SEND reforms are another burden that could make teachers boil over

On reading the proposed SEND reforms, I couldn’t help but think yet again of the frog in boiling water analogy – you slowly turn up the heat and the frog doesn’t realise it’s being cooked.

The reforms are symptomatic of the way more responsibility and accountability have been heaped on the education system.

Although you’d be hard pressed to find someone who believes the current system works well, you’ll also find lots of people nervous to see what may come next – especially parents.

What we have now isn’t sustainable. The growth in education health and care plans (EHCPs) and support costs have pushed things (including council budgets) to breaking point.

We must approach the reforms with an open and positive mind. But it’s hard not to think they are about saving money and displacing responsibility and accountability onto our education system.

A legal duty on schools and colleges to produce new individual support plans (ISPs) for SEND learners will create lots of work, and become yet another thing for regulators to scrutinise for compliance and quality.

Consider the workload created in recent years through the increase in exam access arrangements. How far will the new £1.6 billion of funding to support inclusion go when the education sector – not least colleges – is already creaking?

Current thinking seems to be that these reforms represent bigger implications for schools than colleges.

An intended consequence is that by having less EHCPs, more children will remain in mainstream school settings and receive support through targeted or targeted plus tiers

Conversely in colleges, learners with EHCPs accessing “mainstream” provision are already the norm rather than the exception.

There is a wonderful phrase in the newly published consultation which states “we will build an education system where inclusion and high standards are two sides of the same coin.” Many FE colleges are already very close to achieving that aspiration, if not already there.

However, colleges are inclusive partly because of the lack of alternatives in post-16 settings. For many in specialist provision pre-16, transitioning to a general FE college after key stage 4 is the right thing. Equally, for many it is not, but the paucity of provision means it’s the only solution.

A key element of these reforms will be on transition, but that must not lose sight of a focus on the right setting for each individual.

Along with the aspiration to keep more students in mainstream settings is the intention to make every teacher a teacher of SEND, supported through £200 million of CPD investment over three years.

Again, it’s a great sentiment and something we’d already started to push at TSCG.

However, we need caution. In recent years we’ve asked more and more of FE teachers – embed maths and English, act as counsellors, become digital experts, turn your learners into oven-ready employees etc. Let’s not underestimate the task of becoming a teacher of SEND, given everything else that’s asked of them.

Which brings me back to the frog in the pan. Often, FE colleges are the default organisations to take ownership of complex safeguarding matters (reduction in social services); we continue to be at the brunt of the mental health crisis (pressure on health services); we have the statutory duty to meet local skills needs (but other parts of the education system do not).

The intended strength of EHCPs was the multi-agency approach (care and health along with education) with the local authority at the centre as the convener and statutory body. It hasn’t worked.

I genuinely believe the government is committed to getting the very best for every child and young person. Yet, by pushing much of the responsibility and accountability onto the education system, yet again we’re picking up the tab for failings elsewhere.

I’ll say it in plain English…cutting ESOL damages us all

Greater Lincolnshire’s decision to defund its ESOL provision, with limited exceptions for just two groups (Ukrainians and Hong Kongers), is shortsighted.

English for Speakers of Other Languages can be a lifeline for many, and is important for both community cohesion and skills development, so this decision risks weakening both.

The move stands in sharp contrast to the practice of other countries such as France and Denmark, where learning the language is expected, facilitated and subsidised for new residents.

Making it expensive and difficult to access serves no one, especially in England, where adult skills and ESOL provision have been underfunded for many years.

Upskilling UK citizens

Recent Home Office data shows that the number of people claiming asylum in the UK fell 4 per cent in 2025. However, a significant number of those needing English for integration or work are not asylum seekers but people who have been in the UK for many years.

According to the most recent census, of the one million adults in the UK who report not speaking English well or at all, over one-third are UK citizens.

While the government’s Immigration White Paper contains the promise to make the acquisition of English language easier for people already in the UK who don’t speak English well or at all, there are no proposals forthcoming from officials about this.

Within Lincolnshire itself, Boston and South Holland are two of the areas with the highest number of people with limited or no English proficiency in the whole country.

Implications for other regions

Will we see progressive policies elsewhere, or ESOL being defunded in other areas?

Ultimately, adults who have high English proficiency are three times more likely to be employed – so prioritising ESOL offers a good local investment, leading to better social cohesion and integration. 

People who speak English well have a 78 per cent employment rate (almost the same as first-language English speakers) while those with low proficiency have a 35 per cent employment rate. 

As recommended by the government, the dropping of the three-year waiting period to access adult courses has been helpful for other regions, enabling “people to become work ready” as one authority put it.

So, Greater Lincolnshire’s plans to reintroduce the three-year rule to access provision will simply delay learners’ ability to integrate, get a job and start contributing to the economy.

Although many people come to the UK with high-level professional skills, they often end up in lower-skilled roles, for example building work, driving taxis or cleaning.

If regions can develop and fund specialist language learning which is integrated into skills provision, learners with a high skills level can contribute more rapidly to the economy.

While we have already seen the beginnings of interesting practice in this area, we need to see more of it. 

Literacy vs language

For those needing English language for daily life, Greater Lincolnshire’s proposed one “literacy qualification for all” is unlikely to be able to address their language learning needs. 

Literacy and language learning are fundamentally different. The literacy curriculum has been designed to address the learning needs of first-language English students but does not address the distinct language learning needs of those who speak languages other than English.

Suggesting that learners acquire English language only through online, private or voluntary provision is unrealistic. Private provision is expensive, voluntary provision is limited, and online provision won’t suit everyone and is of variable quality.  

The government needs to realise its promise to facilitate the integration of those already here in the UK with limited English, and integrate ESOL into skills provision to address labour market needs.

It needs to consider how to do this in the context of devolution and whether certain minimum entitlements should be met when devolving funds.

We were pleased to see skills minister Jacqui Smith indicating this week that she wants to look at how to ensure ESOL provision is “available everywhere”.

If we can get English language teaching right, there can be substantial benefits for society as a whole.  

David Bell to lead independent review on antisemitism in colleges

Former Ofsted and Department for Education boss David Bell will lead an independent review into how colleges identify, respond to and prevent antisemitism, government has announced.

Bell will examine how well colleges are supported to handle incidents of antisemitism, including through their own policies and relevant government guidance.

He will look at processes for when incidents are “not handled well” and the role external campaigning organisations have in “influencing institutional decision making,” the DfE said.

External factors that can “contribute to antisemitism within education settings”, such as protests outside college gates and wider geopolitical events, will also be explored.

A call for evidence will open in the spring, with Bell’s recommendations following in the autumn. It will cover all education settings including colleges, schools, and universities.

Bell is vice chair of Skills England and vice-chancellor at the University of Sunderland.

He was DfE permanent secretary between 2006 and 2011 and chief inspector of schools between 2002 and 2005.

‘Open and independent mind’

Bell said he will have “an open and independent mind”, adding: “I will review both policy and practice to ensure that everyone can learn free from prejudice and hate.

“I am also keen to know more about those institutions who are tacking antisemitism effectively so that lessons can be shared widely across the education system.”

He said antisemitism is “a scourge and no child or young person or teacher should be subject to it, not least when attending school or college”.

This review forms part of the government’s wider commitment to strengthening social cohesion.

Data from The Community Security Trust recorded 204 school related antisemitic incidents in 2025. This was lower than 266 in 2024 and 325 in 2023, but above the 98 incidents in 2022.

A NASUWT teachers’ union survey last year found 51 per cent of surveyed Jewish teachers had experienced antisemitism in the workplace.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “As Jewish families across Britain celebrated Purim this week, a festival that speaks to the power of courage over hatred, I am reminded of the cost of staying silent in the face of prejudice.

“This review will help to ensure schools and colleges have the confidence and support to tackle antisemitism.”

The DfE said the review will not look to blame, or place undue burdens on colleges or schools. But it will identify areas for improvement.

It will not make recommendations directly related to core college funding or workplace supply issues.

The DfE is also carrying out an internal review of the decisions and recommendations framework of the Teaching Regulation Agency.

It followed a decision to not ban Ronan Preston from teaching. He had posted on social media “glory to Hamas” and called them “defenders of humanity”.

Year in construction is teaching me how we can build up women

I finished medical school and realised I couldn’t go straight into work. I was 24, burnt out and I needed to feel well again.

Burnout is widely discussed in medicine. National training data shows that a significant proportion of trainees are at high risk of burnout and find their work emotionally exhausting, so my experience isn’t rare.

That’s the bit people often miss when they hear I’m now on an adult construction course at Bradford College. They reach for a neat story about switching careers or rejecting medicine.

That isn’t what happened. I stepped sideways for a while, because I needed something physical and grounding.

This is my ‘year out’, a construction skills course. I could’ve gone travelling but I needed to reconnect with my community and do something fulfilling.

At the end of a session, I can look at what I’ve done and know whether it’s good work or not. It’s been unexpectedly steadying.

When people talk about construction, they often talk about it as if it’s rough or basic. That hasn’t been my experience. The work is precise and physical at the same time.

Watching a hip replacement being done properly is like that too. It’s careful, methodical work. Someone is rebuilding part of a body.

On this building course, you’re measuring, fixing and working with materials, and if you get it wrong, it shows. There’s craft in it.

For me, these are skills for life. You stop thinking you can’t touch anything without breaking it, you trust yourself a bit more.

I’m the only woman on my course, and people have been respectful and supportive. But I’ve become more aware of how language shapes whether women feel they belong.

I remember being told that I’d be ‘the only girl on the course’. It wasn’t meant badly; it was meant as useful information. But, if I’d been younger, or less confident, I might have heard that and thought, ‘this course isn’t for me’.

Women are still underrepresented in construction, particularly in manual trades. They make up around 15 per cent of the workforce, and far fewer work in site-based roles.

These figures are often used to explain why things are difficult, and less often used to look at how everyday interactions either invite women in, or quietly signal that we’re out of place.

Further education sits right at that point of contact.

Belonging is built through small, ordinary signals. At Bradford College, there are basic practicalities that make a difference. You’re treated as a learner, not as a novelty. You’re not asked to perform gratitude for being allowed into the room.

Even at the construction centre, things like having sanitary products available in the toilets tell you that someone has thought about whether women will be here and decided that we should be.

I’m working class, and that shapes how I experience education. On this course, I haven’t felt like I have to perform or explain myself. It’s hard to learn new things if you’re wasting precious energy trying to fit in.

Since starting this course I’ve had so many women say, ‘I wish I could’ve done that when I was younger’. My mum has looked for similar courses. A friend’s mum has too.

There’s appetite here for practical skills among women of all ages, not just for work, but for independence and confidence in everyday life.

On International Women’s Day (on Sunday), there’s often a focus on exceptional stories. I don’t think my story is exceptional. I think it’s instructive.

If we are serious about routes into male-dominated trades for women, the work isn’t only about recruitment campaigns or telling us to be brave. It’s about designing learning environments that assume women belong, rather than treating us as anomalies who need special handling.

This construction course has been my year out, and it’s helped me to become well again. The college didn’t just give me skills. It gave me a place where I could learn without being reduced to what I’d done before.

Teacher training reform is being built with genuine collaboration

Amongst the noise that accompanies reform in the FE and skills sector, one truth consistently cuts through: meaningful change only happens when the sector is not just consulted, but genuinely listened to.

The government last October set out its pledge to address what it described as “unacceptably poor quality’ training in FE initial teacher education and eradicate “contested or outdated theories” being taught to trainee lecturers, by introducing new statutory guidance. 

As FE’s ITE reforms continue to take shape, it’s important to recognise that the most valuable aspects of the delivery guidance and emerging curriculum content guidance (currently published in draft form and subject to parliamentary approval) have not come from policy rooms or distant strategy papers. They have been informed by the expertise, critique and lived realities of those working within FE and skills and FE ITE.

What has set this reform process apart is the depth and breadth of collaboration underpinning it. Rather than redesigning ITE in isolation, the Department for Education has drawn extensively on sector knowledge.

The public consultation attracted thoughtful and challenging responses that sharpened the proposals and ensured they reflected the complexity of FE and skills teaching.

A range of stakeholders offered insights that pushed discussions beyond abstract principles and into the practical territory of what works in classrooms, workshops, and more specialist learning settings.

A key pillar of this collaborative approach has been the expert advisory group I was privileged to be a part of.

Members of the group brought with them the nuance that only comes from years of navigating the unique pedagogical and organisational landscape of the FE and skills sector.

The group acted as a critical friend, interrogating assumptions, highlighting unintended consequences and helping shape guidance that aspires to raise standards without increasing burdens.

Their work helped keep the reforms anchored in reality and was framed around core pillars that align to occupational standards. But collaboration did not stop there.

Engagement with professional bodies, such as the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers and the FE ITE Special Interest Group, was invaluable in surfacing diverse perspectives.

Here, stakeholders had the opportunity to explore the implications of reform through the lens of their specific contexts and give honest feedback to support refinements.

The sector’s ongoing dialogue has also been enriched by the Education Training Foundation. I am consulting editor for its membership journal inTuition, which its 22,000 members access.

Regular policy updates from DfE officials have become essential reading for many of us. These have been clear, timely and unafraid to articulate the tensions, as well as the opportunities for the reforms.

Importantly, inTuition provides a platform for the sector to respond, challenge and build on ideas.

Various ‘responding to’ pieces have extended the debate, demonstrating that policy development is at its best when it becomes a conversation rather than a monologue.

This public, iterative engagement has helped the reforms evolve more transparently while strengthening collective ownership.

Together, these strands of collaboration have helped shape curriculum guidance that adds genuine value.

The guidance, built around five core pillars, emphasise not only what FE and skills teachers should learn or recognise, but also what they should learn how to do.

These foundations matter for high-quality, inclusive education. They foreground professional behaviours, evidence-informed teaching, subject expertise, learners’ progression and, where relevant, technical and vocational integration.

These priorities resonate because they have emerged through shared thinking with the sector and have not simply been imposed upon it.

The FE and skills sector has shown, once again, that when practitioners, policymakers and professional bodies come together with honesty and commitment, reform can be something done with us rather than to us.

As we move into the next phase of implementation, it’s essential we hold onto that spirit of collaboration. It is the best guarantee that the reforms will fulfil their promise: strengthening FE ITE in ways that genuinely enhance teaching, learning, and life chances across our sector.

As we enter age of agentic AI everyone becomes a manager 

As generative AI evolves into agentic AI, the skills we need to focus on are changing. If the last few years have been dominated by prompting and evaluating outputs, the next phase is likely to be dominated by goal setting and delegation.  

Before we go on, let’s start by unpicking what I actually mean by agentic AI. 

I’m talking about AI tools that work towards a goal without the user giving them the exact steps to get there. To do that, these tools may have access to your files, a web browser and even other agents.

If generative AI is largely about producing content, then agentic AI is about actions.  

This doesn’t make the things we currently focus on with AI literacy less important. We still need a broad understanding of how these systems work, and of ethical and legal concerns.

To this we can add a new set of skills: the ability to clearly set goals and define outcomes, delegate effectively and remain accountable for work we did not do ourselves.  

Goal setting in an agentic world  

Let’s start by looking at goal setting. Agentic AI shifts the emphasis from specifying how a task should be done to being clear about the outcome you want to achieve.   

Are we good at this? I’d argue, often not.   

For every great example, there are thousands of weaker ones. Goals that are so vague they are closer to aspirations than outcomes.

 “Our goal is to transform lives” is well intentioned, maybe, but unclear about what success would look like, for whom, and over what timeframe.  

An AI agent is likely to take a goal at face value. It might ask for clarification if it has been developed to do so, but it may equally just work towards the goal.   

So to make the most of agentic AI, we need to get much better at this, much earlier in our careers. We need to build it into our curriculum.  

Delegation as a lived skill  

The second skill is delegation, and this is one that really hit home. Whilst delegation might be normal for senior staff, it can be quite unrelatable to many of us, especially those just starting out in their careers. 

There is, of course, always a risk of anthropomorphising AI and drawing too close a parallel between delegating to people and delegating to code.

But it is still worth reflecting on what good delegation involves and how it relates to AI.  

It means making deliberate choices about what not to delegate, being clear about constraints and authority, and knowing how to monitor progress without micromanaging.

It also means recognising when things are drifting off course and being willing to step in when needed. Above all, it means understanding that accountability remains even when tasks are delegated.  

So how do we normally learn to delegate? As with goal setting, it is usually from a mix of experience and development over time.  

Implications for curriculum and assessment  

For both skills, if AI has even half the impact on entry-level jobs that is often predicted, learning by observing more experienced colleagues will not be enough.

We cannot assume that students will ‘pick up’ delegation once they become managers, because in an agentic world, they are managers of systems from day one.  

By the time people encounter these expectations in the workplace, it may already be too late.

Alongside critical thinking and digital literacy, goal setting and delegation need to be explicitly woven into our curriculum and assessment frameworks.

If we want our learners to lead in the age of AI, we must teach them not just how to use the tools, but how to take responsibility for the outcomes they produce.  

If prompting was the skill of the generative AI era, delegation and accountability will be the defining skills of the agentic era. 

FE needs senior women to share their real stories

Joanna Stokes:

I regularly work with capable, ambitious women who tell me, “I want to step up into senior leadership, but I’m terrified of what I’ll have to give up.”

These are women who have led successful teams, who look at senior leadership and think, “I could do that.”

What holds them back is rarely capability. Instead, it’s the stories they’ve absorbed about what leadership demands. Stories about not being ready, not being the right kind of leader or needing to choose between professional ambition and caring responsibilities. These narratives shape decisions before a role is advertised.

One client, a head of department with over 20 years experience in FE, feared senior leadership would make her “hard, cold, corporate.” She rarely heard senior women talk about getting home for their children. She saw evening events, long hours and little space for real life.

In Rebecca’s research on senior leaders in FE, women downplayed their family commitments while male leaders more freely shared how fatherhood shaped them. When women don’t hear the full story, they draw their own conclusions. To lead, you hide who you are.

Beneath these narratives sit deeper worries. ‘What happens if there’s a family emergency during a board meeting? Who will cover the care?’ ‘What will break if I stretch myself further?’

These concerns aren’t always about children. Many relate to ageing parents, siblings needing support, or being the emotional anchor in a family. The mental load is heavy, and the cost of ambition can feel too high.

One client described it as “the emotional burden I carry.” Even with a supportive partner, she held the mental load. 

DfE workforce figures show that women make up 65.5 per cent of the FE workforce, yet representation drops to 62 per cent at manager level and 54 per cent at senior leadership level. This 8-point drop between managers and senior leaders tells its own story. Women are capable, yet the pipeline narrows at the point where influence increases.  It isn’t a glass ceiling. It’s an invisible exit.

Dr Rebecca Gater:

International Women’s Day 2026 invites us to reflect on this issue through its theme ‘Give to Gain’. In FE, this theme lands with force. Women already give extraordinary amounts of time, emotional labour, and logistical expertise. Yet there is one thing many women do not give, even though it would make the biggest difference to others. Their stories.

The honest ones. The ones about navigating ambition and caring responsibilities, facing guilt, setting boundaries, and negotiating flexibility. When senior women talk openly about the realities of their lives, they give something powerful. Permission to be ambitious without guilt. To lead without losing themselves, and to believe that senior leadership can support family life, not conflict with it.

Women do not need another leadership programme. They need role models who talk openly about sports days, parents’ evenings, caring for relatives and the boundaries that help them thrive. Authenticity is not a liability. It’s a strength.

When women share their real stories, not the polished versions but the human ones, we don’t just support individuals. We strengthen the entire sector.

Leadership rarely begins at work.  It begins in the everyday. Women develop significant transferable strengths through caring for children or elderly parents, coordinating households, supporting others emotionally and navigating difficult life events that require resilience and diplomacy.

In my case raising four daughters meant learning to manage logistics and negotiate competing needs, skills that shape her leadership every day. Every woman has her own version of this story. 

These strengths are leadership assets. Mentorship sits at the heart of “give to gain.” Women in leadership have a responsibility to support others through guidance, sponsorship and generosity of experience.  Women rising through the sector have a role too, which is simply to ask. Most leaders will feel honoured to be approached. 

Our joint call to action

FE cannot afford outdated narratives about who leads and how. We need to:

  • Share our lived experiences openly
  • Mentor generously
  • Champion authenticity as a leadership strength

Who could you support, encourage, or mentor this week, simply by sharing a little more of your story?

Apprenticeships and Training Awards winners 2026 revealed

A specialist data and AI education company has been named training provider of the year at the 2026 Apprenticeships and Training Awards.

Cambridge Spark were named winners of the accolade at a glitzy awards ceremony in Liverpool last night hosted by comedian Sara Pascoe.

They are among 19 winners of this year’s awards, run jointly between FE Week and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and delivered in association with City & Guilds.

Over 650 nominations were assessed by an independent panel of judges, who set out to find the country’s most innovative and effective training, projects, providers and employers.

The awards recognised SME and large employers, outstanding apprenticeship programmes, best use of technology and employer support for social mobility.

Alongside Cambridge Spark, CSR Scientific was named specialist training provider of the year and Myerscough College took home the prize for outstanding apprenticeship programme.

Shane Mann, chair of ATA judging panel and chief executive of FE Week’s publisher EducationScape, said: “These awards celebrate the very best in apprenticeships, training and workforce development. We had a record-breaking number of entries and every year the sector raises the bar in quality, ambition and innovation.

“Congratulations to all the winners and thank you to our team of amazing judges, sponsors and partners. We couldn’t have done it without them.”

Several big name employers were named best-in-class in their categories.

Muller UK and Ireland were named large employer of the year and a partnership between McDonalds and Lifetime Training won best partnership in training.

Meanwhile, pub chain Greene King took home two awards: innovation in training delivery and employer support for social mobility.

This year’s apprenticeship provider of the year was Bradford College and Kaplan won the award for excellence in learner support.

The winners were announced at the annual apprenticeships and training conference (ATC) gala dinner this evening at Exhibition Centre Liverpool.

It follows a parliamentary reception earlier last month, during National Apprenticeships Week, where all finalists were honoured at a reception in the House of Lords, hosted by former education secretary Baroness Nicky Morgan.

The winners in full are listed below:

ATC 2026: DWP apprenticeships chief talks streamlining, units and assessment

Kate Ridley-Pepper, the Department for Work and Pensions’ director of work based skills, offered updates on key areas of apprenticeships reform on day two of FE Week’s Apprenticeships and Training Conference.

Here are the takeaways.

First apprenticeship units confirmed for AI, digital and engineering 

Ridley-Pepper repeated the government’s ambition is to pivot the apprenticeships system towards young people but pressed that employers and older learners will be supported with “more flexible training that they’ve long called for as part of our growth and skills offer”.

She confirmed, as reported by FE Week last month, that the first wave of short courses called apprenticeship units will be in priority areas such as AI, digital and engineering. 

They will be “available from next month”. There is still no detail on exactly how many units will be initially offered, including their funding, content, assessment and duration.

Ridley-Pepper said further details “will be announced shortly”.

She added that the government will expand apprenticeship units over the coming months and years, taking advice from Skills England on where the skill gaps are and which units would be best placed to address them. 

‘Substantial’ streamlining

The DWP senior civil servant told ATC delegates that the government needs to “prioritise” how the apprenticeships budget is spent amid the “flexibility” being introduced through new short courses.

This is to ensure the budget is “sustainable, delivers value for money and benefits those who need it most”.

Ridley-Pepper reminded the sector that the apprenticeships budget is “finite” – it went overspent for the first time last year.

She took aim at “widespread misconceptions that we return significant unspent apprenticeship budget”, adding that government wants to simplify the system and “address this illusion” of excess funding.

Ministers are currently deciding how to streamline the apprenticeship system, which has grown to more than 700 standards, to ensure that it “aligns with government priorities and focuses particularly on the areas of genuine market training, rather than subsidising more general learning and development activity”.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith confirmed to FE Week last month that leadership and management apprenticeships are in the mix for defunding.

Management apprenticeships on the chopping block, minister confirms

Ridley-Pepper confirmed today that the streamlining effort will be “more substantial” than a housekeeping exercise of clearing out apprenticeships with low or no starts.

She committed to being “as open and as transparent as possible”.

The DWP director was challenged by Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, for more transparency around the government’s internal thought process – including why streamlining is being done by standard instead of age, salary, or employer co-funding.

Ridley-Pepper replied: “We absolutely have looked at all of those things, and as I say, we have really mixed views back from all sorts of people.

“There’s quite a lot of standards that are primarily taken – maybe 75 per cent or above – by people over 25. So if we were to do age-related streamlining those standards would probably become undeliverable for most providers.

“In terms of co-funding, most employers say they already pay into the levy so they would not tolerate paying again for something they have already paid for. There is a huge range of different views. The challenge is we are trying to trade off what is the right solution for business, for young people, but also for the economy.”

She told delegates that she recognises the sector needs final answers, and committed to publishing details about streamlining and apprenticeship units at the same time to ensure there is “clarity about the future offer”.

Assessment changes won’t reduce competency

Ridley-Pepper also used her speech to address concerns about apprenticeship assessment reform, which includes doing away with end-point assessment, introducing sampling of non-mandatory knowledge and skills, and making mandatory qualifications the sole method of assessment in some apprenticeships.

Independent assessment of behaviours is also being removed, leaving employers to verify them internally.

The DWP director said: “Quality and rigor define apprenticeships and that is not being reduced. Occupational competence remains the foundation of every apprenticeship, and that isn’t changing.

“Apprentices will continue to be required to demonstrate full occupational competence across all key knowledge and skills and behaviours. These reforms are about removing unnecessary complexity and duplication rather than removing rigor.”