Latest news from FE Week

AI translation tools are reshaping ESOL, but not for the better

I’m marking a set of entry-level ESOL writing tasks.

The prompt is simple: Write about your daily routine.

It’s a task I return to often because it reveals the development process of learning writing. At entry level, writing begins with limited vocabulary and partial understanding. Learners test what they know, approximate what they don’t, and build meaning step by step. A first draft is rarely accurate, as it’s not meant to be. Instead, it shows how a learner is thinking through language.

But as I read through the scripts, it becomes obvious.

The sentences are structured with precise grammar. Ideas flow in a way that doesn’t match what I know of the learner’s current level. The writing is both fluent and accurate but the problem is it’s not their own.

When I ask how the work was produced, the answer is direct: a translation tool.

AI translation tools are not neutral supports in ESOL classrooms. When they shift from supporting learning to completely replacing it, they disrupt the messy, essential processes through which language is truly acquired.

There’s no doubt these tools have value. In multilingual classrooms, they can support communication, reduce isolation, and help learners access meaning quickly. When used carefully, they can help build confidence — especially at lower levels, where linguistic barriers are highest.

The issue therefore isn’t that learners use them but what they significantly replace in the process of language acquisition.

In practice, what begins as support can quickly become the default. Many ESOL learners are adults managing complex lives: long working hours, caring responsibilities and limited study time. Faced with these pressures, the efficiency of a translation tool is understandably appealing. But pedagogically, it comes at a cost.

In the moment that a learner would normally search for a word, attempt a sentence, or make an error, that fundamental part of the process is being skipped.

The learner is no longer forming the sentence for themselves, and meaning is no longer being worked out step by step. The authentic mistakes that they can connect their understanding to through feedback are never made, which creates a significant gap in opportunities to learn from.

This pattern isn’t limited to writing. In class, smartphones are ever-present. I encourage their use for soft support: to check meaning and aid participation. Yet it’s increasingly common to see tasks mediated entirely through translation apps. Learners photograph texts and instantly translate them. Speech is also recorded and converted before it’s even attempted. The space where learning would normally happen is not only erased but the confidence needed for any speaking activity is crippled.

Language learning is uneven and uncomfortable. It depends on repetition, hesitation and error. These aren’t inefficiencies – they are the process, and every learner needs reassurance that it is normal. When that process is removed, it becomes very hard to track and evidence real development.

This is why recent claims that AI tools or apps like Duolingo could replace ESOL provision are misguided. There’s no doubt these technologies can support vocabulary and basic interaction, but they don’t replicate the relational, developmental heart of language learning.

ESOL classrooms are more than spaces where language is delivered. They’re environments where learners practise, receive feedback, negotiate meaning, and build confidence. They’re also sites of connection – often vital for those facing isolation from their wider communities.

A translation tool doesn’t know its learner and can’t build interpersonal exchanges, see hesitation, spot error patterns or respond contextually to learners’ needs. It also can’t assess progress meaningfully. In formal ESOL settings, teachers must evidence development over time. That requires visibility of a learner’s own language production, including its limits. When learning outputs are generated externally, it becomes harder to recognise or measure what a learner can actually do for themselves.

The question, then, isn’t whether AI tools are positive or negative but how they’re positioned. When they are used selectively, they can support understanding and skills development. However, we must also acknowledge that they risk displacing the very processes that make language learning possible when used uncritically. Instead of outrightly banning them, the task for educators becomes ensuring they remain scaffolds for language learning, not substitutes.

In ESOL, progress is found in the gradual, imperfect work of building language, one uncertain step at a time. That work cannot be outsourced to produce perfect sentences that are void of the messy, sometimes awkward but meaningful language found in authentic learner work.

When CAMHS fails, the classroom becomes the front line

It was when the student walked slowly behind me that I felt most intensely afraid. We were almost through the lesson; it wasn’t a particularly exciting lesson, that’s true, but that wasn’t any reason to act like this. The student had closed his book a few moments before and pushed it away from himself on the desk. He then stood, silently, slinging his bag over his shoulder. He was static for a second, as if listening for something no one else could hear. This young man had not been formally diagnosed but had all the behaviour patterns of schizophrenia with paranoia.

Schizophrenia is a label that can still strike alarm. Newspaper headlines scream it freely, then sell copies on the back of stories about yet another stabbing in the street. It’s an alarming diagnosis. Imagine a doctor telling you that about yourself. Imagine you’re confused by what is going on. People are looking at you and talking. They must be plotting against you. Everyone wants to hurt you, even the doctors. And inside a voice is telling you to act, or something terrible will happen.

The fear that stirs in you then is bound to force anger to the surface, anger that is always a secondary emotion to help us keep powerlessness or fear or shame at bay. The teacher is right there; the focus of the room. He’s the target now. The teacher knows that someone suffering with such a problem is most of all dangerous to themselves. But right here in this classroom, this situation is undeniably dangerous to me.

The rest of the class is confused by the sudden outburst. I keep calm, so the students stay calm. The situation, although still unfolding, must be ok if the teacher is calm. After all, the teacher sets the weather in the room. And the teacher is right there, sitting at the desk and speaking calmly and slowly and clearly as the disturbed young man towers over him and then stalks slowly behind his chair, having already issued his out-of-the-blue threats.

I know this young man has a history with knives and assault. He’s clearly not well. Every person in that room has to be careful, with their cue coming from me.

A teacher’s role is an odd one. I’ve had to stand between fighting teenagers, both stronger than me. I’ve been squared up to by young people who’ve gone on to kill, been sworn at, screamed at and blamed.

As a result, I’ve asked the questions such an experience must raise. Why was he there in the classroom at all? Why was he not receiving help? It’s simple. CAMHS is creaking under the weight pressing down from outside.

It’s sometimes said that the true measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. I was vulnerable as that young man threatened me. More importantly, my students were vulnerable too, even if they were not aware. But the most vulnerable person of all in that room was the young man himself. His illness was affecting us all. Because what each of us does affects all of us. That, in a nutshell, is why some of us are teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers or mental health care professionals, because we know that what we do can affect the whole.

When our young people are allowed to carry on without the treatment they need, it inevitably affects others. When that turns into something more violent, it might hit the headlines. But most of the harm – self-directed, silent, and hidden behind the closed doors of too many ordinary homes – will never ever be known. What should be hitting the headlines and causing a scandal but does not is the shocking paucity of our society’s impoverished approach to CAMHS.

My student’s mother is scared. She is watching her son decline, desperate for help. The social worker or mental health worker has a ridiculous caseload, all of them urgent, and paperwork piling up. More than half a million young people in our country are waiting for mental health help and assessment. The wait to be seen can be a lingering hell of months or years, even. What happens to such young people while they’re waiting? If they remain in education at least something is ok, so they can’t be such a priority, it seems to be thought. So the buck is passed and down the triage list they slip. But in an emergency, sometimes you have to look for the silent ones first. Someone screaming is still breathing. So what about those who are not crying out, but suffering in silence still? Do we wait for them to start screaming too? That will be way too late.

I got over the encounter in the classroom in about twenty minutes, albeit with a few days off later in the week. In the immediate aftermath, a cup of tea and supportive colleagues put me back on my feet. For the young man involved, a cup of tea isn’t really going to do the trick.

Who will piece back together the shards of his shattered soul?

The heroes working in our system are up against the odds. Years of cuts, decades of neglect, misunderstanding, dismissive social attitudes even, have left their services buckling and young people suffering. That should be in bold headlines on the front page. Instead, that young man is back at home now. Hidden away in his room and out of education again. His mother remains scared for him and of him, and afraid for her other children too.

The measure of our society must remain how it treats its most vulnerable members. Ask any teacher who those vulnerable people are; every one of us could show you a few.

Apprenticeship reform is squeezing the very SMEs it needs most

The government’s apprenticeship reforms are being positioned as a deliberate pivot towards young people and SMEs. But when we look more closely a different and worrying picture begins to emerge, and one subgroup risks being squeezed out altogether.

The point at which employers become levy-paying employers – having a pay bill greater than the £3 million threshold – has not changed since 2017. For the 24-25 financial year around 37,000 employers paid the levy, compared to just 22,000 when it was introduced. This is a direct result of fiscal drag and wage inflation, which has significantly extended the ‘tail’ of the levy. This has created a large group of “marginal levy payers” who by their very nature are the same SMEs that the government supposedly wants to enlist to help employ and train more young people. These are employers doing the right thing. They are engaged, investing in skills, and often recruiting young people into the labour market. Yet under the current reforms, they risk becoming the biggest losers.

Positively, there will be a new hire £2,000 cash incentive coming from October 2026 to support small businesses. Originally, the government headline announced this as an incentive for SMEs; however, the detail now says it’s an incentive for non-levy paying employers (typically SMEs). If you are a marginal levy-payer, then sorry, there actually won’t be an incentive for you. Strike one.

Also from August, there will be fully-funded training for new starters aged under 25 in non-levy paying employers. This is a welcome move, removing unnecessary barriers for smaller employers. However, co-investment arrangements for levy payers are conversely shifting from 5 per cent to a sharp 25 per cent surcharge for all age starts from August 2026. That’s all ages, including under 25 – the exact group the government wants to do more for, which is somewhat bizarre. And which employers will feel this quicker and sharper than anyone? Yes, you guessed – it’s the marginal levy payers who spend their fractional levy pot and will flip into the new 25 per cent co-investment model. Strike two.

Historically, levy transfer has been the fiddly mechanism to offset co-investment costs. However, providers tell us that levy-payers have become more cautious in the last 12 months about gifting, primarily as they wait to see the art of the possible with apprenticeship units. In August, the government will cut the 10 per cent top-up levy payers get and cut the expiry period of funds from 24 to 12 months, plus transfers become more costly due to the switch from covering 5 per cent to 25 per cent of the cost. All three of these factors are likely to result in levy payers being even more cautious about gifting levy funds.

From April, apprenticeship units will start for adults aged over 19, and they will be fully funded for both levy payers and generously for non-levy paying employers too. However, there is a catch. Where levy-payers exhaust their levy funds, then in the period of April to July a 5 per cent co-investment cost appears, which is highly likely to increase to 25 per cent from August. Again, who will be the first segment to feel the burden on this? Yes, you guessed it, marginal levy payers. Strike three.

We are already seeing signs of this in specific sectors. Take dentistry. Most levy-paying dental employers fall into this marginal category. They operate on tight margins and rely heavily on apprenticeships to bring in new talent. Under the proposed changes, employer contributions for a level 3 dental nurse apprentice could rise from around £400 to £2,000. For a level 4 Oral Health Practitioner, from £450 to £2,250. Around 80 per cent of dental nurse apprentices are aged 16-24, many entering directly from school or from NEET (not in education, employment or training) backgrounds. Faced with higher costs, employers may instead recruit already-qualified staff or turn to privately funded qualifications with no off-the-job training requirement.

If marginal levy payers are crowded out, the system loses some of its most committed SMEs, and with them, thousands of opportunities for young people. That would be a high price to pay for reform intended to achieve the opposite effect. As a minimum and in line with wider stated government objectives, there should be no co-investment for 16-24 year olds in both non-levy payers and also when levy payers exceed their levy. This is an ask that AELP will continue to make of the government.

NEET rise raises the stakes for qualification reform

The challenge of youth disengagement is becoming harder to ignore.

In the UK 957,000 16-24 year olds are currently not in education, employment or training (NEET), with 411,000 unemployed and 547,000 economically inactive.

These are the conditions in which post-16 reform is unfolding, shaped by intersecting pressures pushing too many out of education, employment, or training.

Health is a defining factor. In 2024, 27 per cent of 16-24-year-olds in England disclosed a health condition, with over half (51 per cent) of NEET young people reporting one.

Layered over this is a demographic shift. England is projected to have 838,000 more 16-24-year-olds in 2034 than in 2022. And regional disparities are stark, with eight of the 10 local authorities in the North and the Midlands having above average NEET rates.

Necessary but risky

Meanwhile England is leading the transition to a three-route model built around A Levels, T Levels and V Levels, with the aim of simplifying post-16 qualifications.

The Department for Education will start to remove funding from existing qualifications covered by V Levels from 2027 onwards, with further defunding ahead as part of a phased, route-by-route review.

The government has moved away from a blanket removal of “overlapping” qualifications to a more pragmatic, evidence-led approach that retains funding for 157 qualifications for longer than originally proposed, explicitly acknowledging learner and labour market need.

Most existing vocational qualifications for 16-19-year-olds will be defunded as V Levels go live. They are designed to align with employer defined occupational standards and sit alongside A Levels and T Levels. Early-stage rollout, however, will involve limited subject coverage, and employer familiarity takes times.

At level 2, new pathways aim to create clearer progression towards level 3 or directly into work and apprenticeships. Yet these must remain flexible for learners requiring modular progression, pastoral support or the ability to switch pathways without penalty.

The strategic intent behind the reforms is understood, but risks arise from the way and the speed with which they’re implemented.

Where NEET risks emerge

NEET rates rise predictably at key transition stages, such as the move from year 11 to post-16, year 12 to 13 and from level 3 into employment.

The introduction of new qualification pathways adds decision points and, in some cases, reduced subject availability. These additional pressures raise the likelihood of disengagement among young people who already find transitions challenging.

Many of the qualifications due to be withdrawn support learners who succeed through applied, modular or portfolio-based routes. If provision is removed before new programmes are ready, learners may face gaps, raising the risk of disengagement and reduced progression.

While the reforms aim to simplify the landscape, employer understanding of V Levels will develop gradually. This lag will likely be most acute where employer demand for young workers is already limited, potentially affecting the early labour market value of the new qualifications.

Employers are offering fewer entry level roles and placing increasing emphasis on prior experience. In this context, continuity and stability in learners’ education pathways are essential. Turbulence could make it harder for young people.

Minimising NEET risks while delivering reform

Defunding should proceed only once V Levels or reformed alternatives are fully approved, staffed, timetabled and supported by employer engagement. A phased and evidence-based approach will protect continuity and enable a smoother transition.

The new level 2 pathways should allow flexible movement between routes, including access to funded bridging modules where required. This flexibility is essential to ensuring level 2 functions as a progression point rather than a limiting track.

Where learners may be displaced due to reform timelines, providers should receive targeted funding to support additional teaching hours, pastoral support, and tutoring. These measures are critical to preventing disruption and maintaining engagement.

Structured work placements, industry aligned programmes and pre-apprenticeship pathways can play a central role in supporting progression. Regions with higher NEET rates stand to gain most from targeted employer collaboration.

Early, coordinated communication about V Level standards, assessment models and progression routes is vital to building employer understanding and confidence. This helps avoid delays in recognition that could affect early employment outcomes.

The measure of success

Reform must not be judged on the elegance of the qualification map, but on whether fewer young people fall out of the system at each transition point.

A successful outcome will mean falling NEET numbers, continuity of provision despite change, and strong employer recognition of new routes.

We need smooth learner progression through level 2 and Level 3, and a system that is ready for young people, not one that expects them to carry the turbulence of reform.

Bauckham issues first rebuke over exam forms blunder

Ofqual chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham has issued his first formal ‘rebuke’ to an exam board over ‘serious failures’ between 2019 and 2025.

WJEC was found to have failed to collect and monitor centre declaration forms for four of its Eduqas GCSE, AS and A Level qualifications over six years, which are offered in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Ofqual rebuke was first introduced as an enforcement tool in October. It is used for cases deemed serious enough for an awarding body to be publicly held to account, but that do not warrant a fine.

A WJEC spokesperson said the exam board regretted the instances of non-compliance, and that measures had been strengthened to prevent them from happening again.

The declaration forms are required to show that centres have complied with the subject content requirements.

WJEC admitted it had failed to make relevant staff aware of the requirements related to the declaration forms.

The qualifications affected included GCSE drama, AS and A Level drama and theatre, GCSE geography, and GCSE computer science.

‘No evidence for adverse effect on learners’

Bauckham said the rebuke “demonstrates our commitment to taking action to protect students and uphold public confidence in qualifications”.

He added: “The circumstances of this case include that there was no evidence to indicate any actual adverse effects on students.

“However, these failings by WJEC represent serious breaches of Ofqual’s conditions across multiple subjects and years.

“The failures had the potential to prejudice students and undermine public confidence in the validity of regulated qualifications.”

In its report, Ofqual acknowledged that WJEC had “taken steps to rectify its processes and prevent reoccurrence”, but that the failures “undermined essential assurance mechanisms”.

It added that the rebuke served as a “formal expression” of concern and set an expectation for WJEC to ensure it has “a strong regulatory compliance culture, systems and oversight to prevent similar incidents recurring in the future”.

The WJEC spokesperson said: “We take full responsibility and acknowledge that we did not meet the high standards expected of us.

“We have cooperated fully with Ofqual throughout this process and have undertaken a comprehensive review of our procedures.

“We have implemented strengthened measures to ensure this does not happen again, and we want to reassure learners and centres of our ongoing commitment to maintaining the highest standards.”

WJEC has entries for more than 4,200 centres in England, and accounted for 7.1 per cent of GCSE exams and 6.2 per cent of A Level exams in 2024-25.

Skills England bosses quizzed by MPs

Welcome to FE Week‘s live blog from a work and pensions committee session on the work of Skills England. The session will begin at around 09.30am. This is a one-off evidence session, so it isn’t attached to a specific inquiry.

Appearing before MPs will be Phil Smith, chair, Tessa Griffiths, co-chief executive, and Gemma Marsh, deputy chief executive.

Revealed: Funding rates and delivery hours for apprenticeship units

Funding rates for the inaugural batch of apprenticeship units will range from £750 up to £3,200, Skills England has revealed.

The government agency has today published the funding rate for each individual apprenticeship unit as well as minimum delivery hours.

An updated list has also split the single proposed AI leadership apprenticeship unit into three separate units, increasing the total number on offer from eight to ten.

All apprenticeship units have an earliest start date of April 28. A list of eligible training providers able to deliver the new short courses has not yet been released. The government previously said a limited group of “strong” apprenticeship providers will qualify to offer the first units.

The permanent modular building assembly apprenticeship unit attracts the most funding of £3,200, with minimum delivery hours set at 140 hours. This is followed by the welding unit with a funding rate of £2,100 for 90 hours.

Three units – mechanical fitting and assembly, electrical fitting and assembly, and battery manufacturing – have a £1,650 funding rate with 70 minimum delivery hours, while two units – electric vehicle (EV) charging point installation and maintenance, and solar PV installation and maintenance – have been assigned a £950 rate for 35 hours.

The three AI leadership units – in delivery and organisational transformation, adoption, procurement and governance, and strategy and opportunity – attract the lowest funding rate of £750 with delivery hours set at just 30 hours.

Apprenticeship units are new short courses to be funded through the reformed growth and skills levy for both large and small employers.

This is the first time levy funds can be used for non-apprenticeship training – a move promised by Labour in the party’s 2024 general election manifesto.

Apprenticeship units will only be for employed learners aged 19 and over whose employer has “identified a need to upskill them quickly to meet business needs and remain competitive”.

Units will not be eligible for learners “seeking to start a new career or occupation”.

Content for apprenticeship units comes from the knowledge and skills from existing apprenticeship occupational standards “needed to address specific critical skills gaps”, the government has said.

Training providers have, however, warned the apprenticeship units funding model is “not a winning formula” and could choke off delivery before it begins.

Funding will be heavily end-loaded and paid on two milestones to providers. The first 30 per cent of the funding rate will be paid once the learner has completed 30 per cent of the planned delivery hours. The second milestone payment will come once the learner has completed all hours and passed a skills test.

It means a provider that delivers 90 per cent of planned hours when a learner drops out risks receiving just 30 per cent of the funding.

On top of this, the government said it would keep the “affordability” of apprenticeship units “under review” and could withdraw a unit with just four weeks’ notice.

Providers fear the model leaves them exposed and could dampen their appetite for involvement.

Novus selected again to deliver West Midlands prison education

Eight prisons in the West Midlands have finally been appointed an education supplier after an initial failed procurement process.

Existing contract-holder Novus will continue to provide core education services in the region from September 1 following the conclusion of a second tendering exercise.

The Ministry of Justice re-ran the Prison Education Service (PES) contract procurement for the West Midlands lot last summer after bidders came “exceptionally close” in scoring.

Novus was granted a six-month extension on the previous contract whilst the new contract was retendered.

It now means Novus runs education services for 50 prisons across England, accounting for over one third of the public prison estate.

Novus, which is part of Manchester-based college group LTE Group, secured four contracts worth up to £255 million in August 2025 when the winners of the PES tender were announced.

The value of the West Midlands lot has not been disclosed.

Peter Cox, managing director of Novus, said: “Novus has a long track record of effective collaboration with prison regimes and employers across the West Midlands, and we are delighted to continue delivering education in this region.

“For more than three decades Novus has been providing high-quality education and training in the prison estate, working with learners who are the furthest from the labour market. We are proud of our track record in supporting individuals into employment after release, as well as the innovative practice led by our committed teams of education professionals.

“We look forward to working closely with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) to help more people in the West Midlands turn their lives around under PES.”

New-vus?

Novus is one of three suppliers for the new prison education service, which began in October.

The winners of PES were supposed to be announced in early 2025, with contracts starting in April, but the MoJ delayed to “allow more time for contract award and mobilisation”.

The contracts, which began in October and are worth up to £1.5 billion in total, were handed to three existing providers: Milton Keynes College, People Plus and Novus.

It meant education in just 26 out of England’s 102 prisons changed hands.

Jails are currently experiencing cuts to planned education hours, with prisons in Greater Manchester and Merseyside being hit the hardest since the new contract took effect six months ago.

Novus manages education in seven prisons in the Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire region, which are now subject to a 40 per cent reduction in education hours.

Its other contracts, in Yorkshire and Cumbria, are facing cuts of between 24 and 26 per cent.

But Novus’s eight prisons in the North East have weathered the cuts, seeing just a 2 per cent reduction in education hours.

According to the MoJ, the regional differences are due to a “revised” funding formula to prison budgets which is based on prison population and regional cost differences.

Education questions April 2026: Live blog

Welcome to FE Week‘s live blog of education questions on April 20, 2026. The session will begin at around 2.30pm.

This is a new function we are testing following our decision to stop posting on the social media website X.

Instead of live reporting key events via our social channels, we will host these blogs on our website, making it easier for our readers to see all updates in one place.

If you have feedback, please email news@feweek.co.uk