Latest news from FE Week

Former apprenticeship provider hit with £200k clawback after probe

A former apprenticeship training provider that was judged ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted last year now faces a £200,000 clawback after an investigation into its funding claims.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) began looking into the London Academy for Applied Technology (LAAT), which used to train chef and hospitality apprentices, in July 2024 over data accuracy and apprenticeship funding claims.

Officials found some apprentices’ employment statuses “could not be evidenced” between 2022-23 and 2023-24. They are now taking steps to recover “an overpayment” of £198,920 from the company.

A report, published today, found non-compliant off-the-job training records as well as claims for functional skills courses that learners had already achieved.

The report added that LAAT has since “reviewed and implemented changes” to its procedures.

LAAT received an ‘inadequate’ overall Ofsted grade for its apprenticeship delivery in March 2025.

It is no longer on the apprenticeship provider and assessment register, suggesting its contract was terminated.

Apprentices ‘studying at wrong levels’

At the time of its inspection, Ofsted flagged concerns about apprentices waiting too long for final assessments and studying at the wrong levels, but LAAT hit back with allegations of racial “bias” because the inspection was held during Ramadan. Ofsted rejected the accusations of discrimination.

A spokesperson for LAAT said it worked constructively with the Department for Education (DfE) to provide “substantial” documentation during the investigation, which the department has “acknowledged”.

But, they added, further employment verification and supporting evidence requested “went beyond what we had understood from the published funding rules”.

“As a relatively new provider, this has been an important learning experience, and we welcome the findings as an opportunity to further strengthen our processes and practices.”

The spokesperson told FE Week its governance and leadership are now “fully independent” and it is committed to a “robust” internal and external audit programme.

LAAT also “remains fully committed” to reaching a repayment arrangement with the DfE, they added.

“Our commitment to education, quality and continuous improvement remains unchanged. The experience has reinforced the importance of learning, adapting and continually strengthening our approach across all areas of provision.”

‘Exited the market’

DfE apprenticeship data shows the business, based in Tower Hamlets in east London, had 40 starts in the 2022-23 academic year and 110 in 2023-24, with achievements recorded as “low”.

It trained apprentices in standards including level 2 commis chef, level 2 production chef, and level 3 chef de partie.

DfE figures show the company accessed £379,011 in apprenticeship funding in 2024-25, mostly from non-levy-paying employers.

LAAT’s website said it currently supports “more than 2,000” learners in campuses in London and the Midlands.

The company, launched by Jatin Tekriwal in 2019, began delivering apprenticeships in 2022 but appears to have now exited the market.

It currently advertises higher education courses in business, hospitality and tourism, and a post-graduate MBA top-up in partnership with Plymouth Marjon University.

Office for Students data, last updated on November 5, shows the company had 360 students in 2024-25. Most of the students were on undergraduate programmes, with tuition fees ranging from £5,760 to £9,535 per year.

It also offers self-funded level 3 to 5 diplomas in subjects such as business management.

More apprenticeships mean little if young people can’t complete them

In an otherwise muted budget, the Chancellor’s confirmation of £100 million for an expansion of local apprenticeship services was very welcome.

The scheme, which sees young people matched with local employers, could go a long way to spreading apprenticeship opportunities for young people across the country.

However, our new research argues that boosting apprenticeship starts is only half the battle – we also need to look at completions.

While the apprenticeship achievement rate has increased in recent years, about a third of starters do not complete their programmes and this is even higher for those from the most deprived parts of the country.

Dropouts can happen for a range of reasons – some apprentices will be offered jobs part way through their programme, while others might decide to move to a sector better-suited to them. In other cases, dropouts reflect a mismatch between apprentices’ expectations and the reality.

In conversations with over 300 young apprentices, the Sutton Trust found that for many young people, their experience was characterised by weak employer line management, low pay and a lack of coordination between provider and employer.

We heard from young people for whom ‘self-directed learning’ was code for being left almost completely to their own devices, passively scrolling through slide decks online and receiving minimal tutor involvement.

For others, there was a disconnect between their learning with their training provider and their day-to-day work with their employer.

While existing guidance and expectations, such those set out in the apprenticeship accountability framework, are meant to ensure a base level of programme quality, there is a clear need to ensure a higher ‘floor’ when it comes to the training offer, with at least some in-person contact.

In the government’s most recent survey of apprenticeship non-completers, almost half (46 per cent) said that sub-par training was a contributor towards them dropping out. This represents a missed opportunity for apprentices but also employers, who lose out on the knowledge and skills that high-quality training can provide.

However, it was also clear from our report that many colleges and independent training providers were going out of their way to ensure that their training was of a high-quality and closely connected with apprentices’ day-to-day work.

This had a clear impact on young apprentices, who could feel the benefits of their apprenticeship acting as a coherent programme of work and learning.

In our report, we set out steps that employers and training providers can take to spread good practice across the system. But if we are to raise our expectations of what we want from apprenticeships, it’s important that the mechanisms and incentives are there to enable this work.

Skills England should consider allowing some off-the-job training hours to be used prior to an apprenticeship officially commencing – ensuring young apprentices can start their course on the front foot.

In addition, we would like to see a fully funded, optional line management training unit for SMEs taking on young apprentices. This would help ensure that all employers, regardless of size, can best support the young people they take on – maximising the odds of completion.

As we await the final report of the Milburn review, we anticipate a series of recommendations around apprenticeships, including a new pre-apprenticeship route and further reforms to skew apprenticeships back towards young people. While these steps are welcome, they must form a much wider conversation about apprenticeship finances and access.

During the course of our research, we heard from young people who were struggling for meals and even going into debt due to low apprenticeship wages and cost of living challenges. For those that didn’t have the luxury of family support or savings to draw on, financial struggles compounded other difficulties they faced during their apprenticeship – ultimately raising the odds of them dropping out.

Sector experts also explained that the treatment of 16-17 year-old apprentices in the benefits system can be a financial barrier for young people from households claiming universal credit.

While employers and training providers can take steps to improve access, this must be accompanied by a wider review of the social security system and the support available to young apprentices to ensure that background is not a barrier to entry and completion.

The Budget and the Milburn review will help put apprenticeship starts firmly on the agenda. Our report makes clear that a renewed focus on completion rates is also needed if apprenticeships are to realise their potential for young people, employers and the economy at large.

Colleges must help shape devolution, not simply adapt to it

In his bid to become Prime Minister, at the end of June, Andy Burnham promised to “take power out of the centre” and bring “good growth to every postcode”.

Soon after, Whitehall was buzzing with officials and advisers asking what this might mean.

A month later and the Cabinet Office published ‘Rewiring the State’ to put a little bit of meat on the bones, and then a month after that the new PM reinforced the message in his first statement to Parliament. In his Labour party conference speech, he reconfirmed his commitment, alongside the promise of a ten-year plan and a devolution road map before Christmas.

During that handful of months, Whitehall has been at full speed to firstly understand the intent and the scale of ambition in the PM’s mind and then to draw up plans for legislation and implementation that can be put out to consultation and debate.

In public policy terms, the speed of this is unusual and the scale of its ambition enormous.

It’s hardly surprising that devolution is high up on Burnham’s to-do list, given what he has said about it over many years and his experience as mayor of Greater Manchester. But just as the change in PM happened quicker than many expected, the Whitehall machinery was not prepared for this pace and scale of devolution and has had to do some fast catching up.

At AoC we’ve been thinking about this for some time. In spring 2025 we published an independent review of the devolved adult skills funding , wanting to learn the lessons to that point.

We long-argued for a place-based approach to post 16 education and skills and a vision for a more joined-up local system for education, training and skills – a system in which universities, schools and colleges work in unison, as local anchor institutions, to offer more and better opportunities for all adults to learn and delivering social and economic outcomes in every community.

Devolving the 16 to 19 funding is complex, with a budget of £9.5 billion, 1.35 million students and 3,000 learning providers. How it will happen and how quickly is yet to be decided, but whatever the answers to those two questions, the long term systems shift could be enormous.

Since that series of announcements earlier in the summer, we have been engaging with our members as well as policy makers across the government and mayoral strategic authorities.

Colleges have seen lots of policy changes in the past 10 years, so they are adept at stepping forward, helping to shape and support change and making the most of the opportunities posed. As a sector we understand that any change brings risks, but we also know that colleges have a strong track record of making things work on the ground.

As with any other proposed change, for college leaders, one question dominates: how will it actually improve things?

To help focus minds on that question, we recently published a vision document to stimulate the discussion needed to ensure that the devolution of the 16-19 budget comes with positive changes for people, for places and for productivity.

It’s based on our long-standing belief that we need a place-based, tertiary system vision in which collaboration and cooperation come to the fore and where unproductive competition is addressed. Our vision document builds on the numerous discussions we’ve had with colleges since July. We have sent it out widely: to our members, stakeholders, and local, regional and national policy makers, and have asked for feedback so that together, we can think deeply about how devolution can work well.

We are not expecting everyone to agree with us, nor we do not think this is a polished, fully considered plan. What it is, however, is a provocation and an invitation to shape the debate together.

The document outlines a vision in which young people and adults can be clearer about the education, learning and skills offer available to them and how that fits into the local and national economy and labour markets. It describes a system in which employers can be partners, understanding how they can both contribute and benefit from a system closely aligned with their workforce needs and business growth plans.

The ultimate test of devolution will be whether it produces better outcomes for people, productivity and place, not simply whether a particular funding stream has been devolved.

We believe that to achieve that there needs to be an open and honest debate about a new post-16 education system at local level, with national guardrails and student entitlements. Please join us in that debate over the coming months and help ensure that the government can make sure devolution really delivers.

What apprentices may lose in the great AI efficiency race

For centuries, an apprenticeship has involved more than acquiring information. It means learning from a respected mentor, making mistakes, having those mistakes explained, being challenged and gradually developing the judgment to work independently.

But what happens when the person explaining your mistakes is no longer a person?

Across FE, artificial intelligence is increasingly marking assignments, writing feedback, answering questions and generating teaching materials. It promises instant feedback and relief from repetitive administration – an attractive prospect for financially stretched providers.

Apprentices, meanwhile, are discovering that the same technology can help them produce the work their providers are assessing.

The result is a potentially profound change in the relationship between learner, tutor and assessor.

If one machine helps produce an assignment and another judges it, how do we know the apprentice has actually learned anything?

Five-minute marking

AI-assisted assessment has moved rapidly from experimentation into everyday apprenticeship delivery.

Aptem’s Enhance platform offers AI marking assistance, automated knowledge checks, a virtual learner assistant and AI-generated progress-review summaries.

Its marking tool can propose grades and feedback for tutors to approve, with the company claiming it can reduce marking time by up to 50 per cent.

At Hawk Training, which began using Aptem’s marking assistance in November 2025, a Functional Skills reading mock paper that previously took 30 minutes to mark could be completed in five, according to an Aptem case study. Marking a writing paper fell from more than an hour to 25 minutes.

Aptem estimates that a provider with 1,000 learners could save £216,000 annually by automating routine learner queries, with another £73,500 saved through reduced marking time.

Bud Systems makes similar claims for Bud Mark, which evaluates submissions against assessment criteria and proposes feedback for tutors to approve. A 2025 trial with Skills4Group reportedly halved marking time.

OneFile has also partnered with Sainaptic to offer AI-powered marking. Sainaptic claims its AI model leads to a 7 per cent improvement in pass rate and a 97 per cent reduction in resubmissions.

Multiverse, one of the country’s largest apprenticeship providers, has gone further by allowing learners to receive formative project assessments directly from AI.

Its Instant Feedback system, launched in February 2026 for non-degree apprentices, assesses submitted projects against specified knowledge, skills and behaviours and normally responds within minutes.

Apprentices can challenge decisions and request a human review, although this can take up to 10 working days. During that period, the project remains locked against editing or resubmission.

A Multiverse spokesperson said that before the tool’s rollout, learners might wait weeks for feedback, whereas “today, apprentices can get fast feedback and learn in the moment, with a human still in the loop to review where required”.

Learners’ final portfolios are reviewed by a human coach before submission for end-point assessment (EPA).

Steve Kirk, internal quality assurer and EPA assessor

But Steve Kirk, an internal quality assurer and EPA assessor who recently founded the British Institute of Assessment Professionals, questions whether automated feedback can recognise the nuances that experienced assessors identify.

AI, he says, can pick out the main points but does not necessarily “tease out bits that are a little bit thin, like a human assessor would”.

“So AI is not great for helping develop your learners.”

The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) requires human oversight of AI marking for regulated qualifications. But that oversight could mean carefully challenging an AI-generated judgment – or simply clicking approve.

Tom Moule, senior AI specialist at Jisc, warned that oversight “has to go beyond simply rubber stamping an AI-generated outcome”.

“While AI can be enormously helpful in mapping student work to rubric criteria and in expressing educator viewpoints at pace, the consensus was that AI should not substitute for, nor unduly steer, the vital judgments made by the educators themselves.”

Education secretary Lucy Powell told the education select committee this week that Ofqual and ministers were clear that the awarding and marking of qualifications “really should be done by the human eye”, saying AI could otherwise “exacerbate prejudice” and other problems in awarding.

She argued that rigorous teacher assessment was essential to maintaining the credibility and standing of technical qualifications.

Yet the growing use of AI for formative assessment raises a related question: even when a human makes the final awarding decision, what happens if the feedback that prepared the learner for it was wrong?

When AI gets it wrong

One Multiverse apprentice complained that an AI marker had approved a project as meeting all distinction criteria, only for a human assessor to fail that element of their final portfolio over incorrect notation the AI had missed.

“Had their AI bot flagged it in the first place, or they had a human review as a failsafe, I wouldn’t have had the inconvenience,” said the apprentice, who corrected the error and eventually passed with distinction.

Elsewhere, a Learndirect learner complained about repeated plagiarism accusations and inadequate human feedback, while a former associate assessor alleged that the company’s automated marking had coincided with freelance payment rates falling to £1 per unit.

Learndirect confirmed introducing Supported Assistive Marking (SAM), but disputed that it constituted AI marking.

Human marking is hardly flawless either. One software developer building an AI marking tool for essay subjects pointed out that consistency between human markers was “a long way from perfect”.

“’Is it accurate enough’ cannot be answered without asking ‘compared to what’? I wonder what providers are benchmarking against.”

Ofqual research from 2018 found a marker’s chance of matching a senior examiner’s GCSE, AS or A Level grade ranged from about 96 per cent in maths to 52 per cent in English language and literature, though the chance of the same or an adjacent grade exceeded 95 per cent.

The next frontier: video assessment

Even video assessment may not escape automation.

Dr Rajeshwari Iyer, co-founder of AI marking company sAInaptic, said awarding organisations and assessment centres were increasingly turning to video evidence because of concerns about learners using AI to complete written assessments.

Her company has been exploring whether AI could be used to mark a video of, for example, an engineering apprentice filming themselves putting on personal protective equipment, or a hospitality apprentice checking a guest out of a hotel.

Apprentices outsourcing their own learning

While providers use AI to evaluate apprentices’ work, apprentices increasingly use it to help produce their portfolios.

Awarding organisations are also grappling with AI appearing during EPAs themselves.

NCFE, an educational charity and leader in vocational and technical learning, has warned of cases in which applications such as Grammarly, ChatGPT and automated meeting notetakers appeared to be running in the background during assessments. It advised training partners to ensure assessment devices did not contain tools or retrievable information that could give apprentices an unfair advantage.

Emma (not her real name), a level five operations management apprentice, discovered the dangers of relying on chatbots in a more ordinary setting.

Having routinely used AI to draft emails, she found herself stalling when required to write one independently.

“That cognitive offloading sneaks up on you without realising,” she said.

Yet Emma also uses AI when feedback from her tutors lacks sufficient depth, entering her EPA guidance into a chatbot to obtain further insights.

Another apprentice, Simon Phipp, uses AI to check assignments before submitting them on his chartered manager degree apprenticeship, hoping to establish whether he has included the right information.

Such practices are increasingly difficult to distinguish from ordinary professional behaviour in the apprentice’s workplace.

Phipp points out that employees might use AI to improve reports, analyse information or draft correspondence. He finds the inconsistency with his IT management job, which actively encourages AI use, “difficult”.

“Why should apprentices be prohibited from using the same tools?”

Kirk believes higher-level apprenticeships may be particularly vulnerable to AI cheating because they frequently require learners to compare theories, evaluate evidence and critique ideas.

“AI can give you the strengths and weaknesses of a theory in 30 seconds that you could otherwise have spent days researching,” he said.

“That’s where it gets very dangerous.”

Since AI began entering widespread use in late 2022, the number of higher-level apprenticeship achievements recorded has risen by around 80 per cent. But the rise has been driven predominantly by better retention rather than pass rates. It could reflect AI helping providers identify struggling learners and giving tutors more time to intervene. But the figures do not establish that AI caused the improvement.

They also cannot tell us whether apprentices are developing a deeper understanding of their subjects, or whether providers are simply becoming more efficient at moving them through programmes.

In evidence to the education select committee, the Department for Education warned that AI can allow students to “bypass the cognitive effort entirely”, while excessive personalisation could undermine curriculum coherence.

The danger is that a machine produces an assignment, another machine assesses it, and neither human necessarily develops a deeper understanding.

Who makes the rules?

Some apprentices say their providers have done little to clarify what AI use is acceptable.

Emma regularly used AI to make her writing more “vocational” in style. She and fellow apprentices were told of what she describes as a “zero tolerance policy” towards AI-generated content in portfolios only 11 months into the programme.

She knows of an apprentice who failed an EPA after AI-generated content was identified in a written assignment.

Emma now faces the task of reviewing her portfolio to ensure it does not contain material that could cause problems. She “would have appreciated stronger controls over what is allowed made clear from the start”.

Phipp describes a similar experience.

He was not told until six months into his programme that AI use was prohibited, having previously used Grammarly to rewrite material in a more academic style.

Phipp says learners on his programme who received a “high AI score” were asked to resubmit their work without AI, rather than automatically failing.

“Whether [those learners then] use AI to rewrite it, I don’t know, but there are always ways around things,” he said.

GLP Training apprentice Obafemi Refai likewise said he received no guidance, but was subsequently told to rewrite work flagged as containing 10 to 15 per cent AI-generated material.

The problem is compounded by doubts about the reliability of AI detection software.

One provider employee acknowledged to FE Week that the AI checkers it used were “not always accurate”.

In a case summary published in July 2025, involving an MBA student who suspected their dissertation feedback was AI-generated, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator said it was reasonable for the provider to place less weight on the results of an AI detector, noting the tools “can be unreliable”. The complaint was not upheld.

Rather than relying on detection scores, Kirk recommends assessors triangulate evidence, discuss work with learners and examine whether they can demonstrate their understanding.

Some providers are developing more nuanced policies.

Remit Training teaches apprentices to distinguish between “red flags”, such as copying AI-generated work without demonstrating understanding, and “green flags”, including using AI for research, planning and improving their own writing.

But the approach requires a clear understanding of what an assessment is intended to measure.

If an apprentice uses AI to produce a workplace report, is the assessment testing their ability to write the report unaided, or their ability to use the tools available in their occupation?

Scott Hayden, BCoT’s head of teaching, learning and innovation

What cannot be automated

At Basingstoke College of Technology, teachers have developed Fixter, an AI tool that carries out initial marking and helps draft feedback.

But before the feedback is completed, the system requires the teacher to contribute a personal observation about the learner – something only someone who knows them could provide.

Scott Hayden, the college’s head of teaching, learning and innovation, describes it as an “AI assessment sparring partner built by teachers for teachers”.

“This isn’t a race to efficiency,” he said. “The question now is not whether to use AI, but how to design assessment that cannot simply be outsourced to it… using AI to hold a first draft steady while you do the real work of thinking.”

He invokes science-fiction writer Ted Chiang’s comparison of using AI to complete assignments with bringing a forklift into a weight room.

“You move the weight, but you never build strength yourself.”

Edtech researcher Thomas Arnett believes AI may soon surpass teachers at explaining concepts, identifying misconceptions and providing instant, personalised feedback.

But teaching is about more than transferring information.

“A better AI tutor can explain fractions more clearly. It cannot make a student care about fractions. And caring – being embedded in a community and a set of relationships that make academic effort feel meaningful – turns out to be most of the problem.”

For Emma, the value of her skills coach at BMS Progress lies in what a machine cannot replicate.

“He can pick up on the subtlest of details, and he understands the wider picture of what it’s like working with me as a person.”

Phipp likewise says the most valuable parts of his apprenticeship involved discussions with peers about how they applied their learning at work.

Apprentices will encounter AI in their workplaces, and providers have a responsibility to help them use it critically, confidently and safely.

The challenge is to establish which tasks AI can perform without diminishing the skills an apprenticeship is supposed to develop.

T Level allocations fall for first time

The number of students predicted to take T Levels has fallen for the first time since the government’s “gold-standard” technical qualification launched in 2020.

Department for Education allocations, which are partly based on colleges’ and schools’ estimates, are expected to provide funding for 70,901 T Level students in the 2026-27 academic year, down from 71,039 last year.

The decline could cast doubt on the scalability of T Levels amid government plans to defund competing courses like BTECs from next August.

However, colleges told FE Week their allocations for previous years were inflated by expectations that BTECs would lose public funding sooner. This year’s lower allocations “much better reflect” actual course offers.

The Department for Education (DfE) has repeatedly overestimated demand for the qualification, with the National Audit Office (NAO) describing the department’s own forecasts for T Level starts as “significantly overstated”.

The defunding of BTECs and other applied general qualifications has been delayed multiple times since 2021. Under the current timeline, large overlapping courses in T Level subjects will lose funding from August 2027, while smaller ones are phased out as new V Levels arrive, starting in finance, digital and education.

The NAO found last year that the DfE spent £688 million less than planned on T Levels by 2024-25, largely because of lower student numbers.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, chair of the public accounts committee, said technical qualifications like T Levels were “essential” to achieving government goals such as having 60,000 more construction workers by 2029. He added that seeing “any slackening of momentum in their uptake is concerning”.

Emma Willson, director of education value for money at the NAO, said T Levels have the potential to “widen opportunities and address skills gaps”, but warned there were “significant risks to their expansion”.

She called on the DfE to “better understand demand before making wider changes to technical qualifications”.

Growth slows sharply

T Level funding allocations combine the number of continuing second-year students with providers’ estimates of new starters. The figures are adjusted to actual enrolments each spring as part of an in-year reconciliation process.

Actual enrolments are usually at least a third lower than allocations.

FE Week analysis shows the annual growth rate in T Level allocations was at 458 per cent between 2020-21 and 2021-22, before slowing to 141 per cent the following year, 73 per cent in 2023-24, 40 per cent in 2024-25 and 22 per cent in 2025-26.

This year, allocations fell by 0.2 per cent – the first decline since the qualification launched.

Participation statistics, which show actual numbers of funded learners, reveal a similar slowdown. Annual growth fell from 402 per cent between 2020-21 and 2021-22 to 25 per cent between 2024-25 and 2025-26. Actual participation figures for 2026-27 will not be published until later in this academic year.

Starts in 2025-26 rose 7.6 per cent to 27,446, meaning more students should be continuing into their second year this academic year compared to last.

Yet the overall allocation still fell, suggesting providers estimated fewer new starters for the first time. This is not confirmed by actual recruitment figures, with official data on 2026-27 entrants expected early next year.

FE colleges bear brunt

The decline was most notable in general FE colleges, which teach around three-quarters of T Level students and were allocated 734 fewer learners than last year.

Allocations for university technical colleges (UTCs) fell by 125.

Meanwhile, allocations for sixth form colleges rose by 75, academies by 519, land-based colleges accounted for 171 more, and higher education providers grew by 264 students.

Large sixth form college Franklin Sixth Form College converted to academy status in November 2025, so its 215 allocated T Level students transferred to the overall academies tally.

Nina Chorzelewski, policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said T Levels were “still a young qualification” and early indications actually showed some growth in provision among members, alongside “very positive” student feedback.

She said colleges welcomed government efforts to streamline content and assessment, alongside greater flexibility in industry placements, which would help numbers grow.

However, she warned that scaling up remained challenging, particularly securing enough industry placements. Some sectors faced health and safety restrictions, while smaller businesses needed “continued support and incentives” to provide work opportunities.

Kate Ambrosi, chief executive of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, said ongoing qualification reforms had “impacted enrolment and delivery” among UTCs.

The total number of providers allocated T Level funding also fell, from 367 to 362, with nearly two dozen organisations that received allocations last year getting none for 2026-27.

They include the Charter Schools in North and East Dulwich, south London, which were each allocated 20 T Level students last year but never ran the course, citing low demand for the large qualification.

A spokesperson said the sixth forms have more appetite to mix V Levels with A Levels.

Uncertainty in planning estimates

North Kent College saw the biggest fall in its allocation, from 657 to 256 students.

Deputy executive principal Mark Andrews said the DfE’s regional team had previously advised the college to plan for a “worst-case scenario” in which BTECs had been defunded.

Its large 2025-26 allocation, which was predicted using May 2024 planning returns, was therefore based on T Levels being the only level 3 option for many of its computing, engineering, business and land-based students.

With a revised defunding timeline announced later in December 2024, “we were able to offer our students a more appropriate range of vocational qualifications and hence underrecruited significantly compared to our T Level allocation”, he added.

The college’s allocation for 2026-27 “much better reflects our eventual course offer”.

Andrews said data returns are submitted “at a time when applications for courses to start in 11 months’ time have only just opened”, creating “considerable uncertainty” in the planning estimates which determine the allocations.

North Kent College estimated around 175 new starters this year and now expects about 155 enrolments.

At The Bedford College Group, where the allocation fell from 1,395 to 1,117, deputy chief executive Robin Webber-Jones said the decline reflected a combination of weaker GCSE English and maths outcomes among school leaver applicants and uncertainty over the timing of BTEC defunding.

Robin Webber-Jones, Bedford College Group deputy chief executive

He explained that allocations had been based on estimates that assumed wider qualification reforms would happen sooner, adding that “the clarity around defunding of BTECs and the timescale that’s taken” had affected recruitment expectations.

However, Webber-Jones said T Levels were proving “incredibly successful” at the college, with employers increasingly recognising their value for their career pipeline and recruitment.

West Herts College also found it “difficult” to predict how many students would choose T Levels over other routes because of the pauses and changes to BTEC defunding.

The college was initially funded for 189 students in 2024-25 but recruited just six. Its allocation was “adjusted downwards” to 90 for 2025-26, and recruited 89, before being funded for 485 this year. It currently has 192 students enrolled.

A spokesperson credited the growth in actual numbers to a wider T Level offer, growing demand from school leavers and the planned defunding of alternative courses that made T Levels the main technical route.

From 2027-28, the DfE will stop asking providers for estimates and will formulate allocations based on the previous year’s actual numbers. This will bring T Levels in line with other 16 to 19 study programmes, which are already funded through a lagged model.

Government ‘failing to meet targets’

Shadow education minister Saqib Bhatti said Labour’s failure to provide clarity over when BTEC funding will be withdrawn – a reform started by the Conservatives in 2019 – has left schools and colleges unable to plan with confidence.

He added: “Now, for the first time, we are seeing student numbers fall, and providers walk away from delivering T Levels. It is part of a wider pattern of a government that consistently fails to meet its own targets, whether on teacher recruitment or T Level student numbers.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “T Levels are rigorous, high-quality qualifications with a proven track record of supporting young people into work or further study, and a record number of T Level students received results this year.

“We are continuing to expand the T Level offer, including new qualifications in sport, physical activity and health and social care, alongside strengthening the digital T Level to ensure young people have the skills they need for today’s modern occupations.”

Connecting pathways for progression

At Pearson, our view on education reform rests on a vital principle: connecting pathways for progression. Every qualification should purposefully connect to clear next steps in education or employment.

Colleges play a crucial role in making this possible. They bring subjects to life, help young people discover their strengths and support them as their ambitions develop or plans change. As we consider changes to post-16 routes, including the introduction of V Levels, colleges’ experience of designing programmes, advising learners and supporting progression must help shape these qualifications from the outset.

This is why collaboration matters. By bringing together Pearson’s expertise in qualification design and assessment with colleges’ understanding of learners, curriculum delivery and progression, we can help shape qualifications that work in practice, not just on paper.

Help learners understand their choices

New routes can widen choice, but learners first need to know they exist and understand what they offer.

Findings from the Pearson School & College Report 2026 (PSCR) highlight a significant challenge in helping learners navigate their choices. An estimated 1.2 million students in England, from Year 8 through to college, do not feel ready to make choices about subjects, courses or next steps that will affect their future. Only 59% of secondary school students say they have enough information about the different paths available after school.

Awareness of qualifications also varies considerably. Among Year 10 and 11 students, 93% are familiar with A Levels and apprenticeships, compared with 55% for T Levels and 36% for V Levels.

That’s why young people need opportunities from age 14 to explore academic and vocational subjects, experience practical learning and understand the different pathways available after age 16. Giving them this breadth of experience can help them discover their interests, develop their strengths and make more informed choices about their next steps.

A course description can only go so far. A learner may want to understand how they can combine a V Level with an A Level, how a Level 2 Foundation Certificate could help them progress to Level 3, or what studying a T Level would mean day to day. They need to understand not just what they will study, but the opportunities each choice could open up.

College staff make those possibilities tangible. Tutors explain what students will learn. Careers teams connect interests with further study and work. Open evenings allow young people to see where they would study and ask questions of the people who would teach them.

The PSCR also found that 81% of Year 9-11 and college students said these events influenced their choice of subject, course and next steps, while 97% of college students said their tutors had influenced those decisions.

From September 2027, Fareham College, a designated Qualification Pioneer College and part of South Hampshire College Group, plans to introduce three new Career Pathways combining selected V Levels and A Levels. To raise awareness of these new qualifications among local schools, Joanne Allen-Kotze, Curriculum Development and Innovation Lead at the college group, explains: “Alongside our usual open events, careers fairs and school liaison work, we are offering additional information evenings for parents and young people in December and January, focused on our new Career Pathways.

“We will also be running early taster sessions in the spring for anyone applying to our V Level and A Level programmes. Normally, welcome events happen after GCSEs in June or July, but because these qualifications are new, it’s vital that students feel confident and supported in their choices from an earlier stage.”

As new pathways emerge, working with colleges helps us explain each new qualification clearly: what it asks of students, what they can achieve and how it fits with other options.

Build on what learners have achieved

A central test of the new qualifications system will be whether it maintains and improves the opportunities available to learners. Qualifications must prepare students for their intended next steps, whether that means progressing to university, further study or employment.

Education reform should build on the strengths of the existing system, preserving the flexibility and progression opportunities that have helped learners move successfully into higher education and employment.

Established vocational qualifications have enabled learners to specialise, combine academic and vocational study, and progress to higher education and employment. Reform should preserve these strengths, including opportunities for learners to pursue more substantial vocational study where this supports their ambitions.

Colleges see these connections across whole study programmes. Illustrating how this works in practice, Allen-Kotze explains: “We aren’t designing combinations purely at random. Each of our study programmes is mapped directly to progression routes. For example, a student aiming to be an educational psychologist can combine A Level Psychology, A Level English Language, and V Level Education so that the subject areas naturally reinforce each other.”

Combining academic and vocational study is already an established and successful route into higher education. Our research into university entrants in 2019/20 and 2020/21 found that students combining A Levels with BTEC Nationals had higher education continuation rates of 92.5%–94.3%, close to the 95.1%–96.5% recorded for A Level-only students. As V Levels are introduced, it is essential that the range of subjects available enables learners to continue accessing these successful progression pathways, with any gaps in provision identified and addressed.

Assess the learning that matters

Assessments should reflect what learners are being asked to learn. Written exams can assess knowledge and reasoning, while practical tasks, projects and authentic work-based activities can demonstrate how learners apply those skills in context. The first V Levels will include both timetabled and other forms of assessment, with scope for applied and practical tasks in both. Getting the balance right matters: assessment must be rigorous and manageable for colleges, without losing the distinctive strengths of vocational learning.

Assessment should be rigorous, but it should also be fair. Unnecessary barriers can prevent learners from showing what they know and can do. A student shouldn’t fail a practical skills test simply because of overly complex reading demands or language clutter. The goal is to test what matters, fairly and clearly, while keeping standards high.

Tutors bring a close understanding of how students develop their skills and how an assessment works across a full course. Pearson brings experience in large-scale academic assessment alongside vocational and occupational learning. Both perspectives are valuable in answering the same question: will this assessment give learners a fair opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills?

Ben Brady, Director of Curriculum and Quality at Warrington and Vale Royal College, notes: “As a vocational college, many of our students are practically gifted but would struggle with traditional, exam-heavy delivery. Whether it’s a hair student being observed doing a cut or a bricklayer building a wall, practical demonstration is where they thrive. Our learners particularly benefit from coursework and practical assessments: heavily exam-based routes don’t suit them, but that doesn’t mean they are any less capable. It’s simply a different way of demonstrating competency.”

Prepare for change together

Colleges begin planning courses long before the first lesson, and successful reform depends on giving them the time, information and support to do this well. Introducing new pathways means developing curricula, preparing staff, understanding assessment requirements and building confidence among universities and employers.

As new qualifications are introduced in phases, colleges need timely and reliable information about specifications, assessment arrangements, funding and progression opportunities. They also need the resources and professional development to deliver the new offer effectively. Clarity about when existing qualifications will be withdrawn, and the arrangements for learners affected by the transition, will be essential to avoid disruption or gaps in provision.

Sustained collaboration between colleges and awarding organisations is central to making this work. Colleges understand their learners and the practical realities of delivery. Pearson can draw on that expertise in qualification development and provide the information, resources and support colleges need to prepare.

“With T Levels, there was a great deal of consultation, and many of my colleagues were directly involved in developing them,” says Brady. “That level of consultation remains an essential part of shaping the new V Level offer too, ensuring colleges have a clear voice in qualification design.”

Make every next step count

For Every Future reflects our belief: young people can reach their ambitions in different ways. Some arrive at college with a clear plan. Others find their direction through learning. All young people deserve choices they understand and achievements they can build on.

Reform will ultimately be judged not by qualification titles or policy announcements, but by whether young people can move confidently from one stage of learning to the next. That means creating routes they understand, achievements they can build on and opportunities they can access.

When we bring that knowledge together, we can shape qualifications around the learner’s journey and make reform work where it matters most – in the choices young people make and the futures they pursue.

Find out how we’re working with schools, colleges, sixth-form colleges and, importantly, learners to shape new qualifications for every future. Explore Pearson’s post-16 reform hub

Movers & Shakers: Edition 558

Afghan learner and artist among London adult learning awards finalists

A former ESOL student from Afghanistan and an artist who rebuilt her life through adult learning are among this year’s finalists in the Mayor of London Adult Learning Awards.

Laila Sardar and Elise Harrison are among those shortlisted for the annual awards which will be held at City Hall on 12 November.

Sardar arrived in London in 2009 speaking little to no English. She enrolled on an English for Speakers of Other Languages course (ESOL) at West Thames College, progressed to beauty therapy and hairdressing qualifications, then returned to study health and social care. She now works with vulnerable people in hospitals and homes.

Sardar has encouraged her sister, who also moved from Afghanistan to the UK, to enrol on an ESOL course at the college.

“Studying at West Thames College changed my life,” Sardar said. “I hope my sister will have the same opportunities that education has given me.”

Harrison joined Westminster Adult Education Service in 2023 while rebuilding her life following alcohol dependency. She has since exhibited and sold her artwork, secured an internship and found a job supporting people affected by substance misuse and mental health difficulties.

“Adult education has changed my life. It has shown me that it is never too late to start again,” she said.

Another finalist, Laila Hussain Shah, went from having little confidence in her English or digital skills to becoming a care worker after studying with Urban Care Community. She was promoted to team leader within four months and now helps train new recruits.

Among the tutors shortlisted is City Lit’s Alex Thomas, who leads a percussion orchestra for adults with learning disabilities. The orchestra, which works with the Royal Academy of Music, performed at last year’s awards ceremony.

Westminster Adult Education Service’s Adam Walker is recognised for developing an immersive learning room where adults with special educational needs can practise everyday situations.

Fellow finalist Ali Kanu, a welfare and safeguarding officer at the same service, helps learners access support from housing, healthcare and community organisations.

New award announced

This year there is a new award for participation and excellence in higher education, while the outreach and engagement category has been widened to recognise organisations working in housing, health and other community services.

The new higher education category includes London South Bank University Group, recognised for routes from college into degree-level study and work, and the University of East London’s information, advice and guidance service, which supports more than 4,500 Londoners a year, including mature and ESOL learners.

Other finalists include housing association Peabody, which has supported more than 270 apprentices since 2023, and Teen Action, which works with education providers to help Charedi women access adult learning.

Since the awards began in 2022, they have attracted more than 1,000 nominations and recognised over 90 winners and finalists.

This year the awards received 205 nominations across 10 categories, recognising learners, tutors, non-teaching staff, employers and education providers.

Films featuring previous winners will be shown at this year’s ceremony.

Last year’s winners included Syrian refugee-turned-business student Hamzeh Mouallem and Ukrainian refugee-turned-ESOL tutor Iryna Hura.

Ascentis is the lead sponsor, with educational charity and technical and vocational awarding organisation NCFE joining for the first time this year. FE Week is the media partner.

Ministers urged to tie more apprenticeship funding to achievement

A larger share of apprenticeship funding should be withheld from training providers until apprentices complete their programmes in a bid to boost achievement rates, the Sutton Trust has suggested.

Currently, 80 per cent of the agreed training cost of an apprenticeship is paid through monthly instalments during delivery, with the remaining 20 per cent paid at the end of the programme.

Social mobility charity Sutton Trust today proposed rebalancing the timing of payments for large training providers so that “greater weight” is given to apprenticeship completion.

A possible alternative would see 70 per cent paid during delivery and 30 per cent at completion, the charity said, arguing that this could give providers a stronger incentive to focus on achievement and training quality.

However, the Sutton Trust acknowledged that changing the payment balance could affect providers’ running costs. It called for a consultation involving training providers, employers, apprentices and other stakeholders to explore the benefits and drawbacks.

Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), warned that moving more funding to completion would be a “huge mistake”.

“It encourages recruitment to focus on those who are most likely to complete, not those furthest from their destination, so that would be self-defeating,” he added.

“If anything, providers need funding at the start to reflect the real cost of onboarding and supporting learners, not more money withheld until the end.”

‘Tick-box’ training accusations

Moving more funding to completion was among a series of recommendations in a Sutton Trust report, ‘staying the course’, which explored why young people leave apprenticeships before completing them and how achievement rates could be improved.

Fewer than two-thirds of apprentices currently complete their programmes, with the rate even lower among those in the most deprived areas.

The national apprenticeship achievement rate has, however, risen from 51.4 per cent to 65.4 per cent in three years. In March, work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden said he would “like to see achievement rates reach and exceed 70 per cent in the coming years”.

Drawing on interviews with 317 apprentices aged 18 to 30, including 100 who had dropped out, the Sutton Trust report said weak line management, a disconnect between workplace duties and off-the-job training, workload pressures and disjointed programme delivery were common problems.

The research was based on qualitative interviews and is not nationally representative. Sutton Trust said its findings were intended to illustrate apprentices’ experience rather than provide statistical estimates.

Apprentices told researchers they were often left to manage the relationship between their employer and training provider themselves, including flagging diary clashes and trying to make their training fit their work.

The charity also pointed to financial pressures, including low apprenticeship pay, living costs and travel expenses.

Some apprentices described training as a “box-ticking” exercise – leading researchers to criticise online training mostly delivered by independent training providers. The report said remote provision can offer flexibility, but warned that poor-quality online learning and sporadic tutor contact can leave apprentices isolated.

The Sutton Trust repeated its call for apprentices to have a minimum requirement for face-to-face off-the-job training – a recommendation first made in another report by the charity last year called ‘a world of difference’ – as well as clearer rules on what counts as off-the-job training and stricter enforcement.

‘The real issue is affordability’

Other recommendations from the charity included a call on Skills England to introduce a fully funded, optional line-management training unit for small and medium-sized employers taking on young apprentices.

It also wants apprenticeship brokerage services, which are funded with £240 million in 14 mayoral strategic authorities, to be available to all areas of the country.

Ashworth said apprenticeship completion depends on an apprentice remaining in work as well as the quality of training, adding providers already operate within a highly regulated system of inspection and accountability.

“Overall quality of apprenticeships is in a good place; the real issue is affordability,” he claimed.

“Providers would love to provide more in-person support, but funding bands have struggled to keep up with inflation, and popular programmes for young adults such as level 3 business administrator have not had a funding increase since deployment in 2017. Here lies the real challenge that the report does not grasp.”

A government spokesperson said: “Apprenticeships remain one of the most effective routes into a good career, with achievement rates increasing 14 percent points over a three-year period to 65.4 per cent.

“We have worked to further strengthen the apprenticeship system, including introducing changes to the funding rules to ensure they support high-quality training for all apprentices.

“We have robust measures to ensure training providers deliver a high standard of service and support apprentices effectively.”