up‑to‑date picture.
For leadership and quality teams, OneAdvanced Education brings Education Analytics, replacing manual compilation with live, accessible insight. Key measures like in‑year QAR, retention trends, and provider health update automatically, so improvement discussions start with the latest data. Predictive tools highlight learners who might need extra support, while clear cohort views show where teaching strategies are working best. Scenario planning helps set achievable targets and avoid last‑minute surprises.
Intelligent automation within the platform is designed to make everyday work easier while keeping staff in control. Instead of repeating manual steps, reviews automatically pull in the latest attendance, OTJ hours, and assessment data, with prompts for missing evidence and reminders appearing in context. AI adds helpful support by summarising notes and highlighting patterns that need attention, while all outputs remain visible and editable. Compliance guardrails are built in, so tutors gain time without losing oversight and leaders benefit from consistency without sacrificing flexibility, aligning with DfE guidance on responsible AI in education.
A further advantage is that compliance sits inside everyday workflows. Because onboarding, plans, reviews, and evidence live together, DfE funding rules are easier to apply consistently and ILR returns are more straightforward to reconcile. Actual hours for OTJ are captured accurately over the practical period; reviews document progress against the plan; and adjustments linked to recognition of prior learning are recorded at the point decisions are made. When policy evolves, configuration changes centrally, so teams adapt once and carry on. That all means fewer Friday‑afternoon fixes and stronger assurance during audit.
Security and governance are embedded within OneAdvanced Education rather than bolted on. Cloud delivery with UK data residency, role‑based access, auditable actions, and consistent retention policies give leaders confidence that the platform supports obligations as well as operations. Fewer systems hold learner and employer data, so the attack surface narrows; processes happen in one place, so training and adoption are easier to sustain. These are exactly the kinds of measures public‑sector guidance promotes to strengthen resilience and reduce exposure.
Building on these embedded safeguards, FE organisations also need dedicated tools to manage governance and risk. Our Risk Management solution tracks and mitigates risks with clear dashboards and alerts, while Meetings and Board Management replaces paper packs with a secure digital workspace, making agendas, actions, and compliance evidence easy to manage. Together, they reduce admin and strengthen accountability.
Finance is another ‘admin-heavy’ area in which manual input can waste significant time for staff members. OneAdvanced Financials brings accounting, reporting, and forecasting into one intuitive platform, using real-time dashboards and automation to eliminate repetitive tasks. Self-service access gives budget holders instant visibility, enabling faster decisions, stronger compliance, and less time lost to manual reconciliations.
Conclusion – clarity, time, and confidence for FE teams
Fragmentation is not merely inconvenient; it consumes hours, introduces risk, and slows the responsiveness that defines effective FE practice. The evidence and lived experience point to a clear route forward: integrate systems, standardise data, and prioritise usability so information flows to the people who need it – leaders, tutors, coaches, employers, and learners. OneAdvanced Education makes that possible: a unified platform that respects FE complexity, consolidates trusted tools, and gives providers a consistent and comprehensive view across teaching, apprenticeships, and operations. Staff gain time, leaders gain clarity, and learners benefit from joined‑up support.
To see OneAdvanced Education in action, don’t miss our Launch Event on January 29 – register today.
A care worker apprenticeship training provider is being chased for £1.2 million by the Department for Education after investigators uncovered systemic contract breaches.
A financial investigation outcome report published today said the sum is “being recovered” from Park Education and Training Centre after officials found missing evidence to support many apprentice funding claims over four academic years.
Investigators flagged a range of issues including a lack of signed apprenticeship agreements, enrolment checks, unverifiable signatures and absent off-the-job training records.
They also found no evidence that the north west London-based company had taken steps to address conflicts of interest between the provider and temporary employment agencies apprentices were employed by.
There was also a lack of proof to show apprentices received wages at or above the national minimum wage.
But company owner Aiah Kanda told FE Week the DfE’s clawback demand “has not been done fairly” and argued that Park Education and Training Centre should only have to repay “about a quarter” of the £1,203,085 sum claimed.
Kanda, who also part-owned home care agency Own Care until October last year, blamed “very, very high” staff turnover in the care industry for the lack of funding claim evidence.
The company owner said the department is now asking for “all the money” it paid for apprenticeship training since the company’s registration in 2021.
He questioned why the company should have to repay funding claims for apprentices who have received their diplomas but not yet completed their end point assessment, arguing that many fail to complete because of high turnover in the care industry.
He added: “So that because this person didn’t achieve something at the end, therefore you have to pay everything back. That doesn’t make any logical sense to me.”
Kanda suggested that missing evidence of learning could be obtained by calling learners.
He claimed that “over 80 per cent” of learners achieved but was unable to estimate how many completed their end-point assessment.
The businessman told FE Week the future of his company is now uncertain in light of the clawback demand.
He said: “With that huge amount of money, where is it going to come from? Because this money is not going to be lying down there, you’re paying teachers, you’re paying rent, you’re paying all those things.”
Inspectors found a “varied experience” for the company’s 215 apprentices, with many making “slow progress” and receiving inconsistent training or reviews.
The DfE’s published data shows Park Education and Training Centre recorded a 62.2 per cent total apprenticeship achievement rate in 2023-24 for 50 leavers. It no longer appears on the apprenticeship provider and assessment register (APAR).
The department’s investigation report is the second the DfE has published on an ITP’s use of public funding since it updated its policy in December 2023.
The first FE provider to receive Ofsted’s new highest mark has been revealed – as the watchdog published the first batch of new-style report cards.
System People Limited was deemed ‘exceptional’ for achievement in its adult learning programmes in its inspection outcome published this morning.
The Carlisle-based independent training provider (ITP) was the only provider out of a batch of 19 ITPs and adult learning providers to receive the rare grade, which is meant to showcase “truly among the very best nationally”.
Early inspections under the new revised framework began in November last year, and were led only by the most senior Ofsted inspectors.
Following a consultation last year, Ofsted abandoned overall headline grades in favour of a five-point scale in 16 individual areas – including inclusion for the first time.
Education providers will now be awarded grades from ‘exceptional’, ‘strong standard’ and ‘expected standard’ to ‘needs attention’ and ‘urgent improvement’.
Ofsted’s baseline expectation is for providers to achieve the ‘expected standard grade’. Anything below will be deemed ‘needs attention or ‘urgent improvement’ and above will get a ‘strong standard’ or ‘exemplary’ grade.
The new look report shows how many times the provider was graded across the five-point scale, with a breakdown of each inspection area further down.
Meeting safeguarding standards remains a tick box, with providers either meeting or not meeting their legal requirement.
The report card then details each grade for inclusion and leadership and governance and also the training programmes it delivers.
Ofsted have also provided a new facts and figures data breakdown for the inspected provider. Via a drop-down box, viewers can find the number of learners and achievement rates of the provider, which is accurate from the time of inspection.
No ‘urgent improvement’ judgments
FE Week analysis found no provider in today’s batch had ‘urgent improvement’ in any area. All but one ITP – AKR Growth Ventures – were given mostly ‘expected standard’ grades in most areas of inspection.
AKR Growth Ventures, an ITP which delivers early years, marketing and information technology apprenticeships was handed ‘needs attention’ across the board.
The watchdog found issues with “underdeveloped” understanding from leaders and governors and slow progress in English and maths achievements at the provider.
Meanwhile, six providers had at least one ‘needs attention’ grade and eight received at least one ‘strong standard’ rating.
New accountability rules set out by the Department for Education (DfE) will not rely on specific Ofsted grades to place poorly performing apprenticeship training providers in intervention for the next 12 months.
Under its previous apprenticeship accountability framework, training providers judged ‘inadequate’ for apprenticeships or overall effectiveness can lead to “contractual action”. Ofsted grades are one of several measures taken into consideration.
But the new rules will now mean that DfE will instead decide whether or not to take action on a case-by-case basis.
One ‘exceptional’ grade
Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver previously said the ‘exceptional’ grade would demonstrate exemplary practice nationally.
“Strong standard marks out excellent practice. Anything graded ‘exceptional’ is exactly that – truly among the very best nationally,” he told college leaders last year.
System People got an ‘exceptional’ for the achievement category for its adult education programmes.
Inspectors found that learners consistently make “extensive” progress from their starting points and the training has a “transformational” impact on learners’ future careers.
The provider had the majority of learners on apprenticeships (345) and around 50 on skills bootcamps.
The report pointed out “exceptionally well” preparedness of large goods vehicle (LGV) apprentices and learners, adding that almost all progress into sustained employment.
System People reported a 74 per cent achievement rate in 2023-24, above the 61 per cent national average.
Guinea pig small providers
No colleges were part of this morning’s batch release as smaller providers were favoured for the early inspections.
The new report cards will award a grade to colleges on how well they are contributing to local skills demands, which will now lead to targeted support or being placed in intervention if they receive ‘urgent improvement’.
Ofsted began judging colleges on local skills needs contributions in 2022 through “enhanced inspections”.
Until now, colleges have been rated along a scale of either ‘strong’, ‘reasonable’ or ‘limited’ for this category, none of which have been used to trigger intervention.
Any ‘urgent improvement’ finding may also lead to a college receiving a letter to improve, and an FE Commissioner-led improvement review, both of which will not be made publicly available.
Most of the 19 providers – bar four – receiving a report card today had small learner cohorts of under 100 at the time of inspection.
The largest was from Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, which had 670 learners on adult education programmes at the time of inspection.
It received ‘needs attention’ in leadership and governance and ‘expected standard’ for inclusion. For its adult learning programmes, ‘expected standard’ was found for achievement and curriculum and teaching, but participation and development ‘needs attention’.
Inspectors said council leaders have laid out a strategic plan to improve tutor training, but the report said ongoing external factors “beyond their control” have impeded leaders’ ability to improve quickly.
The council last received a ‘good’ at its last full in inspection in 2010.
A Labour think tank director who tried to unseat Jeremy Corbyn has been appointed as an “expert adviser” on skills to work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden.
Praful Nargund will work alongside civil servants and special advisers to help “make the best use” of the transfer of adult skills policy from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The director and founder of think tank The Good Growth Foundation will work on the unpaid advisory role for at least two days per week until July, with an option to extend further.
Nargund was a prominent member of Labour’s council of skills advisers, working alongside former education secretary Lord David Blunkett. The council proposed reforming the apprenticeship levy into what is now known as the growth and skills levy in 2022.
Nargund also ran a failed bid to unseat former Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn in the 2024 general election and has a range of other roles, including as a college governor, a Labour councillor, and a shareholder in a venture capital firm.
According to an announcement this morning, Nargund will work with experts to ensure McFadden has “access to high-quality advice” on growth as the new adult skills policy area is embedded in the department.
His job description says he will seek to: “Drive and support innovative thinking in terms of how adult skills can help the government to increase opportunity and drive economic growth.”
The director was appointed directly by McFadden, FE Week understands.
Praful Nargund said: “I’m delighted to be appointed skills adviser to the secretary of state for DWP, Pat McFadden.
“Whether it’s supporting the nearly one million young people not in education, employment or training into work, or driving economic growth, skills reform is at the heart of making it happen.”
The Good Growth Foundation is a non-profit think tank that says it’s “on a mission to crack the politics of economic growth”.
A recent report by the foundation, ‘Take Back Control’, recommended that the immigration system requires skilled migrants to train British workers to improve public feelings about the issue.
He was previously chief executive of private IVF treatment providers Create Fertility and abc IVF, which were majority owned by his family until their sale for an undisclosed sum in 2021.
He is also a non-executive director at venture capital firm Social Impact Enterprises and a governor at Capital City College Group.
In 2024 he was a director at Executive Pipeline Limited, a leadership training company, alongside high-profile Labour donor Lord Waheed Alli.
Multiple colleges have settled pay disputes with unionised lecturers ahead of next week’s England-wide strike action.
Pay awards of up to 4.5 per cent have been agreed by FE teachers at a further four colleges across the country following the University and College Union (UCU)’s ballot over pay and workloads.
Staff at Barnet & Southgate College, Brockenhurst College, Bradford College and East Sussex College will no longer walk out for three days next week.
The news follows three other colleges that agreed before Christmas to abandon strike action after winning pay awards of between 4 and 7 per cent.
It now means a total of 25 colleges will see teachers down their tools on January 14, 15 and 16, when several vocational and technical exams take place.
UCU told FE Week that its Bradford branch settled on a 4.5 per cent pay deal and is setting up a senior lecturer pay grade.
East Sussex College agreed to a 4 per cent pay deal across the board as well as an extra boost to the packages for teachers at the top of the lecturer pay scale, equal to 1.5 per cent.
UCU opened a nationwide ballot in October after the “disappointing” 4 per cent pay rise non-binding recommendation from the Association of Colleges.
Union members at 33 of the 54 balloted colleges passed the legally required 50 per cent turnout threshold and backed strike action, demanding pay parity with school teachers, a national workload agreement and binding national bargaining.
Twenty-one colleges failed to meet the threshold, and now 24 colleges have settled their disputes with deals worth up to 8.7 per cent.
UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Industrial action is a last resort for our members, but staff up and down England have been left with no choice. There is still time for colleges to make fair offers that help close the pay gap between school and college teachers.
“Our demands are reasonable, and management at colleges where staff are taking action need to look at those that worked to settle their disputes. Employers must now agree to meaningful sectoral bargaining so further education can avoid the cycle of strike ballots and disruption that we have seen over the past few years.”
The Charity Commission has escalated its scrutiny of City & Guilds by opening a formal statutory inquiry into the controversial sale of its awarding body commercial arm.
The investigation will probe reported million-pound bonuses awarded to at least two executives who worked on the deal for the 150-year-old charity as well as trustees’ “decision making”.
The regulator said earlier this week it was seeking to “obtain more information” before deciding its next steps. In an announcement today, the Charity Commission said it opened a formal inquiry on January 7 in response to “new information” about the sale.
Under powers in the Charities Act 2011, a statutory inquiry allows the regulator to dig deeper into serious concerns about a charity’s conduct – and, if necessary, use “protective powers” to safeguard the charity’s assets, reputation or beneficiaries.
A Charity Commission statement said: “The inquiry will examine:
“Information provided by the charity to the Commission regarding the sale of the awarding, assessment, and training businesses of the charity in October 2025 to PeopleCert (under the company known as City & Guilds Vocational Education and Apprenticeships) following concerns raised in public reporting relating to the sale and bonuses awarded to its executives
“The trustees’ decision-making regarding the sale and entering into a ‘coexistence agreement’ with the new company, including the information that they were provided with and considered when making this decision.”
Investigators are seeking details of what information trustees knew when selling the City & Guilds’ awarding and training business to Greek-owned global certification company PeopleCert in October 2025.
According to a report in The Guardian, the awarding body’s chief executive Kirstie Donnelly was awarded a £1.7 million bonus alongside a £100,000 salary increase to £430,000.
Finance director Amid Ismail also reportedly received a £1.2 million bonus and 30 per cent salary increase to £300,000 per year.
City & Guilds Foundation has claimed that its trustees were “not involved in any pre or post-deal conversations regarding remuneration matters for City & Guilds Limited executives that would apply after the sale”.
The commission said it “will now examine” new information and “may extend the scope” if additional issues emerge.
In a statement today, trustees of the City & Guilds Foundation, formally known as The City & Guilds of London Institute, said: “We acknowledge the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiry and are cooperating fully with their investigation.
“We remain confident that all actions taken by the trustees have been proper, transparent, and in line with our charitable purpose.
“We are committed to maintaining public trust and will continue to act in the best interests of the charity and its beneficiaries.
“We acknowledge the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiry and are cooperating fully with their investigation. We remain confident that all actions taken by the Trustees have been proper, transparent, and in line with our charitable purpose. We are committed to maintaining public trust and will continue to act in the best interests of the charity and its beneficiaries.”
According to the Charity Commission’s policy, it will publish a report detailing the issues, action taken and inquiry outcome.
What is a statutory inquiry?
The Charity Commission, the official regulator for the sector, opens statutory inquiries in “serious cases of abuse and regulatory concern” in the administration of charities.
According to its published guidance on statutory inquiries, the decision to open one is “not taken lightly” and depends on a “careful assessment of factors”.
The regulator says that it investigates to establish the facts, decide what action to take, and that inquiries should not be seen as a determination of “wrong-doing”.
The policy adds: “If the allegations made or causes for concern are not substantiated, the inquiry will say so.”
Powers the Charity Commission has if it finds misconduct by trustees can include removing them from office or appointing new trustees, disqualifying individuals from acting as trustees or senior charity staff in future, or directing the charity to take specific actions.
Recent high-profile inquiries include The Captain Tom Foundation, in which the regulator found that the family of a pandemic fundraiser damaged public trust by refusing to donate proceeds of his book deal.
The findings were published two years after the inquiry was opened and resulted in the disqualification of two trustees for periods of 8 to 10 years.
