Latest news from FE Week

Skills England has exposed a social care timebomb

Skills England has just published its Sector Skills Needs Assessment for health and adult social care. The headline figures are stark. Adult social care alone faces demand for 685,000 workers over the next decade, 281,000 from sector growth and a further 404,000 to replace those who will retire or leave.

Behind those numbers is a workforce picture that makes the challenge harder still. Adult social care employs proportionally fewer workers aged 16 to 25 than the England average and significantly more aged 55 and over. This demographic imbalance points to an untapped opportunity. With over one million young people currently not in education, employment or training, adult social care represents one of the most viable and socially valuable pathways available. Adult social care, with its accessible entry requirements, earn-while-you-learn apprenticeship model, and clear progression ladder, is one of the few sectors genuinely positioned to absorb that talent at scale. Connecting those two realities is not just good workforce planning. It is good social policy.

The retirement wave is not approaching; it has already begun. And a 24 per cent fall in FE achievements at level 2 and 3 in health and social care means the very foundation of the pipeline is moving in the wrong direction at the worst possible time.

79 per cent of new roles in adult social care require level 2 or 3 qualifications, yet that is precisely where completions are falling fastest. Filling that gap is one of the sector’s most pressing challenges.

The skills profile of the sector adds another layer of complexity. Adult social care requires the highest listening proficiency of any priority sector assessed by Skills England. Working with others, speaking and adapting are not classroom skills. They are built through real experience in real care settings, supported by high-quality, work-embedded training over time.

For over 20 years, Aspiration Training has delivered specialist apprenticeship training across England and Wales, praised by Ofsted. Our health and social care apprenticeship offer is designed around a core insight that the Skills England report makes explicit: 83 per cent of adult social care apprenticeship starters are aged over 24. These are not fresh starters, they are experienced practitioners seeking recognition, progression, and professional development within a sector they are already committed to.

Our apprenticeship range spans the full career journey in adult care, from first qualification through to senior leadership.

This progression from level 2 to level 5 matters enormously in the context of the Skills England findings. The report shows 54 per cent growth in level 4-5 nursing and allied health apprenticeship completions and 20 per cent growth in level 4-5 health and social care apprenticeships, pointing to a sector increasingly using higher-level apprenticeships as a genuine career development mechanism, not just an entry route.

Our delivery model is built around the reality of working in care. Learners access dedicated assessor support, bespoke online tutorials, blended learning options including home study, and our e-portfolio system, so development fits around shift patterns and the demands of live care environments.

Each year, an estimated 40,400 workers need replacing within adult social care priority occupations, and that figure may be a substantial underestimate. This is where investment in young people becomes a workforce strategy, not just a social one. The sector currently skews heavily away from workers aged 16 to 25, yet this is precisely the age group that, if brought in early and supported well, could build the long-tenure workforce adult social care desperately needs. A NEET young person who enters through a level 2 apprenticeship today, progresses to level 3, and moves into a management role by their early thirties does not just fill one vacancy, they reduce replacement demand for a generation.

Keeping existing workers skilled, confident, and professionally recognised is not a secondary concern. It is central to retention, and retention is one of the most powerful levers available to address the supply gap.

The challenge is significant. The direction is clear. We are ready to support it.

Esports taught us the real lesson about curriculum innovation

At London South East Colleges, one of our recent curriculum innovations has been the introduction of esports. When we launched this course in 2022, we knew young people were highly engaged in gaming and digital culture. However, turning that interest into a meaningful curriculum with clear progression opportunities was another matter.

One of the earliest lessons we learned was that successful curriculum innovation requires a comprehensive approach that extends well beyond the introduction of a new qualification.

Initially, recruitment was slow and this was partly due to us not having the right person to lead and champion the provision. The turning point came when we recruited someone with genuine industry experience who was willing to train as a teacher while helping to shape the programme.

The difference was immediate. Students responded to someone who understood the industry and could connect learning to real practice in an authentic way.

This reinforced an important principle that applies across curriculum innovation – having the right staff teams in place is just as important as designing the right curriculum.

Today, our esports provision has grown from a single level 3 group into a broader offer across levels 2 and 3. Our students recently won the British Esports Student Championships, demonstrating how far the programme has developed.

However, one of the biggest challenges has not been delivery but perception.

Esports is often dismissed as ‘just gaming’, despite the fact that students develop skills across business, marketing, event management, broadcasting, digital production and teamwork. Indeed, in any innovative curriculum area, new subjects often face misconceptions.

Whether introducing esports or other emerging curriculum areas, colleges must be prepared to explain the skills being developed and the future progression or career pathways available. Employer endorsement and learner success stories are all critical in building confidence and credibility.

Innovation should never be driven solely by student interest. Students, parents and employers need confidence that qualifications lead somewhere meaningful, whether that is employment, apprenticeships, higher education or further training.

Within our esports provision, learners now progress into higher education and employment across media production, business, marketing and games development. Building those pathways from the outset, and communicating them to prospective students, was crucial to the programme’s success.

Employer engagement has also played a central role. Recent work experience placements have included opportunities with BLAST.TV at the BLAST Premier London Open at Wembley Arena, where students supported the delivery of a major international esports event.

Experiences like this bring learning to life, helping our students understand workplace expectations and the breadth of opportunities available. They also provide reassurance to parents and carers who may initially be uncertain about newer pathways.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that curriculum innovation is not simply about creating new subjects.

My own background is in hair and beauty, and I see daily how technology is reshaping professional practice. Artificial intelligence, facial recognition software and digital consultation tools are becoming increasingly common. Construction is evolving through retrofit and sustainable technologies. Healthcare continues to develop through advances in digital systems and patient care.

The challenge for colleges is therefore much broader than introducing new curriculum areas. It is about ensuring that all provision evolves alongside industry change.

That places significant importance on staff development. Colleges cannot expect staff to adapt to changing industries without investment in high-quality professional development. Innovation flourishes when staff feel supported to learn and build confidence in new approaches.

At the same time, innovation must complement rather than replace high-quality vocational education. Industries will continue to need skilled bricklayers, carers, beauty therapists, hairdressers and electricians. The goal is not to abandon established pathways but to ensure they remain relevant while creating opportunities in emerging sectors.

As colleges respond to curriculum reform and changing economic demands, the key lesson from our experience is that successful innovation is not just about the qualification itself. It is about strong leadership, industry credibility, employer partnerships, staff development and clear progression routes. Those principles helped make our esports programme successful and can now be applied to future innovation across all our curriculum areas.

Inclusion 2.0: New funding, new responsibility

Earlier this month, the DfE published the first funding redistribution mechanism under SEND reform: the inclusive mainstream fund (IMF) for 16-19 providers. In all, £83 million will flow directly to post-16 organisations. But with it comes significantly more responsibility.

I’ve spoken with sector leaders, SEND specialists and civil servants to build a clear picture of how reform is likely to play out. From those conversations, I’ve identified five second-order effects that leaders of educational organisations need to understand. This article names them; My deeper analysis piece, tells you what to do about them.

Effect 1: Five tiers not four

The reform defines four tiers of SEND support: Universal, targeted, targeted plus and specialist. The structure creates an ingenious incentive for leaders to absorb more non-complex needs into their universal offer, reducing the number of learners formally categorised as targeted.

Whether this is deliberate or accidental brilliance from civil servants, I’ll leave to your judgement. What’s clear is that educational organisations will create an unofficial fifth tier within universal: one that delivers the personalised adjustments expected at the targeted level, without that tier’s legal exposure or administrative burden. I call this the Ofsted inclusion tier.

Standard universal provision means, for example lesson plans adjusted to the cognitive profiles of each cohort. We’ve built Adaptify, a clinical-grade tool, to automate this without adding burden to educators.

The Ofsted inclusion tier goes further. It requires individual support plans with personalised adjustments, such as targeted learning strategies built around a learner’s own unique profile. We’re likely to see this level of support becoming embedded within universal as standard practice, rewriting the DNA of what ‘mainstream’ provision looks like.

Effect 2: Cat and mouse

Tensions will arise. The government wants fewer learners in more expensive specialist provision. Educational organisations generally want the opposite. General FE college leaders should expect significantly more complex learners sitting within their own responsibility than in specialist. Prepare to work hard for every learner you push up and out of targeted plus. Your specialists’ expertise will be stretched hardest here, across targeted plus and specialist tiers.

The average education, health and care plan (EHCP) requires 68 specialist hours for assessment and planning just to create and issue, yet the average SENCO spends just 11 hours per week learner-facing, with another 11 spent on paperwork.

There are not enough SEND specialists to deliver these reforms at scale. Specialists must be freed from admin, with learner-facing time used as the key measure. Non-specialist educators must be equipped with evidence-led technology delivering on-demand inclusion guidance.

Effect 3: Nonsense-ware

You could say the cavalry has arrived in the form of the inclusive mainstream fund.; the question is whether organisations deploy it against the right problems.

The sector must defend itself against a rising tide of non-validated SEND technologies. Procuring SEND solutions is not like buying antivirus software or a CRM. These tools directly inform decisions covered by the Equality Act, and the educational organisation holds legal liability for the validity of every tool it deploys. This procurement should be treated as a clinical decision. Ask one question: is it independently validated? If they hesitate, walk away.

Effect 4: AI co-creation

Individual support plans (ISPs) will balloon in volume, and there are not enough specialists to create them. Educators will need specialist-level knowledge at their fingertips to produce ISPs that hold up to challenge. Legal challenges from learners and parents are becoming easier to mount, and that trajectory will only steepen.

The answer is not to centralise ISP creation with specialists. Those who know the subject and learner well are best placed to design non-complex ISPs, with AI bringing clinical rigour to non-specialist hands. It’s the capability Cognassist is building for the sector.

Effect 5: Insurance premiums

Once the new SEND legislation takes effect, liability insurers will be watching the first wave of legal cases closely, and pricing accordingly. Expect them to scrutinise your operations: is a validated assessment tool in place? Are AI co-creation technologies deployed? The organisations that cannot answer yes will find their premiums reflect that.

The funding is starting to flow. How you procure and embed evidence-led inclusion at scale should now be on the top of every leadership agenda.

Employers’ contributions to teachers’ pensions ‘very likely’ to reduce – minister

A “considerable reduction” to the amount FE providers contribute to teachers’ pensions is “highly likely” following a revaluation of the scheme, a minister has revealed.

But teachers’ contributions and pension pots are not expected to be affected by the change.

Colleges and other further education providers currently pay a fee equivalent to 28.6 per cent of teachers’ wages every year into the teachers’ pension scheme.

But speaking in the House of Lords yesterday, skills minister Jacqui Smith said the rate is expected to drop significantly amid a review of the amounts paid into public sector schemes.

“[Rates] have gone from 16.48 per cent in 2019 to the current 28.6 per cent,” she said.

“It is highly likely… that there will be a considerable reduction in the average employer contribution rate as a result of that revaluation.”

Any change would come into effect next April and would remain in place for four years.

£12bn lower

Smith noted that the government actuary’s department has written to the Treasury stating the “average employer contribution rate across the unfunded public service pension schemes, of which the TPS is one, is expected to fall significantly”.

Across the schemes “contributions are expected to be over £12 billion lower in 2027-28 than in 2026-27”.

The expected reduction is due to an increase in the SCAPE discount rate, a government assumption used to calculate the value of future pension benefits.

Employee contribution rates of 9.6 per cent on average will not be affected by the change. Pension pots will not be impacted either.

‘Exceptional’ standards should be an achievable goal for providers

This week Ofsted has published an inspection report on Kleek Apprenticeships which finds that the national provider in hairdressing, barbering and beauty therapy has ‘strong’ standards across the board.

Are Kleek ecstatic? Far from it. The previously ‘outstanding’ provider believes that the new findings are a demotion and its leader feels demotivated.

The reason is a deeply held conviction that at least two of the judgements should have been ‘exceptional’ standards.

FIN believes that this latest development in the Ofsted reform process is definitely not a moan that the provider will ‘get over’ in a month or so but of real significance when the Milburn review is calling for a major reset of the skills system to provide more young people with a meaningful start to their lives. Ofsted is part of that system and needs to listen up.

Last year FIN sounded the alarm that exceptional standards would be out of reach to apprenticeship and other work-based learning providers. We feared that only schools and sixth-form colleges could achieve them and six months later, only one adult learning provider in the FE and skills sector has a single exceptional standard despite nine other independent and employer providers each achieving five strong standards.

Hard-working providers are entitled to ask why as we have other examples of FIN members who have found this grade unachievable for aspects of learning that are transformational. They find this very demotivating.

Perhaps Ofsted believes their achievement rates aren’t high enough. Half of Kleek’s apprentices need additional support and yet the inspectorate finds that they achieve as highly as their peers. Many had high levels of truancy at school, in fact they hated school or came from alternative provision. Even with so many requiring additional support, its apprentices have an 80 per cent achievement rate, up from 70.6 per cent last year.

At FIN we support over 200 providers and have supported many through inspection under the revised education inspection framework. Inclusion matters until it doesn’t. A work-based learning provider is not going to achieve a 90 per cent-plus achievement rate if half its intake needs extra support.

Ofsted might be tempted to award ‘exceptional’ if they see something ‘transformational’ for learners. In the absence of specific criteria, inspectors will apparently know it when they see it – an extremely frustrating situation, given our members can point out obvious examples without success.

In Kleek’s case, apprentices are sent to the Paris and London fashion weeks while 96 per cent achieve sustained employment. If going to Paris to work with the world’s top designers and models is not transformational, then I don’t know what is.

As the report acknowledges, other apprentices have been nominated and performed very well in prestigious national competitions, such as the Hair and Beauty Rising Star awards and WorldSkills. But in the ‘next steps’ section, Ofsted wants to see more of a transformational impact. FIN feels that the inspectorate should offer providers something much more tangible in defining exceptional and transformational and we can provide the inspectorate with many examples from our members of what is.

Despite providers facing challenging circumstances, Kleek’s commitment to and investment in quality stands out in the report. Have you ever read in another Ofsted report, “Leaders swiftly cease working with employers who do not provide apprentices with on-the-job training that is of a consistently high quality”? At the same time, the provider wants learners to have positive experiences of education and Ofsted observes in its report, “During Pride month apprentices demonstrated support for the LGBTQIA+ community by creating hidden rainbow hair colouring techniques symbolising hidden protected characteristics”.

As FIN members demonstrate constantly and Alan Milburn says in his interim report, becoming NEET does not have to be inevitable. Two changes are required as part of the system reset that Milburn demands. Firstly and unlike for other provider types, Ofsted doesn’t judge independent training providers on meeting local skills needs, so these providers are prevented from demonstrating to local young people and employers that they do this very well.

Secondly, when a provider achieves strong in all areas, lead inspectors should be mandated to look for examples of exceptional practice.

Milburn writes that his review unashamedly extols the virtues of good work. Ofsted’s reports on Kleek and other providers such as National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) and Corndel show that helping young people secure this work is not an aspiration but an achievable reality. If the system is to be reset, Ofsted must be part of it.

College free meals rate lifted after backlash

College students will receive the same per-learner funding for their free meals entitlement as school pupils following backlash from further education leaders.

Updated Department for Education (DfE) guidance published today increased the further education free meal funding rate for 2026-27 to £2.66.

The 5p rise comes three months after colleges were told to plan for their free meals funding to be frozen at £2.61 per meal, which would have been lower than the rate paid to schools.

College and student leaders slammed the freeze at the time, describing it as “insulting” and “frustrating”.

Today’s guidance comes a week after Treasury minister Lord Livermore told the House of Lords the government was “actively looking into” the lower rate being offered to colleges.

It also confirmed the previously announced extension of eligibility for free college meals to students from households receiving universal credit.

Electronic credits or vouchers provided by eligible FE institutions must be worth at least £2.66 per meal, the guidance said. Providers can offer more if they “determine it is necessary”.

The uplift comes against a wider funding squeeze on 16 to 19 education and amid further education staff pay rise negotiations currently underway between unions and the Association of Colleges.

In March, ministers were accused of breaking promises when they confirmed the national funding rate for 16 and 17-year-old learners will only rise by 0.5 per cent in academic year 2026-27 from £5,105 to £5,133.

Colleges warned the below-inflation rise would leave providers absorbing the cost of thousands of extra learners under DfE’s lagged funding system.

Farage: I’ll appoint political enforcers to stop colleges promoting diversity

A Reform UK government would ban diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives in schools and colleges, and appoint Whitehall enforcers to ensure compliance.

Following the riots that took place in Belfast and Southampton amid growing racial tensions, Reform UK’s leader Nigel Farage revealed his plans in an essay titled ‘Britain is a two tier state – against white people’ taking aim against what he calls the “toxic ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)” and claiming that “every section of the state” has been “ideologically compromised”.

He added that in the education sector, “bureaucrats are more interested in diversity than the educational success of the largest group of pupils”.

Under a Reform UK government, Farage said national and local government bodies would be prohibited from engaging in or promoting DEI.

“To ensure democratic accountability, political appointments will be appointed from Westminster into public bodies with a mandate to enforce bans on DEI at a ground level,” he said.

When asked whether ‘public bodies’ included state-funded education organisations such as FE colleges, schools and sixth form colleges, a Reform UK spokesperson responded: “Yes. Under a Reform government, the progressive indoctrination of our children will end.

“Schools will only commemorate accepted civic events, such as St George’s Day/other national days or D-Day.”

Flying the flag

Farage also spoke of the curriculum changes he wants to usher in. He said his government would “end the ideological capture of our classrooms and ensure every pupil in England receives a balanced and patriotic education”.

Every school would be required to fly the union flag, honour St George’s Day in England and mount an official portrait of the King in a visible communal space. Reform UK’s spokesperson did not respond when asked by FE Week whether colleges and sixth forms would need to follow these rules.

A new history curriculum would be launched, which Farage said would be “rooted in honouring our island story with pride”.

There would be no public funding under Reform UK for research or courses attempting to “decolonise” the curriculum.

Farage also said that pupils should not be “forced” to celebrate Black History Month, Pride Month and Refugee Week.

He claimed that in education, white children were being “left behind”, and “the teachers who should be looking out for them are lecturing them about ‘white privilege’, telling them about their ‘responsibility’ to reduce racism, telling them it is impossible for black people to be racist towards those with white skin”.

He pointed to the equality policy of Langley School, a secondary run by the Collaborative Education Trust in Solihull, which he said contains a “fascinating glimpse into how our institutions think”.

Stating that 23 per cent of its pupils are eligible for free school meals and almost half are white British, he said the school promised “embedding EDI within teaching and resources”, “promoting community cohesion” and “instilling in pupils an awareness of prejudice”.

FE Week has approached the school for comment.

Leaders hit back

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was “ridiculous” to suggest, as Farage had, that schools and college classrooms had been ideologically captured.

“We completely refute Nigel Farage’s characterisation. Schools and colleges do endeavour to make pupils of all backgrounds feel welcome and supported, and they promote respect and tolerance. These are values which we believe are integral to a peaceful and harmonious society.

“Mr Farage’s plan to appoint political commissars to enforce bans on certain events and celebrations in schools and colleges sounds a little like something that could have come out of the Soviet Union. It is chilling.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, pointed out that colleges serve “highly diverse student populations with people of all ages, races, religions, and with and without disabilities” and that “with everyone, they try to meet their needs to ensure they can succeed”.

He added: “That is not ideological or political, it is simply living by the values which colleges hold dear – everyone matters and the aim is that everyone can belong in the college, for who they are, what they can do and what they want to achieve.

“Colleges are inclusive, caring, fair places where students can succeed and where the diversity in our society is celebrated. I do not recognise the world that is being described in this essay and would be very happy to offer Nigel Farage the chance to visit some colleges to learn more about the fantastic places they are. I am sure he would be impressed and pleased with what he saw.”

Reform UK also intends to repeal the Equality Act and ban any recruitment, training or promotion policies that favour one group over another.

Farage claimed that in the NHS, a “flood of incoming international graduates” have left doctors coming through Britain’s medical schools who have “consistently better performance than their international peers”, unable to find speciality training places and jobs.

PeopleCert pursues former City & Guilds chiefs for £3m ‘unauthorised’ bonuses

PeopleCert is seeking to recover almost £3 million in bonuses paid to former City & Guilds chief executive Kirstie Donnelly and finance chief Abid Ismail after an internal investigation concluded the payments were “unauthorised”.

The Greek-owned awarding organisation announced today that it will pursue the pair over a total of £2.9 million in bonus payments allegedly approved without the knowledge or authorisation of PeopleCert, the City & Guilds board or the charity that previously owned the business.

The move follows the dismissal of Donnelly and Ismail without financial settlement in April for alleged gross misconduct, after they received bonuses of £1.7 million and £1.2 million respectively shortly after PeopleCert’s acquisition of City & Guilds Limited (CGL) in October last year.

But the pair hit back, denying the allegations and claiming they have evidence that both the buyer PeopleCert, seller City & Guilds and their advisers were “fully involved” in the structuring and approval of bonuses.

According to PeopleCert, Donnelly and Ismail “directly authorised and paid bonuses” to themselves and other CGL staff, worth £5 million in total, “without authorisation” from the CGL board, PeopleCert or City & Guilds London Institute.

Pay rises were also allegedly made without formal authorisation.

A PeopleCert spokesperson said: “These payments were not brought to the attention of PeopleCert until December 2025, a month after they had been paid, and there was no provision, board resolution, or other binding instrument that authorised these payments.

“It also found that salary increases for the [executive leadership team] and other colleagues were also made without formal authorisation from the CGL board or PeopleCert.

“These actions were in direct breach of their duties and responsibilities as office holders and caused significant harm to the organisation’s reputation.

“In the case of Kirstie Donnelly and Abid Ismail, we intend to take all action available to ensure the recovery of these amounts (£1.7 million and £1.2 million respectively) and will make appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities.”

PeopleCert said other executives who received bonuses will also be asked to repay them in full. However, payments made to around 60 other staff members will be “ratified” by PeopleCert and “no attempt will be made recover the amounts, given the investigation’s conclusion that recipients were neither fully aware nor instrumental in the scheme”.

The findings came from an investigation carried out by a committee of non-executive directors, led by Michael Milanovic, chair of PeopleCert subsidiary LanguageCert, with support from legal advisers Balfour+Manson.

PeopleCert said a subsequent appeal process, led by CGL non-executive director Richard McCarthy CBE, did not uphold appeals against the dismissal decisions.

The findings have been shared with the Charity Commission, which launched a statutory inquiry into City & Guilds in January following the sale of the historic charity’s commercial business.

PeopleCert’s own investigation has also expanded to look at “allegations of manipulation of information” about the level of investment required to upgrade City & Guilds’ IT systems provided to bidders during the sale process.

In a joint statement through their legal representatives, Donnelly and Ismail, who announced legal action against CGL in April, told FE Week the pair “categorically reject” CGL’s allegations.

They called PeopleCert’s disciplinary process “fundamentally flawed and lacked the necessary independence”, insisting they will be “exonerated”.

They said that in “due course” the pair will present evidence to the courts that “overwhelmingly demonstrates” all bonus payments were “approved, documented and implemented” as part of the transaction process.

The spokesperson added: “It further shows that both the seller and the buyer, along with their advisers, were fully involved in the structuring and approval of the bonuses paid.

“This evidence has also been provided to the other appropriate agencies, including the Charity Commission.

“Our clients acted reasonably and honestly at all times. We therefore remain confident that they will be exonerated and that their dismissals will ultimately be found to have been unfair.”

In an internal email this morning, seen by FE Week, PeopleCert boss Byron Nicolaides told City & Guilds staff the bonus issue has created “a challenging environment” for the business that he was now pleased to “draw a line under”.

He said: “Whilst some will continue to voice their opposition to the private ownership of City & Guilds, we must remember some important context.

“Our acquisition followed a fully intermediated, competitive process involving multiple international bidders, with PeopleCert selected as the preferred party as we offered the highest price and had significant experience of operating regulated products and services.

“We also had the global scale, expertise, technology capability and investment commitment needed to develop the organisation for the long term.”

He claimed that under its charity owner, City & Guilds had been loss-making for the previous eight years, was losing market share, had been issued regulatory fines for “failings of governance and technology control”, and did not have the ability to fund the “scale of transformation required”.

Apprenticeship subcontracting review launched by DWP

A “full review” of apprenticeship subcontracting rules and policy is set to run over the coming months, the government has said.

The Department for Work and Pensions confirmed the move in version one of the apprenticeship funding rules for 2026-27 published today.

It said: “We will undertake a full review of the subcontracting section in July – August 2026.

“This will include a review of the underpinning policy, the rules and evidence requirements and the associated definitions. We will involve sector representative bodies in this review and aim to conclude the review by September 2026.”

Changes will come into effect from 2027 and further details of the scope of the review will be “made available in due course”.

The announcement follows comments made by DWP’s head of funding delivery Tracey Cox at this year’s Apprenticeship and Training Conference, who said officials were looking to update their definitions after finding some providers were failing to declare subcontracting because they were unsure what counts.

In March, Cox said there were around six cases where auditors proposed to clawback all funding handed to providers because rules were misinterpreted.

Under the new rules, DWP said it was “reviewing the definition of a subcontractor to make it clearer who is and who is not a subcontractor and what we mean by directly managed and controlled”.

The intended new definitions have already been included in the funding rules glossary, with any resulting changes likely to take effect from January 1, 2027.

Current and intended subcontracting definitions

De-minimis row back

The DWP had proposed introducing a £25,000 “de-minimis” threshold for organisations to be a subcontractor where they are not on the official apprenticeship provider and assessment register.

This has now been dropped and the existing £100,000 threshold will continue to be used.

However, there is also an amendment to the existing de-minimis to remove the stipulation that this can only be used by providers who have achieved the subcontracting standard. This exemption can now be used by all providers for delivery from 1 August 2026.

Min wage withdrawals and ‘substantial’ job link

Elsewhere in version one of the 2026-27 funding rules is an update that if a provider is made aware that a learner is not being paid in line with the national minimum wage regulations, the learner must be withdrawn from the programme.

A clarification has also been added to state that the outcome of an apprentice’s initial assessment must show a “clear and substantial” link between the job role and the apprenticeship, with the apprenticeship “leading to full occupational competence for that role”.

The draft rules said the provider must agree with the employer “that the individual’s job role has a productive purpose and there is a direct link between the selected apprenticeship standard and the individual’s job role”.

This paragraph has now been strengthened to say the provider must agree with the employer “that the individual’s job role has a productive purpose and there is a clear and substantial link between the selected apprenticeship standard and the individual’s primary day‐to‐day occupational duties and purpose, such that the apprenticeship will lead to full occupational competence relevant to that role”.