Latest news from FE Week

VTQ and T Level results 2026: 8 key trends

T Level and other vocational and technical qualification (VTQ) results are out today – here’s your FE Week rundown of key findings…

VTQ high achievers grow again

Ofqual data shows that of the 221,000 VTQ results issued in England, about 88 per cent were applied general qualifications such as BTECs, and the rest were tech levels.

The data, covering March to August, remains provisional and will be updated to show the whole of the academic year in the autumn.

The wide range of qualification types and grading systems limit VTQ results data, but it shows business, administration and law remains the most popular subject for the fourth year in a row.

The most common VTQ grade format was P, M, D, D*, with 114,795 grades issued. This year, 13 per cent of those results were D*, the highest grade available.

This percentage has gradually increased from 10.8 per cent in 2024 but is lower than the 15.6 per cent awarded in 2022.

There was significant growth in health, public services and care, and digital technology since last year, with D* grades rising 4.5 percentage points to 16.9 per cent and 4.8 percentage points to 17.2 per cent respectively.

T Level results grow 65 per cent

The number of students receiving T Level results shot up from 11,909 in 2025 to 19,665 in 2026 – a 65 per cent rise.

This was, however, to be expected as the technical qualifications have been on a steady rollout since 2020, with more subjects coming on board each year.

Results were announced in 21 separate pathways today, three for the first time – animal care and management; craft and design; and media, broadcast and production.

Education and early years was the most popular with 3,780 results, a 51 per cent increase from last year.

The other most popular were health, management and administration, and digital production, design and development.

There was a 61 per cent increase in health to 2,967 results, management and administration rose 40 per cent to 1,857 and design, surveying and planning grew 53.4 per cent to 1,027.

Two of the new T Levels – media, broadcast and production and animal care and management – had sizeable cohorts of 1,059 and 448 respectively. Craft and design had only 67 results in its first year.

Uptick in top grades (but don’t overinterpret it)

The proportion of distinction and distinction* T Level grades rose to 18.1 per cent, up from 15.7 per cent last year and 15.9 per cent in 2024.

This year’s overall pass rate was 92.6 per cent.

Ofqual chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham told FE Week the rise in top grades indicated that teachers were “now more familiar with the course and are teaching it more fluently and confidently” and that students with “stronger starting points are trusting T Levels and opting for them and doing well at them”.

However, he urged for caution when comparing grades to previous years as T Levels were still in an early rollout period with relatively small numbers taking them and new pathways coming on board.

By comparison, 906,000 students received A Level results today.

Positive pathway progression

T Level pathways with the highest pass results were craft and design, health, education and early years, management and administration, and design, surveying and planning, which each had rates of more than 95 per cent.

Most of these had large cohorts of between 3,780 and 1,588.

Pathways with cohorts of more than 500 that had the highest distinction and distinction* rates included education and early years at 33 per cent, accounting at 27 per cent, and animal care and management at 23 per cent.

Only six of the 21 pathways received any distinction* grades, with 62 of the 74 highest grades coming from education and early years. Last year, only 21 distinction* grades were awarded from a cohort of 11,981.

Onsite construction, which is being phased out and had only 213 results this year, had the lowest pass rate of 75 per cent.

Other T Levels with lower pass rates included design and development for engineering and manufacturing, at 81 per cent of 1,649 students. This was the same as last year.

Building services engineering also had an 81 per cent of 830 students, a slight decline on its 84 per cent pass rate last year.

Largest T Level growth in the north east

T Level results grew by at least 49 per cent in every region in England, with the north east and east of England seeing the largest increases of 89 per cent and 78 per cent.

The north west and south east, which both had the largest cohorts, had the lowest growth rates of 49 per cent and 53 per cent.

The east Midlands had the smallest cohort but saw a 69 per cent growth in results, up to 1,249.

Gender balance challenge

T Levels have an equal gender balance overall, with 9,699 females and 9,878 males picking up a result today.

But there are big differences subject to subject.

Similar to last year, the 2026 data shows education and early years and health pathways had the highest proportion of female results, at 96 and 91 per cent. These two pathways accounted for 65 per cent of all female T Level results.

Meanwhile, males made up 97.5 per cent of the building services engineering pathway, 94.4 per cent of the onsite construction pathway and 92.2 per cent of digital support services.

Bauckham said these imbalances should be addressed.

“What most people would want to aim for is in most professions a good, healthy gender balance, and I think where we see the gender balance tilting one way or the other markedly, we probably want to pause and say, ‘hang on a minute, is that quite right?’,” he told FE Week.

“There may be some professions where we don’t have that as an aspiration but overall I think we want men and women to be well represented in most professional areas.”

‘Disappointing’ placements results for hundreds

Today’s provisional data showed 552 students did not complete their industry placements, making up 2.8 per cent of the cohort, a 0.7 percentage point increase since last year.

Of this total, 374 students passed the other two required elements of the T Level qualification, the core and occupational specialism.

Bauckham said the industry placement failures were “disappointing and life altering” for affected students.

The education sector needed to “dig into” the problem and address it “wherever possible”.

The DfE’s data shows pathways with larger cohorts that had the highest non-completion rates for industry placements were digital support services, building services engineering, and design and development for engineering and manufacturing – all at about 5 per cent.

Pathways with the highest completion percentages included education and early years, health, and management and administration, all at less than 2 per cent.

Retention rate improves

Figures show that 25,508 started a T Level in 2024-25; 19,665 students received results today, which suggests 77 per cent were retained and assessed.

Last year’s retention rate was 73 per cent, while the year before was 71 per cent, and 66 per cent the year before that.

In comparison, in 2023-24 16-year-olds taking large VTQs had a retention rate of 80 per cent, while the rate was 90 per cent for those taking three A Levels.

A Level results 2026: 6 key trends in this year’s data

A Level results are out this morning – here’s your handy FE Week round up of the key trends.

All findings are for students in England, unless stated. Here’s what we know…

1. Top grades rise again

The proportion of A and A* grades awarded this year has increased slightly, from 28.2 per cent in 2025 to 28.3 per cent this year. This represents a rise of 0.35 per cent.

This figure stood at 25.2 per cent in 2019, before the Covid-19 pandemic. This means the gap between top grades pre- and post-covid has expanded again.

The proportion of results at grade C and above also rose by 0.51 per cent since last year, up to 78.1 per cent.

Last year the figure was 77.7 per cent, and in pre-pandemic 2019 this was 75.5 per cent.

**2. Increase in A* grades**

The proportion of A* grades achieved by A Level students in England has risen by 2.1 per cent in a year. The overall figure stands at 9.6 per cent, up from 9.4 per cent last year.

This is still far down from the figures seen during the pandemic, which peaked at 19.1 per cent in 2021.

In 2019 the proportion of A* grades stood at 7.7 per cent.

3. Regional attainment gap widens again

The gap between the highest and lowest-performing regions has widened again this year.

At A and above, there is now a 9.6 percentage point gap, compared to 7.3 per cent in pre-pandemic 2019.

This year, the north east and East Midlands ranked lowest. The proportion of top A Level grades in both regions was 23.1 per cent.

This compares to 32.7 per cent in London and 31.5 per cent in the south east. Both of these areas also saw the largest rises of 0.6 and 0.3 percentage points respectively.

Yorkshire and the Humber also saw a 0.3 percentage point rise, to 25.6 per cent.

4. Gap between boys and girls’ attainment widens

Boys overtook girls in the proportion of top grades (A and above) last year, for the first time since 2019.

The trend continued this year, with 28.9 per cent of grades issued to boys at A and above, compared to 27.9 per cent for girls.

This means the gap between boys’ and girls’ attainment has widened, from 0.4 percentage points last year to 1 this year.

A* grades made up 10.1 per cent of those issued to boys, compared to 9.1 per cent for girls.

5. Spike in economics entries

Economics is now one of the five most popular A Level subjects, with 43,121 entries. It jumped from tenth most popular in 2025 to fifth this year.

Ofqual’s data for England shows around 70 per cent of entries were from boys.

While economics has seen a large jump in entries, the rest of the top five remains the same. Maths again had the highest number of entries this year, at 95,044, followed by psychology (95,044), biology (60,978) and chemistry (53,605).

Economics replaces business studies, which saw a rise in uptake last year, and is now the seventh most popular subject, at 40,485 entries.

Politics and law have also become more popular, with rises of 11.9 and 10.5 per cent respectively.

English Literature saw the largest drop in entries, with 11 per cent fewer than last year.

6. Private and grammar schools top the tables

Ofqual data breaking results down by school type show that as usual, students in private and grammar schools outperform those in other settings.

Almost 49 per cent of grades issued to private school students were an A or above, compared to around 43 per cent for grammar schools.

FE colleges achieved the lowest proportion of top grades with 13 per cent of A or above grades issued to college learners.

The proportion of top grades was 27 per cent at free schools, 25.6 per cent for sixth form colleges, 23.5 per cent for academies, 23 per cent for council-maintained schools and 22 per cent for secondary moderns.

General FE colleges have ranked bottom for A Level achievement since 2019, according to Ofqual centre data from 2019 onwards.

A Level results 2026: 2.1% rise in A* grades

The proportion of A* grades achieved by A Level students in England has risen by 2.1 per cent in a year, with regional and gender gaps widening.

This year 9.6 per cent of grades were A*, up from 9.4 per cent in 2025, data published by the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) shows.

Overall, the proportion of top grades also rose. This year 28.3 per cent of grades were an A or A*, up from 28.2 per cent last year.

These figures have been climbing since 2023, when grading was adjusted to bring results nearer to pre-pandemic norms.

Sir Ian Bauckham, the chief regulator at Ofqual, said the qualifications “open doors” for students because they were so widely recognised and trusted.

“A Levels are trusted because they are awarded to rigorous and consistent national standards. Universities, employers, and students can have confidence that an A Level grade represents what students know and can do.”

Read our handy round up of the key trends.

Gaps grow

A number of gaps have widened. The gender gap in top grades now favours boys, who outperformed girls last year for the first time since the pandemic.

However, girls make up 54 per cent of A Level entries, so the overall number of top grades issued to girls is still higher.

The gap between the best and worst-performing regions has also widened to 9.6 percentage points.

London continues to have the best results, with 32.7 per cent of grades at an A or above, up 0.6 percentage points.

The East Midlands now shares the bottom spot with the north east, following a 0.7 percentage point drop in top grades to 23.1 per cent. There was also a slight fall in top grades in the east of England and north west, bucking the national trend.

‘Significant disparities’

Pepe Di’Iasio, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, noted that while the year-on-year results were largely consistent, “this also means that very significant disparities continue to exist between the English regions in terms of top grades.

“These results are clearly affected by relative levels of socioeconomic disadvantage and reflect the structural inequalities that exist in our nation.

“Every year we say that we cannot go on like this and that as a society we must do more to support communities that often feel abandoned and neglected. When will we actually do that?”

He said the results were a “culmination of a great deal of hard work, and everybody involved deserves enormous credit for their commitment.

“It is important to remember that today is not only about celebrating A Levels, but that many thousands of young people take a range of equivalent qualifications in technical and vocational subjects that are vital both to their progression and to providing the skills base of the nation.”

Will we see an ‘Odyssey effect’?

As revealed earlier this year, there have been big rises in the number of entries to politics, law, economics and further maths. Entries dropped in English literature, drama and classical subjects.

Myles McGinley, the managing director of exam board Cambridge OCR, noted that economics was “surging in popularity”.

“The students getting their A Level results today were born around 2008: they are children of the financial crisis and many have been gripped by the more recent economic events that shape their world.”

Classics entries were down “but we expect that to change” following the release of Christopher Nolan’s film adaptation of Homer’s epic The Odyssey.

“We’re already hearing from teachers and students about ‘The Odyssey effect’. This year has shown the classics can be interesting to everyone.”

Drop in first-choice uni place success

Data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) shows that as of this morning, 78.3 per cent of England’s 18-year-olds have got a place at their first-choice university, down slightly from 81.5 per cent last year.

The proportion getting a place at one of their back-up choices rose from 11.6 to 13.6 per cent.

UCAS chief executive Jo Saxton, a former Ofqual chief regulator, said that today’s school leavers “were just starting secondary school when the pandemic interrupted their education.

“Given the significant disruption they faced at such a formative stage of their learning, it is wonderful to see so many young people getting a place at university or college. I’m delighted to see them backing themselves and choosing to invest in their education.”

This story has been updated. It previously incorrectly reported that the proportion of A* grades had risen by 3.2 per cent.

T Level results 2026: Top grades rise

The proportion of top T Level grades achieved by students has risen to 18.1 per cent this year – and the drop out rate is continuing to fall.

Of the 19,665 learners picking up results today for the two-year technical qualifications, 3,565 received distinction or distinction*.

This is a 2.4 percentage point rise on the previous year when 15.7 per cent – 1,872 of 11,909 total students – achieved the feat.

Starts data from the Department for Education shows that 25,508 young people started a T Level in 2024-25. As 19,665 students received T Level results today, it suggests 23 per cent left the course early.

The drop out rate sat at 27 per cent in 2025, 29 per cent in 2024 and 34 per cent in 2023.

The dropout rate for those who took three A Levels last year was 10 per cent, and for large vocational and technical qualifications the rate was 20 per cent.

Be wary of comparisons

In an Ofqual press briefing, Phil Le Feuvre, chief operating officer of T Level awarding body NCFE, said it was “really positive” to see students achieving the top grades as these are “challenging qualifications”.

However, he warned that caution should be taken when comparing previous results.

“There can be limited value in comparing directly year-on-year results because the number of subjects and students are increasing as those T Levels are rolled out,” he told FE Week.

“Variances in cohort sizes and in the subjects mean that those comparisons between years can be misleading.”

T Levels were introduced in 2020 as the government’s new “gold standard” qualifications that are meant to be the technical equivalent of A Levels.

A T Level has three parts – a core component involving an exam and employer set project, an occupational specialism where practical skills are tested and a minimum 315-hour, or 45-day, industry placement – and students must achieve all three to pass the overall qualification.

This is the fifth year T Levels have been awarded. Results data now covers 21 individual T Levels, three of which have been awarded for the first time – animal care and management; craft and design; and media, broadcast and production.

The number of students completing T Levels this summer increased by 65 per cent, from 11,909 in in 2025 to 19,665 in 2026, while the number of schools and colleges offering T Levels rose from 255 in 2025 to 307 in 2026 (a 20 per cent rise).

This year’s overall pass rate hit 92.6 per cent, up from 91.4 per cent reported on results day 2025. However, the Joint Council for Qualifications said the 2025 results have now been revised as part of “standard statistical updates” to include late completion of industry placements, and outcomes of remarking/moderation. The pass rate for this cohort is now 93.5 per cent.

The proportion of students achieving a pass this year was 23.7 per cent compared to 26.1 per cent last year, while merits were handed out to 50.8 per cent compared to 49.6 per cent.

Distinctions were received by 17.8 per cent of this year’s cohort compared to 15.6 per cent last year, and distinction* was handed out to 0.4 per cent this year compared to 0.2 per cent last year.

And 7.2 per cent of students received a “partial achievement” this year – which is where a learner attempts all elements of the T Level but does not achieve them all – down from 8.3 per cent in 2025.

The Joint Council for Qualifications only releases partial T Level data to journalists before 9.30am on results day, unlike A Levels which benefit from a full analysis.

The Department for Education will publish full T Level data later this morning, which includes breakdown by gender, region and other granular data including industry placement completions.

A VTQ ‘first’ for JCQ

Around a third of young people receiving results today would have completed other vocational and technical qualifications including BTECs and Cambridge Technicals.

Margaret Farragher, JCQ’s chief executive, said today marks a “milestone” as it is the first time the council has published data for 300,000 results from across 421 VTQs by JCQ’s awarding organisations alongside results for AS and A Levels.

It comes as the government prepares to replace VTQs with V Levels, which are being introduced from 2027.

Farragher said she hopes that by introducing VTQ results to its data release this year that it brings “better transparency of the full range of qualifications schools and colleges oﬀer to support students progress into work, apprenticeships or higher and further education”.

JCQ’s VTQ data covers the whole of the UK. The number of top grades was 28,390 out of 271,615, about 10.5 per cent of the total.

The most popular subject areas were business, administration and law, with 53,756 grades issued, followed by leisure, travel and tourism, which had 47,273 grades issued, the council said.

Ofqual chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham said VTQs are “equally important” to A Levels.

“They help students develop the knowledge and skills needed for apprenticeships, employment, and further study,” he added.

“When an employer or university sees these qualifications, they can be confident they demonstrate students’ genuine achievement.”

National employment support works better than postcode lotteries

The new prime minister’s ambition to bring employment support closer to local communities is understandable. Local authorities know their areas, understand local labour markets and often have strong relationships with employers and community organisations.

In theory, devolving greater control over employment support should create services that are more responsive to local needs. In practice, however, the evidence suggests the opposite. If the goal is to help more people into sustainable work, the government should resist further fragmentation and instead strengthen a nationally commissioned employment support system.

Recent experience provides a clear warning. The rollout of the Department for Work and Pensions’ Connect to Work programme has exposed significant variations in the speed and capability of local commissioning. Some authorities have moved quickly to establish procurement processes and delivery partnerships, while others have struggled to mobilise services. These differences are not driven by levels of unemployment or economic inactivity. They are driven by differences in institutional capacity. As a result, access to support risks becoming determined by where a person lives rather than the barriers they face.

This creates the danger of a postcode lottery in employment support. A jobseeker with a health condition in one area could receive high-quality, coordinated assistance, while someone with identical needs elsewhere encounters delays or limited provision. National programmes commissioned by DWP provide consistency, common standards and clear accountability. They help ensure that citizens receive a broadly comparable service regardless of geography. Fairness should be a fundamental principle of public policy, and that principle is weakened when support varies significantly between local areas.

There is also a practical question about whether local and (in devolved areas) strategic authorities are best placed to commission large-scale employment programmes. Local authorities perform a vital role and are already under immense pressure. They are responsible for social care, housing, public health, local infrastructure and a range of other essential services.

Employment support, particularly for people facing multiple barriers to work, requires specialist expertise in procurement, contract management, labour market engagement and performance monitoring. These are highly specialised functions that many councils have had limited opportunity to develop, especially after years of financial constraints and workforce reductions.

That is not a criticism of local government. It is an acknowledgement that employment support is a specialist discipline. The organisations that deliver successful employability programmes have often spent years building employer networks, developing intervention models and refining approaches based on evidence. Attempting to recreate this expertise within every local area risks duplication, inconsistency and wasted resources.

The challenge is greater in areas without elected mayors or established combined authorities, where governance structures are often less mature and depend on collaboration between multiple councils. Decision-making can be slower, accountability less clear and strategic leadership more diffuse. Devolving major employment support budgets into such environments risks creating additional complexity without improving outcomes for jobseekers.

This does not mean local authorities should be excluded from employment support. On the contrary, they have an essential role to play. Local leaders understand employer demand, economic priorities and community challenges. Their insights should help shape programme delivery. But influencing employment support is different from commissioning it. There is a strong case for a model where the DWP retains responsibility for programme design, contracting and performance management, while local stakeholders help tailor delivery to regional circumstances.

Such an approach offers the best of both worlds. National commissioning provides consistency, economies of scale and accountability for public spending. Local partners contribute intelligence, help coordinate services and ensure programmes reflect local realities. Instead of building multiple commissioning systems across the country, policymakers should focus on creating stronger mechanisms for local influence within a national framework.

Jobcentres already demonstrate how this balance can work. Through the flexible support fund, local managers can address specific barriers to employment, fund targeted interventions and respond to local labour market conditions. Although these budgets are relatively modest, they provide a degree of flexibility while maintaining national oversight. Expanding and refining such mechanisms would be a more sensible path than wholesale devolution.

The debate should not be framed as a choice between national control and local involvement. Effective employment support requires both. National government should set objectives, commission major programmes and ensure consistency. Local partners should shape delivery and integrate services around community needs.

The lesson from recent experience is clear: devolving responsibility does not automatically improve outcomes. What matters is capability, accountability and consistency.

If the government is serious about reducing economic inactivity and helping more people into sustainable employment, it should build on national strengths while harnessing local knowledge. A nationally commissioned system with targeted local flexibility is not only the most practical solution, it is also the fairest.

AI is our industrial revolution and FE must lead it

Some compare AI to the arrival of the internet, smartphones or cloud. I’m not convinced those comparisons go far enough. AI represents something bigger. In fact, I think we’re witnessing the biggest true revolution of the Information Age.

When we look back at the industrial revolution, we see a period where machines took on tasks that had previously relied on human labour. Industries evolved and workers had to develop new skills to remain relevant in a changing economy.

Importantly, society didn’t respond by pretending the machines didn’t exist. We taught people how to operate them.

Previous technological revolutions largely transformed physical labour or access to information. Even the digital revolution was primarily about giving people better access to information. Computers helped us process data faster, the internet helped find information more easily, and smartphones let us carry that around in our pockets.

Take the launch of the iPhone, which at the time felt revolutionary. Industries emerged around mobile applications, social media accelerated, and organisations had to rethink how they engaged with stakeholders.

But despite their impact, smartphones didn’t change the nature of work itself.

They changed where work happened, and how we communicated. They gave us constant access to information and services. Yet the tasks remained the same and decisions still had to be made solely by people.

That’s why I believe the comparison with the industrial revolution is more appropriate

than comparisons with smartphones or even the internet. Previous digital technologies helped us find and share information more effectively. For the first time, technology is not simply helping us access knowledge; it is helping us generate it. And it’s beginning to affect the very thing that office-based jobs are built upon.

The question is no longer whether today’s learners will use AI at work, but whether they’ll know how to use it critically, ethically and effectively.

When people hear the word “automation”, they often think about production lines and robotics. Yet AI is bringing automation to parts of the economy that have been considered safe. Admin, reporting, communications, planning, and countless other activities are already changing.

I don’t believe this means people become less important. The skills that make us human, like creativity, empathy, ethics, leadership and critical thinking will become more valuable. However, the way we apply those skills is likely to change.

People who succeed won’t be those who manually battle against AI. They’ll be the workers who know how to work effectively with it, understand its strengths, and use it to amplify their own capabilities.

That’s where further education comes in.

Further education has always adapted to meet the needs of employers by responding to new industries or changing skills requirements. AI presents perhaps the biggest of those challenges.

Across the sector there’s some excellent work taking place. Colleges are investing in AI tools, experimenting with new approaches, and developing guidance around responsible use. At City College Plymouth, we’ve introduced technologies including Google Gemini and Bodyswaps to enhance AI skills.

However, the pace of AI means further education could, and should, lead. If AI is going to become as commonplace in the workplace as spreadsheets and search engines, then understanding how to use it should become a core digital skill, regardless of the subject a learner studies.

Too much of the conversation around AI in education focuses on how we stop learners from using it. Academic integrity matters, and there are genuine concerns around misuse and bias. But if our primary response is restriction, we risk preparing learners for a workplace that no longer exists.

A more important question might be: if AI is going to become a tool in almost every profession, why wouldn’t we teach learners how to use it?

That means going far beyond showing someone how to write a prompt. Learners need to understand where AI adds value and where human judgement remains essential. They need to know how to verify information, recognise bias, protect sensitive data, understand ethical implications, and use these technologies responsibly.

During the industrial revolution, education evolved because the workplace evolved. AI demands the same response. If further education prepares learners to work confidently, critically and responsibly alongside AI, it won’t simply keep pace with technological change. It will help shape the workforce that emerges from it.

Why are we still scared of tattooed teachers?

I was shocked recently by a photograph I took with my two grown-up children. Let’s get in the natural daylight, I said. That will be good. They both looked great – they always do. But I looked washed-out, pale, wrinkled, anaemic, baggy-eyed and, quite frankly, very very old.

It was the end of the college year so I excused myself from responsibility for the mess I saw before me on the grounds of academic enervation. Still, I must admit I carry the marks of a lifetime in my face these days; crow’s feet, worry lines and forehead wrinkles marking me. I stand a marked man.

It interests me how we mark ourselves. I have no tattoos, but it intrigues me that so many people do. What aspect of my inner self or being would I ever want to translate to my outer surface skin to display to the world? A tea cup, perhaps, since I am sure I am actually 80 per cent tea.

I know some tattoos are frivolous and meaningless, simple silly fun, but others have a profound resonance for people, reminding the bearer of a significant time in their life, a moment they want to recall. Or something they’re afraid to forget.

A college I know recently circulated a draft staff code of conduct for consultation, with a clause about staff tattoos. ‘Where possible’, it said, they needed to be covered up while at work. ‘Where possible’ is a tricky phrase, as it’s always technically possible. You can cover even bold facial tattoos with the judicious application of a medical mask, sunglasses, earmuffs and a broad-brimmed hat. But it might make teaching tricky. Don’t ask how I know.

The clause was finally removed and objections dropped.

A long time ago, I worked with a colleague who had a full-body tattoo. She regularly displayed her inked body as a photographic model. Good to have a side hustle, I suppose. Her students discovered this and although attendance at her classes increased, so did distraction levels as photos found online became currency.

Tattoos are an increasingly common part of British life. Gone are the days when a tattoo told the world you were a salty old sea-dog home on shore leave, or a street-toughened thug with a rap sheet as long as your needle-inked arm. Beneath those demure business suits all across the land, a whole host of inks now nestle. In America, Australia and the UK, around a third of people now have a tattoo. They are considerably more common amongst women than men. This is clearly not the tattooing your grandmother warned you about.

So what does this mean for any dress codes in teaching? Are tattoos really to be subtly sidelined, tucked away in shame, covered over like something which should be forgiven, a bad example being set to the impressionable youngsters in our care? Of course, working in the 16-19 sector, many of our students have tattoos too. And their parents often do. Asking a teacher to cover theirs up seems anomalous. Tattoos are clearly not what they were. Unless they signify some extreme political position or adherence to the yakuza, what are we really covering them up for?

But there is sometimes still a stigma surrounding ink. Tattoos are for the arty, the hipster, or – still this is sometimes thought – someone with bad judgement or a regrettable past.

I do not have any tattoos and I never will. But I’ve worked with talented, committed, professional and able teachers who have enriched students’ lives and changed their futures for the good, all while sporting a full sleeve or having some other uncovered imagery on show. It has not scandalised, disturbed or distracted anyone.

We need teachers from a range of backgrounds. We need teachers with backstories on which to draw. That is FE’s strength. And that might mean the drawing is there on the surface to be seen. Because sometimes we allow what has marked us to show. And in that there can be a lesson.

So I am left wondering what is more offensive to a student: a tattooed rose on the forearm of an art teacher or my heavily wrinkled weary old face? Personally, I know which I find more disturbing.

Colleges need students, not comms teams, running their TikTok

Sit next to any young student deciding where to go next and watch what actually happens. They don’t open a prospectus; they open TikTok, type the college’s name into the search bar, and see what comes up. Call it a vibe check. What surfaces isn’t a prospectus tour; it’s whatever students have posted. That’s the open day now, weeks before anyone books an actual slot.

Meanwhile, the official account has no idea and keeps doing what it’s always done: the principal presents a certificate or the science teacher demonstrates a mildly entertaining experiment. It’s fine. It’s also invisible to the people making the decision because a 16-year-old running that search has already correctly worked out that a comms team’s version of college life isn’t college life.

This is not a taste problem. It is a trust problem, and it is measurable: Ofcom’s own research finds that virtually every 13 to 17-year-old in the country is on social media, with TikTok and Instagram chief among them. These are not niche channels. They are where the decision gets made, long before anyone fills in an application form.

But being a real student is not enough on its own, and this is where colleges will get it wrong. I have the privilege of having a fourteen-year-old brother. Most of what he watches on TikTok has nothing to do with education; it’s gaming clips, pranks and whatever sound is trending.

We talk a lot in marketing about ‘stopping the scroll’, and a sincere but flat video of college life doesn’t stand a chance. The students worth backing already speak the platform’s language, the pacing, the humour, the trends, pointed at their own college life. Get that right, and it beats your polished prospectus video, because the audience trusts the person, not the institution.

There’s a money argument too. Recruitment keeps climbing faster than funding does: colleges are absorbing thousands more 16 to 18-year-olds every year than the funding model was built for, and every place has to be fought for against neighbouring providers, sixth forms and apprenticeships chasing the same cohort. Spending on generic content that nobody watches isn’t just wasteful; it burns through the budget while a trusted alternative sits unused.

One wrinkle worth noting: ministers announced in June that anyone under 16 will be legally barred from holding an account on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and the rest, with the rule pencilled in for early 2027. However, if you think teenagers under 16 won’t find a workaround to the ban, I have some magic beans to sell you.

You may be reading this and thinking – “but what about safeguarding?” I would hope you don’t think I am suggesting you hand a phone to a 16-year-old and hope for the best. It obviously requires some level of process: written consent from parents and students, a clear line on what can’t be filmed or named, and a staff member who signs off before you hit ‘post’. That structure isn’t the enemy of authentic content. It’s what lets a student sound like themselves rather than a press release.

If I were in charge of a college (heaven forbid), I would speak with my media studies department and ask them to build some sessions on creating social media content that feels native to the platform where it will be posted and give them the opportunity to make things.

None of this means abandoning your own channels entirely. The job changes: instead of producing content, the marketing team’s job becomes finding the students who already do this well, giving them a bit of kit and a lot of trust, then getting out of the way.

Colleges spend a huge amount of energy worrying about Ofsted, funding rates and league tables, and perhaps rightly so. But the decision that determines whether any of that matters happens earlier, in a bedroom, on a phone, at eleven at night. Whoever is trusted and passes the vibe check in that moment wins the enrolment. Right now, for most colleges, that is not them.

FE must adapt to a new era of safeguarding

The latest guidance that the Department for Education issues for schools and colleges on safeguarding and safer recruitment, Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) 2026 raises the bar for safeguarding across the sector. But its implications for further education need particular attention.

FE colleges support a high proportion of learners who have not completed formal education, or who have come through alternative pathways such as pupil referral units, alternative provision or exclusion. That makes the renewed focus on violence prevention especially important for the sector.

This year’s guidance reflects the way that safeguarding risks are changing. The explicit inclusion of deepfakes and AI-generated nude imagery shows how seriously digital harms now need to be treated. Stronger language on misogyny and harmful sexual behaviour, alongside the recognition of cybersecurity as a safeguarding issue, also makes clear that online and offline risk can no longer be looked at separately.

For FE leaders, these changes are not abstract. They overlap directly with the realities of their students. Young people with disrupted education, previous offending or a history of being outside mainstream settings are already known to be at higher risk of carrying a weapon or becoming caught up in violent conflict. FE colleges are often where those risks become visible.

Recent national conversations around the Southport Inquiry and the introduction of Martyn’s Law, underline why this matters. Colleges are publicly accessible, community-facing spaces. They need to be able to demonstrate that they are prepared for serious incidents, with clear policies, practical response plans and staff who know what to do if concerns arise.

At the same time, the rise of extremism and casual violent ideation online is making the picture more complex. Social media and gaming spaces can expose young people to content that blends grievance, misogyny, gender-based violence and casual references to harm. For some learners, particularly those who feel disconnected or resentful, these narratives can become part of everyday digital life.

This creates a very practical challenge for FE safeguarding teams. The line between terrorism, extremism, criminality and harmful behaviour is becoming harder to define. Risk may show up through disengagement, resentment, sudden changes in a young person’s social circle, increased secrecy online, fixation on particular narratives or shifts in digital behaviour. These are the signs staff need to feel confident spotting and escalating.

In this context, staff training needs to be precise. Colleges should review whether safeguarding training reflects the realities set out in KCSIE 2026, and whether staff understand how these risks connect.

But there is also a hopeful message here, and it is one that feels specific to FE. Colleges are deeply embedded in their communities. They are often the place where young people find a route back into learning, purpose and belonging after difficult or disrupted experiences. That puts them in a strong position to offer effective early intervention.

Effective safeguarding in FE is therefore not only about identifying risk. It is also about creating the conditions for positive engagement. Programmes that build skills, confidence and peer support can reduce vulnerability, while trusted staff relationships can help learners feel seen before concerns escalate.

FE is often the last structured opportunity to intervene before risk becomes consequence. For many learners, it is the final point at which an education setting can influence behaviour, challenge harmful attitudes and support safer digital habits. That makes the role of FE in safeguarding not just preventative, but pivotal.

KCSIE 2026 reinforces the idea that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. In FE, that means every part of the college community has a role to play, from teaching teams and support services to senior leaders and employers. The response needs to be joined up because the risks young people face rarely sit neatly in one category.

The message for FE is clear. Safeguarding must evolve in line with the world young people are growing up in. Colleges need strong policies, confident staff and clear routes for action. But they also have a unique opportunity to offer belonging, purpose and support at the point it can make the greatest difference. Done well, FE can play a crucial role in preventing harm and helping young people build safer, more positive futures.