Latest news from FE Week

Awarding body competition could cut T Level fees, Ofqual suggests

Scrapping the contentious single-licence awarding body model for T Levels “may positively influence” the fees that colleges pay per student, Ofqual has said.

From 2028, the government will replace exclusive contracts for the technical qualifications with an “open market model”, similar to the system used for A Levels and most other qualifications.

The move means that for the first time, awarding organisations (AOs) will be responsible for certifying every element of a T Level, including industry placements, aggregating overall results and issuing final certificates.

Ofqual, which opened a consultation on changing its regulatory framework to align with these new duties today, said the “competitive pressures” of opening up the market could have a “positive influence” on the fees, availability and quality of the qualifications.

Currently, the government contracts four awarding organisations to deliver the 20 T Level qualifications available to students.

The average weighted T Level qualification fee reached £283.75 in 2026, compared with £76.44 for vocational and technical qualifications and £132.97 for A Levels, according to Ofqual statistics.

Fees rose by 3 per cent between the start of 2025 and 2026.

Ofqual did not estimate how much fees could reduce by.

‘Minor to moderate’ costs for AOs

Ofqual’s qualification level conditions consultation also warned that transferring responsibility for industry placements, results aggregation and issuing certificates could bring “minor to moderate” implementation and ongoing costs for awarding organisations.

Until now, the Department for Education has overseen the completion of industry placements, collated parts of the T Level to determine overall results, and issued final certificates.

Under Ofqual’s proposals, awarding bodies would be responsible for collecting, checking and retaining records of industry placement declarations.

They would also have to ensure declarations are supported by evidence, aggregate results and comply with the DfE’s published subject content.

The rules are set to come in from September 2028 for new T Levels such as sports and social care, and from whenever the other T Levels’ single licence models come to an end.

The single awarding organisation per T Level model was introduced with the first set of technical qualifications in 2020, in contrast to most other qualifications including A Levels and GCSEs, which have a multi-awarding organisation market.

DfE officials previously called the single supplier model “incredibly challenging”.

Pearson, NCFE and City & Guilds have been the dominant holders of T Level contracts since their launch, but the latter two have gradually reduced their share of the market amid concerns the contract values did not meet delivery demands.

Following a recent relicensing round, Pearson will award 16 out of the 20 available T Levels by September 2027.

Placement oversight ‘significant’ change

The Federation of Awarding Bodies said moving to a regulated market is an “important step in the development of T Levels”.

A spokesperson said: “While changes to the regulation of the qualification element of T Levels appear relatively modest, the changes to the requirements around industry placements for awarding organisations are more significant.

“And while Ofqual’s proposal place additional responsibility on awarding organisations to receive assurance that placements have been completed, it will be important for the success of the programme that government continues to provide support around the availability of placements.”

The consultation is open for six weeks from today. Ofqual expects to publish its response and final decisions in early 2027.

Little for FE in the budget, but the hard choices are coming

John Healey’s first budget as chancellor was broadly the budget many people were expecting. It included a relatively small cost of living package, a handful of tax rises, and plenty of small measures.

But many of the big decisions, on areas such as the welfare system, public spending and the path to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, have largely been pushed into next year. Those decisions will not be easy: the plan to bring down government borrowing, which will be higher across the rest of the decade, relies on public service spending plans that look extremely tight.

For further education, there was little news. The government reaffirmed funding for the youth employment package announced in the spring and expanded local apprenticeship services, but there was nothing new on further education funding.

One wider measure that could affect the sector indirectly is the minimum wage. For 18- to 20-year-olds, it will rise by 3.9 per cent from April, in line with the adult rate, postponing plans for the young person’s rate to converge with the higher adult minimum wage.

So the budget had little to say directly about FE. That’s a reasonable decision for a government that has already made quite a few announcements on FE outside of fiscal events, including technical pathways from age 14 and plans to hand mayors control of 16-19 funding.

And more decisions are likely on the way. The chancellor confirmed that the government will respond to Alan Milburn’s review of young people and work before the end of the year, with a white paper to follow in early 2027.

Reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training will require action on several fronts: young people need the skills to work and the incentive to do so, and employers need to be willing to take them on.

The budget’s measures mostly work through employers. The wider questions, including what will be expected of FE providers, are likely to remain unanswered until the government responds to Milburn.

On devolution, the budget included a new framework to give mayors and local areas control of some of the revenues raised in their area. Yet there is still little detail on the prime minister’s plan to hand them control of 16-19 funding.

That leaves some basic questions open. What exactly will be devolved: all 16-19 funding or mainly technical routes? Will funding still follow students at a national rate, or will mayors set their own rates and rules? And will students’ post-16 choices materially change depending on where they live?

Looking ahead, the biggest decisions for FE are likely to come at next year’s spending review, which will set departmental budgets.

It is likely to be a difficult one. The chancellor left overall departmental spending broadly unchanged in cash terms, so higher inflation has cut its real value. Combined with existing plans to slow spending growth sharply, this implies real-terms cuts for some public services.

New decisions on defence add to the pressure. The chancellor confirmed a target of spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030, but without setting out how it will be funded. To the extent it is met by reallocating spending, it will mean less for other areas, which could include FE and adult skills.

Overall, yesterday’s budget was not hugely consequential for the FE sector. But that doesn’t mean the sector has been forgotten: we have seen quite a few consequential decisions already, and we’re expecting more to come. The government will need to make sure these decisions fit together, both in their design and, importantly, in the resources available to deliver them.

Apprenticeship provider faces closure after achievement rates judgment

An apprenticeship provider handed Ofsted’s lowest grade for poor achievement rates is facing closure after the Department for Education ended its contract.

Hundreds of apprentices at Cherith Simmons Learning and Development LLP now have a month to find alternative providers to complete their training.

The termination followed an Ofsted inspection that resulted in an ‘urgent improvement’ judgment for the provider’s apprenticeship achievement, following years of below-par rates in which barely a quarter of apprentices completed their programmes.

Cherith Simmons is at least the second apprenticeship provider to have its contract terminated after a red rating for the achievement evaluation area under Ofsted’s new report card system.

‘We didn’t really understand QAR’

The DfE’s published qualification achievement rate (QAR) data shows Cherith Simmons’ overall apprenticeship achievement rate was 29.2 per cent in 2023-24, against a national rate of 60.5 per cent. The provider’s rate was 25 per cent the year before.

No QAR data was published for the provider in 2024-25, but its leader has suggested the rate was below 10 per cent.

Achievement was the only area graded ‘urgent improvement’ for Cherith Simmons. It received ‘needs attention’ judgments for inclusion, leadership and governance, and curriculum and teaching, while participation and development was rated ‘expected standard’.

The government served notice to Cherith Simmons at the end of August and rejected the provider’s challenges to the decision.

Karan Kumar, a senior partner at Cherith Simmons, claimed the firm’s apprenticeship accountability framework showed significantly improved achievement rates of more than 60 per cent by September, but the DfE would not consider this “new evidence”.

Kumar co-bought the provider in May 2025 when it was rated ‘good’ across the board by Ofsted. But he appeared to be unaware of the seriousness of poor QARs.

He told FE Week: “We bought a business that Ofsted rated ‘good’. Honestly, at the time we didn’t really understand QAR. On the figure we inherited, achievement stood at 9.7 per cent. That was the hole we had to climb out of. On reflection, we should have dug deeper. But DfE was notified of the change of ownership and didn’t raise any concerns that the provider was failing.”

He added that the DfE imposed restrictions on the number of new apprentices the provider could recruit shortly after the takeover.

Ofsted’s latest report, published in May, said new leaders had “sensibly used their vocational and technical expertise to improve the curriculums and ensure that apprentices develop relevant knowledge and skills”.

However, “despite some progress in supporting apprentices to work towards final assessments, their actions have not been swift enough to have a positive, demonstrable impact on the proportion of apprentices who complete their programme and achieve”, it added.

‘What message does this send?’

In an email to apprentices and employers this week, Kumar said: “Unfortunately, I am writing to share some very sad and disappointing news. The DfE has decided to terminate our contract to deliver apprenticeships.”

He added that employers and apprentices would need to transfer to a new training provider from 26 November to continue their programmes.

The provider specialised in training apprentices in health and social care, digital technology, business management, water treatment and catering. Most apprentices study at level 5 or level 7.

It had almost 200 apprentices at the time of Ofsted’s inspection.

The provider “recognises this is an unsettling situation”, the email said, and would “continue to work closely with apprentices, employers and any new provider throughout the handover period”.

Kumar said his team was “extremely disappointed” by the DfE’s decision, adding that they have worked “incredibly hard” to support apprentices since acquisition of the firm. He reiterated his claim that since Ofsted’s inspection began in January, the provider’s achievement rate has risen to more than 60 per cent.

He said: “We went from 9.7 per cent to 62.8 per cent. Our accountability framework is all green. If that isn’t enough, what message does it send to every provider that inherits a problem and works to fix it? It tells them not to bother.”

The provider, which mostly employs freelance tutors and a handful of full-time staff, now faces potential closure as apprenticeships was its only operation.

Can Kaynat Ahmad give FE students their voice back?

Kaynat Ahmad had every intention of becoming a doctor.

Three years ago, she was attending a private school in Lahore, Pakistan, where teachers were strict and examination papers, she recalls, “sometimes got leaked”.

She had completed her pre-medical studies and was preparing for a career in medicine when her mother, a hotel manager, married an entrepreneur and the family moved to the West Midlands.

Ahmad found herself navigating a very different education system in a new country. Continuing on a path to medicine would have meant paying to study the A Levels she needed. Instead, she enrolled at Dudley College of Technology, initially on a free level 1 course in digital programming and coding, progressing to level 2.

It was not quite the future she had imagined.

Nor did she immediately embrace college life. Ahmad remembers being “so shy” that the only person she spoke to was her teacher.

Then her brother and one of his friends dared her to stand in the students’ union elections.

Friendships developed, her confidence grew and she discovered a sense of purpose in representing other learners.

“I came out from my zone,” she says.

After a year as students’ union president, in July Ahmad became vice president for further education at the National Union of Students (NUS). She had gone from an anxious newcomer to the English education system to one of its most prominent representatives.

But the union now faces daunting challenges.

Colleges and universities are contending with financial pressure, blurring boundaries between the two sectors, students’ cost-of-living pressures and the disruption AI is causing to assessment.

Despite a greater need for student representation, the NUS is struggling to maintain its relevance as university students’ unions vote to leave, while the student representation that once flourished in FE colleges has diminished.

Ahmad has pledged to rebuild it. But has she inherited a national movement capable of doing so?

The missing student movement

At many universities, students’ unions employ professional staff, run substantial budgets, organise political campaigns and support elected sabbatical officers. In FE, student representation is often much less visible.

Many colleges have student councils, course representatives or learner voice groups. But these are not the same as an independent students’ union with its own democratic structures, budget and elected leadership.

Without properly supported unions, students can struggle to “have a say or get involved”, leaving them “feeling disconnected, unheard, and unsure if anyone is fighting for their needs”.

Her own college is unusual. Dudley employs a full-time students’ union president, and its 2026-27 budget included £180,668 for the union, covering staffing, campaigns, trips, clubs and societies.

Most other college unions operate on a fraction of that amount.

Ahmad says some receive as little as £10,000, which she considers “not enough”. She estimates that only 10 to 15 colleges still pay their students’ union presidents, with most relying on volunteers.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) acknowledges the problem.

Eddie Playfair, its senior policy manager, believes most colleges have some form of student council or students’ union, supported by the association’s student engagement charter.

But, he says, “very few colleges have the benefit of sabbatical officers and it may be time to reconsider how college students’ unions are supported”.

There are exceptions. Student representation is flourishing at Leeds City College, where 2,595 learners voted in this year’s students’ union elections, representing 12 per cent of its student population.

Elsewhere, the infrastructure is being dismantled.

In April, SGS College’s deputy principal told governors that its students’ union arrangements were “ineffective due to low levels of student engagement”, describing the problem as common across FE.

Governors subsequently voted to withdraw recognition of the union, rescind its constitution and close its bank account.

For Ahmad, such developments raise a fundamental question: who speaks independently for students when the structures designed to represent them disappear?

Former NUS vice-president for FE, Qasim Hussain

A promise still waiting to be delivered

Greater FE representation is not a new ambition for the NUS.

When Ahmad’s predecessor, Qasim Hussain, took office in 2024, he wanted every FE provider to have an independent, funded students’ union, with dedicated staff and paid student leaders.

He also proposed a stronger national system for representing FE learners.

At the NUS national conference that April, proposals were approved that included a commitment to encourage and support a vibrant national voice for college and vocational learners.

Two years later, FE Week can see no evidence of a substantial expansion in independent college unions, or of the specific FE engagement plan promised through the reforms.

Ahmad has inherited the same problem.

As a student, she observed a “clear gap” between NUS and FE, with college learners missing information about national campaigns, events and opportunities.

“Too often, NUS has felt disconnected and inaccessible to FE members, and we need to change that,” she says.

She is now contacting college unions with limited resources, offering help with campaigning and representation, and planning visits to colleges including Calderdale and Leeds City College.

“The issue with most student leaders is they don’t know how to lead a campaign, and that’s where we can collaborate with them.”

Her ambition is to rebuild regional and national relationships, so that college students see NUS as more than a distant organisation dominated by universities.

But rebuilding trust will take more than an enthusiastic vice president.

An organisation under pressure

NUS has weathered financial crises before. In 2018, a £3 million deficit brought it close to bankruptcy, triggering major restructuring.

Although the immediate crisis passed, financial sustainability remains a concern.

The NUS’s 2024-25 accounts show turnover falling 16 per cent on the previous year and a pension liability of £9.1 million.

Its national operation is also much leaner than in previous decades.

Around 60 staff now work across the organisation, but none is a dedicated FE specialist.

Meanwhile, university students’ unions are questioning whether national membership represents value for money.

At least ten have voted to disaffiliate over the past year, including HE unions at Cambridge, Manchester, University College London and the London School of Economics.

Campaigners have cited membership costs, democratic accountability and disagreements over the union’s response to the war in Gaza. Oxford’s students’ union is also considering its future relationship with the NUS, with its annual membership fee of £17,500 featuring in the debate.

The NUS says over half its members are from the FE sector, making up 216 out of its 377 member institutions in the UK.

But a college’s affiliation does not mean it has an active, independent students’ union or participates meaningfully in national democracy.

Indeed, the NUS cannot provide a definitive figure for how many colleges have genuinely independent unions rather than college-managed student consultation arrangements.

And while FE institutions may make up most of its membership, their voices can be overwhelmed by better-resourced university representatives at national conferences.

The cost of getting to college

Ahmad has chosen a practical issue for her flagship campaign.

This month, she launched an NUS petition calling for free bus travel for students and apprentices. More than 2,000 people have so far signed it.

“We love buses, but when 20 per cent of students and apprentices have missed class because they could not afford the cost of public transport, something has to change,” she says.

It is an issue she knows from Dudley. Many students travelled for more than an hour from Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Halesowen to attend college, with transport costs placing another burden on already stretched households.

Weeks into the job, she was involved in the NUS campaign for the 16-17 Saver railcard to stay valid after holders turn 18, a change the Department for Transport announced in August 2026.

She sees transport as inseparable from the government’s ambitions to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

At the end of 2024, the Dudley council area had England’s highest combined proportion of 16- and 17-year-olds recorded as NEET or whose activity was not known.

“If transport is not accessible, how can education be accessible and affordable?” she asks.

Ahmad’s wider NUS manifesto also includes expanded bursaries, travel funds and hardship support, subsidised meals for low-income learners, better access to equipment and learning resources and improved mental health provision.

She wants “free, prompt, and culturally competent mental health support in every college”, alongside trauma-informed safeguarding.

Learning to challenge authority

Ahmad’s experience as a student governor at Dudley helped shape her understanding of college finances, strategy and decision-making.

It also taught her that students could challenge decisions affecting their daily lives. She raised concerns about women’s rights and helped intervene when a student faced expulsion, persuading leaders to give them another chance.

She believes students’ unions can help colleges recruit student governors, positions that can otherwise be difficult to fill.

But she warns against colleges treating their unions simply as an extension of their own enrichment department.

“There should be a separate enrichment team for that purpose, fully led by staff, whereas the union is a democratic body led by students,” she says.

And she encourages governors to be “bold” and highlight issues that might not otherwise appear on a board’s agenda: unreliable timetables, cafeteria prices, staffing quality and the practical barriers facing learners.

She is similarly concerned about the availability and quality of apprenticeships.

At Dudley, she witnessed a sharp decline in opportunities. The college reported that apprenticeship vacancies had fallen from 700 in 2024 to 200 by December 2025.

Ahmad wants apprentices to have guaranteed access to off-the-job training, as well as stronger protections against discrimination, harassment and unsafe working conditions. Apprentices, she argues, must acquire meaningful skills rather than being treated as “cheap labour”.

Dudley College Campus photography 2024 .Picture by Shaun Fellows / Shine Pix Ltd

Democracy without a union?

The government’s plans to lower the voting age to 16 could give colleges a new role in political education, presenting an opportunity for NUS.

Students’ unions can organise debates, hustings and campaigns, introducing young people to democratic participation before they enter the polling booth.

“Students’ unions can be really good places to share views and have those tricky conversations,” Ahmad says.

The NUS is campaigning to simplify voter registration, including through arrangements that would allow colleges and universities to register students automatically.

Ahmad sees an opportunity for colleges to become centres of democratic participation. But political engagement is becoming increasingly contentious.

The NUS has launched a campaign called ‘Fighting far-right hate with love’, providing students with a six-week course of actions to “erode the power of the divisive far-right rhetoric that is currently so loud”.

The organisation has also faced criticism over its own handling of political disputes, particularly allegations of antisemitism in 2022, with former NUS president, now defence secretary, Wes Streeting a prominent critic of the union at the time.

Ahmad is currently involved in a DfE and University of Salford initiative to develop a national community cohesion framework for colleges, universities and students’ unions.

The framework is intended to help institutions strengthen belonging, inclusion, student relationships and civic participation amid concerns about antisemitism and other forms of hatred.

A movement searching for its future

Three days a week, Ahmad stays in a London hotel while working from the NUS’s co-working office in Hoxton.

For the rest of the week, she returns to Dudley’s students’ union, maintaining contact with the learners whose experiences brought her into politics.

In December, the NUS is holding a strategy exchange for students’ union CEOs to consider the next decade of post-16 education and the student movement.

Ahmad hopes to leave office in two years having achieved at least some of her manifesto commitments, and for more people to understand what FE is without her having to explain it.

If she succeeds, the shy teenager who once spoke only to her teacher could help give a generation of college learners a voice.

She feels “very lucky” to be where she is. But luck will not be enough to revive a once-proud movement.

Budget 2026: Apprentice minimum wage to rise to £8.31 an hour

Apprentices will receive a 31p-an-hour minimum wage increase next April – the smallest percentage rise in the rate since 2021, the chancellor announced in today’s budget.

John Healey has accepted the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations to raise the apprentice rate by 3.9 per cent, from £8 to £8.31 an hour, from 1 April 2027.

The increase is smaller than the 6 per cent rise introduced this April and the 18 per cent uplift in 2025. The rate was increased by 21 per cent in 2024.

The rate is the minimum that must be paid to all apprentices aged under 19 and to those aged 19 or over during the first year of their apprenticeship. Older apprentices who have completed their first year must be paid at least the minimum wage for their age.

The same £8.31 rate will apply to non-apprentice 16 and 17 year old workers. The minimum wage for 18 to 20 year olds will increase from £10.85 to £11.27, while the national living wage for workers aged 21 and above will rise from £12.71 to £13.21.

All four rates will increase by 3.9 per cent. In recent years, younger workers have seen their minimum wage rates rise faster than adults. The Treasury estimated the increase across the workforce will benefit around 2.3 million workers.

Higher apprentice wages have prompted debate over whether young people are being priced out of apprenticeships, particularly in small businesses.

It also comes ahead of Alan Milburn’s long-awaited final inquiry report on tackling youth unemployment, which is expected in November.

During his budget speech in the House of Commons, Healey said the government will respond to Milburn’s report by the end of the year and introduce a white paper “early in 2027” with legislation to follow.

‘Savings’ to fund extra apprenticeship brokerage pilots

The chancellor also confirmed today the government is providing an extra £100 million across 2027-28 and 2028-29 to expand mayoral apprenticeship brokerage pilots to 14 mayoral strategic authorities across England.

Ministers last year allocated an initial £140 million, to be funded from the Department for Work and Pensions’ annual apprenticeship budget, to fund the pilot in seven areas. This appears to be the first time growth and skills levy funds will be used to fund initiatives beyond training and incentives.

But Healey, who first revealed more cash was on its way to extend the “football scouts for apprenticeships” scheme at Labour’s party conference last month, said today that the additional £100 million would be funded from “savings from welfare fraud and error”.

This suggests that only part of the £240 million total pot for local apprenticeship brokerage services will come from England’s annual apprenticeship budget.

The Treasury press office later confirmed to FE Week that the additional £100 million will not be funded from the apprenticeships budget.

Union Learning Funding returns

The budget also confirmed £15 million a year from financial year 2027-28 to restore the union learning fund, which will provide grants to union-led projects that support workers retrain and develop skills.

FE Week reported in September that Healey intended to revive the scheme, which the Conservatives scrapped in 2021.

Before its abolition, it funded union learning representatives to help workers access education and training, often through existing providers.

The Treasury’s costings put the fund’s fiscal cost at £20 million in both 2027-28 and 2028-29, £5 million a year higher than the programme budget. The document does not explain the difference.

Youth employment schemes

The government’s existing youth employment and skills programmes were costed at £665 million over the next two years, with £290 million allocated in 2027-28 and £375 million in 2028-29.

The previously announced measures include £3,000 grants for employers hiring unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds, £2,000 payments for smaller businesses recruiting young apprentices, and an expansion of the jobs guarantee to 22 to 24-year-olds.

Separate Treasury policy costings reveal ministers expect the jobs guarantee expansion to save £60 million in universal credit payments over two years, including £25 million in 2027-28 and £35 million in 2028-29.

The savings are based on lower benefit payments to young people entering subsidised employment. The Treasury’s calculations also assume some participants will leave their jobs before completing the full six months.

The national jobs guarantee rollout is due to begin in November, offering eligible 18 to 24-year-olds who have spent 18 months on Universal Credit a fully funded six-month job.

Last week the government announced 12 organisations, including Leeds College of Building, have been selected to run the scheme across 25 areas.

HE franchise crackdown savings

The Treasury expects to save almost £1 billion over six years through its crackdown on higher education franchising.

Budget costings forecast savings of £200 million in 2028-29, rising to £225 million by 2031-32, with £100 million in savings expected before the new rules take effect.

Providers teaching 300 or more students on behalf of universities will have to register with the Office for Students from September 2028 for their courses to remain eligible for student finance.

The reforms follow concerns about fraud and poor-quality provision amid a rapid expansion of franchised higher education.

FE colleges and sixth-form colleges are exempt from the additional registration requirement.

Devolution must not treat London as the place that copes

Maybe it’s because I grew up in London, but devolution looks different when viewed through the eyes of the young people in the capital.

Devolution has the potential to transform skills systems across England. Giving regions greater control over skills, economic development and workforce planning should create more responsive local systems and bring decision-making closer to employers and communities.

But as powers, influence and resources move away from Whitehall and towards regions, there is a risk that London is viewed as a place that can cope without additional attention or investment. That assumption would be a mistake.

London’s FE colleges sit at the centre of one of the country’s most complex and economically significant skills ecosystems. They serve learners from every background, support employers across some of the UK’s most productive sectors and play a critical role in promoting social mobility.

Yet despite being one of the wealthiest cities in the world, London combines extraordinary wealth with deep pockets of poverty and inequality. Around 27 per cent of Londoners live in poverty, while child poverty remains particularly acute in boroughs such as Hackney, where I was born. In some communities, more than half of children are growing up in poverty.

That matters because devolution can create growing differences between regions in how support is delivered. As powers diverge, young people may increasingly encounter different skills entitlements, apprenticeship opportunities and support services depending on where they live.

Capital costs

For London colleges, there is another challenge: cost.

Colleges in the capital face operating pressures that are often more acute than elsewhere. They compete with higher-paying industries for specialist teaching staff. They operate within a labour market shaped by exceptionally high housing costs. Many work from ageing estates where maintenance, refurbishment and development costs are substantial.

Yet national funding rates do not always reflect these realities.

A London college principal recently told me that the challenges facing colleges are broadly the same wherever you go in the country. In some respects that is true. Every college is grappling with recruitment pressures, constrained budgets and rising expectations.

But the cost of delivery in London is different.

The government’s ambitions for construction, digital skills, green industries and economic growth depend on colleges being able to recruit and retain staff with industry experience. That challenge is particularly acute in London, where qualified professionals can often command significantly higher salaries outside education.

As devolution gathers pace, London colleges cannot simply absorb policy change. They must help shape it.

A stronger collective voice

London’s FE sector needs a stronger collective voice. Colleges should be positioning themselves as anchor institutions within London’s growth sectors and more central to workforce planning, economic development and community opportunity.

The capital needs a skills system that reflects the whole learner journey, from 16-19 education through to adult retraining. Bringing planning for both together would create a more coherent approach to workforce development and strengthen the link between education and employment.

The success of devolution will ultimately be judged by whether it creates a more coherent skills system, delivers the ambitions of Skills England and gives local areas a meaningful role in workforce planning.

The real danger is not devolution itself, but a fragmented skills system that weakens national coordination.

Devolution should be welcomed. But it must not be built on the assumption that all London communities are affluent or that the capital’s educational and social challenges have already been solved.

London is more than the City, Canary Wharf and Westminster. It is also Hackney, Newham, Southwark and countless other communities where colleges play a vital role in creating opportunity.

If power is being redistributed across England, we must ensure opportunity follows it.

The young people who need support most can be found in Hackney as well as Hull, Newham as well as Newcastle. A successful devolved skills system should expand opportunity everywhere, not simply move it from one place to another.

Fewer classes, fewer teachers, more time behind cell doors

Changes to prison education contracts made in October 2025 resulted in a 25 per cent cut to planned education hours across the prison estate in England. One year on, we look at what this has meant for learners in prison and the staff who support them.

Since the new Prisoner Education Services (PES) contracts came into effect – covering literacy and numeracy courses up to level 2, as well as ICT, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) and vocational training – there are fewer classes available in the vast majority of prisons.

Education at 84 of the 94 establishments covered by these contracts was cut, with an average decrease in education hours of 28 per cent. Six prisons lost more than half of their planned hours.

By last December, at least 300 prison education staff had been made redundant, with the University and College Union (UCU) reporting “course closures, reduced purposeful activity and increased strain on staff.”

In some prisons, the cuts have contributed to people spending more time in their cells.

At one of the establishments which faced cuts of more than 50 per cent, HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) found over 4 in 10 men there spent less than three hours a day out of their cells. They highlighted that this inactivity was contributing to “high rates of self-harm”.

Ofsted inspections reflect the impact of the cuts. There have been inspection reports published on 25 prisons covered by the new PES contracts since they were introduced. Of these, just four (16 per cent) were rated “good”. This has reversed the progress made in recent years; The proportion of prisons rated “good” had increased to 31 per cent in 2024-25, the last full year before the new contracts were introduced.

The contracts have also not increased classroom attendance, a key argument for making the cuts. Average attendance has been 65 per cent. Under the previous contracts it was 73 per cent.

Curricula are now narrower. Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) reported that vocational training has been hit particularly hard, with popular courses “stripped back or removed completely.” At one category C prison, HMIP found much of the vocational training had ended. They described another establishment as “utterly failing to fulfil its remit as a training prison.”

IMBs have also highlighted concerns about cuts to creative learning and arts provision, as well as reporting that ESOL has been “removed entirely or curtailed across many prisons” including at specialist foreign national establishments. This is particularly concerning given ESOL’s status as part of core provision in contracts.

People with learning difficulties have been disproportionately affected, with support cut back across multiple establishments. Despite 2026 being the national year of reading in prisons (and now a key focus of the new Ofsted inspection framework), specialist reading teachers have either been cut or are under threat because of insufficient funding. HMIP have said this “risked the progress of the prisoners most at need.”

There has inevitably been a knock-on impact for the distance learning that Prisoners’ Education Trust provides access to, essential for learners to progress to higher academic levels.

Our team is aware of least one prison that has stopped offering distance learning altogether, while others have reduced the staff capacity available to support provision. Some establishments have introduced waiting lists or caps on application numbers.

Yet at the same time we have seen a significant increase in demand, as people in prison look for opportunities to learn. Over the past twelve months we have received over 3,300 applications for distance learning courses, an increase of 12 per cent.

Our commitment to learners in prison is unwavering, reaffirmed in our new five-year strategy published this month, with its continuing focus on excellence in distance learning provision, alongside innovation in digital learning.

The devastating cuts to prison education provision have added to the stresses already seen across the system. Prison educators already felt isolated and undervalued, and their morale has now taken a further significant hit.

Education in prison is proven to reduce reoffending and get more people into work. The cuts should be reversed and the government should properly fund education so that all prisons can focus on rehabilitation.

Misogyny is changing our classrooms – and colleges need help

Colleges across the UK are overlooking a cultural shift that is as swift as it is unsettling.

Misogyny, incel ideology and far-right influence – packaged through manosphere narratives – have migrated from digital echo chambers into classrooms, corridors, and campus social spaces.

What once seemed like an online problem is now a lived reality for educators and students, especially female staff who face rising hostility in their daily professional lives.

The FE sector, already stretched by funding constraints and safeguarding demands, is being asked to manage a cultural crisis without the tools, training, or national guidance required to do so.

Media, Music, and the Confusion of Early Masculinity

This crisis is not confined to extremist corners of the internet. It has seeped into mainstream media, particularly the music and promotional videos shaping young men’s early sexual awareness. At the moment FE learners begin to understand desire, relationships, and gender, they are confronted with a landscape saturated with sexualised imagery and contradictory messages.

Sexualised performance – from rock to rap to contemporary pop – is acted out to lyrics that oscillate between empowerment and misogynistic tropes.

Young men are often left to interpret these messages alone, without structured guidance or critical literacy. Their first encounters with female sexuality are filtered through commercialised eroticism and gendered power play.

And FE offers no consistent curriculum space to help them make sense of this.

The silence leaves a vacuum easily filled by manosphere narratives that promise clarity through hostility.

Looksmaxxing, softmaxxing, hardmaxxing

Alongside sexualised media, new pressures emerge from online communities centred on “looksmaxxing,” “softmaxxing,” and “hardmaxxing.”

Once obscure, these terms now circulate widely among students navigating appearance-based anxieties, algorithmic radicalisation, and rigid expectations of masculinity.

Looksmaxxing culture promotes obsessive self-improvement, cosmetic enhancement and the belief that male worth is measured through dominance, aesthetics and sexual success.

Yet educators have received no training on how to discuss these issues, no guidance on identifying harmful behaviours, and no framework for supporting students caught in these digital currents.

FE staff are expected to manage a cultural shift they were never prepared for.

AI–enabled misogyny

AI-enabled misogyny adds another layer of urgency.

Deepfake pornography targets female students and staff. AI-generated harassment, and doctored images circulated in group chats have become an uncontrolled tool with few safeguards from technology companies.

In colleges, more male students challenge the authority of female staff while deferring to male colleagues.

These incidents are no longer hypothetical – they are present and recurring.

Yet most FE institutions have minimal guidance on AI abuse, and few have policies robust enough to address the scale of the threat.

The gap between updated Department for Education guidance (KCSIE, 1 September 2026) and the practical skills required to manage these situations leaves staff vulnerable and safeguarding teams overwhelmed.

The manosphere moves offline

The manosphere – promoting male grievance, anti-feminist rhetoric, and gendered hostility – has become a cultural force shaping attitudes and behaviours in FE settings. Students reference misogynistic influencers, including those currently incarcerated, as authoritative voices on gender and identity.

Research from the University of York shows that over three quarters of secondary school teachers have raised concerns about rising misogyny, while over a quarter of students openly discuss influencers such as the Tate brothers.

Fourteen percent of teachers report male students disrespecting female staff more than male staff, signalling a gendered power dynamic that undermines classroom safety. This shift is ideological, reinforced by algorithmic radicalisation that educators cannot compete with.

The impact on staff – Especially Black and global majority women

The consequences for staff, particularly Black and global majority women, are profound.

Anecdotal feedback suggests rising disrespect, accusations of feminist bias, and emotional exhaustion from managing misogynistic behaviour daily.

Many describe subtle, persistent hostility; others describe fear of retaliation or being undermined by male colleagues.

FE leaders must confront an unavoidable question: how are we protecting female staff from growing verbal and digital violence?

Here are my recommendations for FE Leaders:

1 Establish robust AI abuse policies for reporting and sanctioning AI-enabled harassment.

2 Embed digital and gender literacy across GCSE, A-Level, HE, PSHE, and vocational programmes.

3 Provide specialist staff training on misogynistic influencers, digital masculinity, and AI-enabled harm.

4 Create protected spaces for female staff with confidential reporting routes and leadership-backed protections.

5 Build structured discussion spaces for guided conversations on sexuality, media, masculinity, and online pressures.

6 Invest in intersectional safeguarding recognising that misogyny and racism intersect, disproportionately affecting Black and global majority women.

FE colleges are now frontline spaces where misogynistic, racialised, and digitally accelerated ideologies are contested daily.

The question is whether the sector will be empowered – politically, financially, and structurally – to meet this moment.

The cost of inaction will be borne by female staff, female students, and the integrity of the learning environment itself.

No plumbers, no homes: The skills crisis threatening Britain’s building ambitions

Plumbers are as essential to this country’s housebuilding, data centre and clean energy ambitions as any other trade in construction, but the pipeline replacing them is nowhere near wide enough.

England has lost 25,700 plumbers from its workforce since 2018, a 16 per cent fall in under a decade. On current trends, a further 30 per cent will go by 2039.

That is the finding of JTL’s new workforce modelling, the first analysis to draw together data from across the sector’s main skills card schemes to map the true scale of the workforce.

Built with data and insight from the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Education, the Joint Industry Board for Plumbing and Mechanical Engineering Services and the Building Engineering Services Association, together with other industry partners, it gives the sector the clearest picture of its own workforce it has ever had.

Apprentices make up just 5.2 per cent of the plumbing workforce today, less than half the 14.2 per cent apprentice share in electrical. Skills England’s own growth modelling implies the plumbing sector needs more than 8,500 new entrants a year to meet demand. However, the latest full-year figures show just 2,150 started a plumbing apprenticeship in the sector.

Completion rates have also stalled at around 45 per cent, so the number of people finishing a plumbing apprenticeship each year is now roughly half what it was a decade ago.

We don’t think this happened by accident.

The incentive for small and medium-sized employers (SMEs) to take on an apprentice has not kept pace with the real cost of training someone over three or four years. An employer taking on an apprentice on minimum wage over a four-year programme invests between £70,000 and £90,000 in wages and on-boarding costs, and typically only breaks even in year three. Over 95 per cent of employers in this sector are SMEs, most of them micro-businesses, for whom that upfront cost is a much harder barrier to overcome.

New level 2 and 3 plumbing standards designed to simplify entry routes into the trade have also been delayed, leaving training providers and employers working to standards that no longer reflect the job as it is done.

Together, these pressures mean fewer people are entering the trade than are leaving it.

This falls within the context of Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government setting out some of the most ambitious housebuilding plans in a generation, including his pledge for the biggest council housebuilding programme since the post-war period, alongside tens of billions of pounds of data centre development and the rollout of heat pumps and other low-carbon heating technology central to the clean energy transition.

Every one of those ambitions depends on people who can install and maintain this infrastructure safely. On current trends, the plumbing workforce will not be large enough to deliver them.

We do not think this decline is irreversible, but it will not correct itself without the government taking urgent action.

Raising the SME apprenticeship hiring incentive from £2,000 to £3,000 for under-25 recruits, with a further £3,000 for apprentices on priority construction standards including plumbing, would make taking on an apprentice viable again for more employers.

Designating plumbing a priority occupation in national workforce planning would mean funding and attention follow the sharpest shortfalls, rather than being spread evenly across every trade regardless of need.

Finally, removing the delay to the new level 2 and 3 plumbing standards would increase employer demand, creating more opportunities for young people and let training keep pace with the job as it is now done.

Whilst it is positive to see the government’s focus on technical education, without further support, there will not be the opportunities available for young people to take up trades like plumbing.

Full apprenticeships remain the gold standard route into this trade for good reason, but the pipeline into this trade is too narrow, and every year it goes unfixed, the shortfall gets harder to close. Government, employers and training providers each have a part to play in widening it, because the houses, data centres and heat pumps this country needs will not get built without the people to install them.