Latest news from FE Week

Don’t get dragged into the ‘inclusion’ trap

Following Ofsted’s publication of the revised Education Inspection Framework (EIF) last year, training organisations across the country have been working hard to interpret what a “heightened focus on inclusion” actually means for their daily operations. After discussing this with several organisations in recent months, I’ve noticed a worrying trend. Some organisations are missing the point and are at risk of falling into the “inclusion trap.”

Historically, our sector has been incredibly creative. We have a long track record of responding to new reports, reviews, and legislation – think Tomlinson, Kennedy, and Moser reports, or more recently, the SEND Act and the Augar review. Each of these pushed us towards greater emphasis, for example, on lifelong learning, widening participation, equity and diversity, and better provision for learners with special educational needs and/or disabilities.

Many local authorities and adult training organisations do a fantastic job with some of the hardest-to-reach or most marginalised members of our community. Further education and specialist colleges work wonders, creating real life chances for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Meanwhile, those who offer education programmes for young people gamefully continue to tackle the uphill battle of supporting 16 plus learners who lack basic English and maths skills or struggle with behavioural and “soft” skills.

As government initiatives have evolved, Ofsted’s inspection frameworks have naturally shifted to mirror these themes, “encouraging” organisations to reconsider or realign their priorities. The latest iteration places a significant spotlight on inclusion. However, when a framework emphasises a specific concept, there is a natural tendency for organisations to over-correct in an attempt to please the inspectors. This is where the danger lies.

I recently worked with a college that responded to criticism from Ofsted. Inspectors remarked that too many learners had been put on courses that were too easy for them. In an effort to fix this, the college swung the pendulum the other way, placing more learners on higher level programmes. Without careful consideration, this risks creating the perfect storm. Attendance and retention are at risk, behaviour and attitudes of learners may suffer, support mechanisms can become over-stretched, staff morale may slip, and as a result, achievement rates may dip.

There is a simple adage in our sector that has stood the test of time: Aim to get the right learners on the right courses. This statement is anything but a cliché, it’s the foundation of a healthy learning environment.

When we meet this goal, we ensure that courses are chosen to meet a learner’s genuine career aspirations while aligning with their current development needs. It allows us to set sensible entry criteria, ensuring students have the academic baseline, particularly in English and maths, to thrive and succeed. Furthermore, it enables organisations to be strategic about resources. You can target support where it will have the most impact. This leads to motivated learners who have the interest, the capacity and the infrastructure they need to thrive.

So, how do you avoid the trap? When evaluating what inclusion means to your organisation, stop trying to second-guess the expectations of an inspection team. Inclusion does not mean lowering your standards, nor does it mean being all things to all people.

True inclusion is about removing barriers to success, not removing the requirements for success. The organisations that lead the way in this area are those that embed inclusion into their core vision and values without sacrificing pragmatism. They understand that placing a student on a course they may not pass isn’t “inclusive”, it’s irresponsible.

As you plan your strategy for the coming year, keep “right learner, right course” at the front and centre of your enrolment process. At the end of the day, your primary responsibility isn’t to a framework or a set of inspectors. Don’t do it for inspectors; do it for the learners.

AI is already giving careers advice – we’re playing catch-up

Nearly a fifth of UK students and graduates have now used ChatGPT or Copilot as a source of careers advice, according to the Prospects Early Careers Survey. Among 13-to-16-year-olds, two-thirds told the BBC last month they’d use AI to help them get a job. That shift is happening faster than the sector’s response to it.

It is easy to see the appeal of AI. Chatbots are available and convenient. There is no waiting two weeks for an appointment and no struggling to find a time that fits with study, work and family commitments, no travel time or missed calls. AI can read your CV (or help you write one), map your skills and start suggesting career paths in minutes.

It’s also, oddly, rated as more empathetic than humans. A meta-analysis led by the Universities of Nottingham and Leicester found that in healthcare settings, chatbots had a roughly 73 per cent probability of being judged more empathetic than a human clinician. Telling a chatbot you don’t know what you’re doing with your life is a lot less exposing than telling a careers adviser, and the chatbot will respond warmly every time.

Then there’s the labour market. Parents are still young people’s most common source of careers advice but most of them are working from experience of a job market that barely resembles the one their children are entering. New roles and pathways are being created as old ones disappear. Job titles, their meanings and the skills required are evolving. Application processes are being rewritten. New government support schemes are encouraging but also add another layer of complexity. No human can hold all of that in their head. With the right context and guidance AI, in principle, can. And even when they can’t, a student often has few ways to verify it.

In many ways AI’s supportiveness is also its biggest weakness. A Stanford study, published in Science last month, found that leading chatbots endorse user behaviour 50 per cent more often than humans do in the same situations. The researchers called it an “insidious risk.” For careers support that’s a killer flaw, because good advice needs to be realistic and honest. A chatbot that tells every 18-year-old what they want to hear is unlikely to lead to positive outcomes.

The Nuffield Foundation and Ada Lovelace Institute made a related point in a report last month: the warmth of chatbots gives young people the impression they’re getting the equivalent of human guidance. They aren’t. And as always, the people who’ll suffer are those with the least access to other more reliable sources, be that parents or overstretched careers advisers.

Careers services across the board face significant pressure. With UK youth unemployment at its highest rate in a decade and almost a million young people not in education, employment or training, the gap is huge. At the same time, schools, colleges and training providers in England face strengthened legal obligations to provide independent careers guidance to every secondary-age learner. The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 tightened these requirements and the updated Gatsby Benchmarks set the standard, including a benchmark devoted to personal guidance from a careers adviser. Ensuring that this advice keeps pace with the changes in the jobs market will be a massive challenge.

Ignoring AI is both unrealistic and undesirable. It can complement human support rather than replace it. Built properly, an AI powered interface could improve engagement, take the heavy lifting out of onboarding, and free up adviser time for the young people who need it most. With the right context it can be a powerful engine for skills mapping, pathway analysis and personalised recommendations. With the right guardrails it can sit safely alongside human coaches and mentors. Imagine a tool that actually understands the local apprenticeship market, knows what the levy can and can’t fund, and can help an 18-year-old weigh up an apprenticeship against a university course. It then supports them through the application, while flagging anything that needs a human adviser’s eye.

AI has already changed the landscape for careers support. The biggest question for colleges, careers leads and government is whether we can adapt and incorporate the best bits while mitigating the considerable risks. How well we answer it will shape the prospects of hundreds of thousands of young people over the coming years.

Don’t shy away from talking to students about global conflict

The last time the world was at peace was for a few months in 1954 between the end of military conflicts in East Asia and the start of war in Algeria. There have been wars raging somewhere in the world ever since, with all the resulting misery. Whether close or distant, global conflict has consequences for students and staff, and no educator can avoid them.

We live in a time of intensification and normalisation of violent conflicts around the world. The members of our college communities will be shocked and disturbed by the scale and intensity of the violence and the surrounding threats and rhetoric. Atrocities are being committed, lives destroyed and people will have strong views about how to respond. Some will be personally affected.

It’s not surprising that some staff hesitate to engage on these issues with their students. They can be difficult to talk about and feelings can run high, particularly where people are exposed to polarising views on social media. But avoiding these issues simply allows bad actors, biased or hateful narratives, dis- and misinformation to go unchallenged.

Instead, colleges need to view this as an opportunity to reaffirm and promote college values and take up the educational challenge. Without taking sides, it is possible to advocate for equality, democracy, human rights, non-violence, mutual respect and tolerance, individual liberty and the rule of law. How best to do this needs to be thought through in each specific context. This is why we have produced new guidance for colleges to help them identify and create good materials, presentations, and approaches, and to think about how to create safe spaces for students to explore and understand these events.

Key aspects of our guidance

Being clear about ground rules and language
Colleges will have existing policies on how members of the community relate to each other and these will emphasize the need for respect, consideration and sensitivity, not speaking or acting aggressively or threateningly, not using provocative or offensive language or advocating violence or law-breaking and not making assumptions about the views of others. It means not expressing or promoting racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic or Islamophobic ideas, not sharing narratives which glorify violence or celebrate violent acts, or which might offend others or be regarded as hostile or provocative, or which stigmatise, demonise or dehumanize any group or community. To be meaningful, these values need to be explained, justified, expressed and re-affirmed in the daily practices and messaging of the college.
Students also need to develop their fluency in the language of conflict and war as well as international law
Often the best way to do this is through planned, structured dialogue in a low-risk setting. Glossaries of terms used in international humanitarian law, such as those produced by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the European Parliament can be useful. Being able to engage in informed discussion will build students’ confidence to speak and their resilience against extremism and misinformation
Aim to be politically impartial while being informed and value driven
Educators have a legal duty to be politically impartial. But that doesn’t mean avoiding political issues or different perspectives. We should encourage our students to learn about a range of political positions, and understand where they come from. It also doesn’t mean presenting an ‘equal and opposite’ view on everything, or giving equal weight to every viewpoint. We should aim for informed criticality, with the educator helping students draw on the full range of evidence in a ‘fair and dispassionate’ way.
Being objective is compatible with advocating for fundamental values and human rights. In teaching about a conflict, it’s not biased to make the case for peaceful conflict resolution and abiding by international law and conventions, and the case against genocide, war crimes, collective punishment, the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. That can be combined with presenting different political perspectives and interpretations.
Be prepared to challenge inaccurate claims and extremism
Students have access to a lot of misinformation and harmful narratives online. Staff need to be ready to challenge unsubstantiated theories and conspiracies. This creates opportunities to model critical thinking and fact-checking techniques.

While there’s no substitute for thinking these things through for yourself, there is plenty of support available for both staff and students. We’ve published guidance for staff and signposted some of the most useful resources. There are also helpful college case studies drawn from across the country. And we routinely share good practice at our Equity Exchange meetings, free to all AoC members.

This work is not always easy. But if colleges are to be anchor institutions in their communities, they have to address the concerns raised within those communities and create places of safety, mutual care and respect for all, as well as of learning, discussion and debate. It’s precisely when violence and conflict put us under strain that we most need to educate about its causes and consequences. The ongoing escalation of violent global conflict is just another reminder of why understanding, dialogue and empathy are needed more than ever.

Windsor college staff storm out over pay – again

Teaching staff at Windsor Forest Colleges Group will walk out tomorrow for the third time this year over a “derisory” low pay rise offer of 1.7 per cent.

Members of the University and College Union (UCU) agreed to strike on Wednesday after claims that leaders refuse to “meet the bare minimum” of the Association of Colleges’ 4 per cent pay recommendation.

The industrial action could see hundreds of staff putting down their tools across the group’s four colleges in Berkshire and Surrey: Slough and Langley College, Windsor College, Strode’s College, and the Berkshire College of Agriculture.

Picket lines have been drawn at two campuses: Slough and Langley College and Berkshire College of Agriculture.

Staff already walked out in March for two days and were also part of the national strike in January that saw workers in 25 colleges protest for three days over pay and working conditions.

Union representatives said the college has refused to budge on its “derisory” offer of 1.7 per cent pay rise as well as an extra £500 cash for the current year.

UCU is demanding a 10 per cent pay rise as part of its ‘New Deal for FE’ campaign.

The union claims that leaders are more than able to meet staff pay demands from the colleges’ “good” financial health.

Windsor Forest group achieved a positive education-specific EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation) of £3.1 million in 2024-25 as well as a £1.4 million operating surplus.

The college group also held cash at the end of the year of £6.8 million.

“The college has simply insisted throughout the campaign that its ‘finances’ simply do not permit them to meet the AoC minimum recommendation of a 4 per cent consolidated pay award,” a UCU spokesperson said.

The union lambasted Windsor Forest CEO Gillian May’s pay rise last year, claiming her salary rose 7.8 per cent, or £10,000.

However, latest accounts show May took a 2.4 per cent pay rise to her basic wage last year, earning a salary of £171,000 up from £167,000.

Her total remuneration rose by £10,000 compared with 2024 – increasing from £211,000 to £221,000 – but most of this was due to a rise in pension contributions.

May will become a deputy FE Commissioner in June.

Windsor blows towards strike action

Fifty-seven UCU members at the 111-strong branch voted in November that they were prepared to strike, based on a 58 per cent response rate.

UCU did not specify how many workers will be walking out tomorrow, but told FE Week that all staff are entitled to strike, whether a UCU member or not.

Windsor Forest College group employs over 900 people, of which around four in 10 are lecturers, its latest accounts state.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Our members have no choice but to strike yet again as Gillian May is refusing to do the bare minimum and meet the employer body’s recommended rates of pay.

“It is scandalous that despite trying to enforce poverty pay rates for frontline teaching and support staff, she accepted a £10,000 pay bump.”

Windsor Forest College Group declined to comment.

New bonus scheme fuels resentment among FE teachers

A chunky government bonus scheme appears to have kept early career teachers in post but is fuelling resentment among experienced staff.

The FE targeted retention incentive, launched in 2023 to tackle challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, pays thousands of new teachers up to £6,000 on top of their basic salary.

In a survey of around 3,000 teachers who received the payment last year, one fifth (21 per cent) indicated they would not have stayed teaching in FE without the bonus.

But an interim evaluation report, published yesterday, warned the bonuses were creating unintended tensions between staff after finding teachers with over 10 years of experience were earning less than their new colleagues once the bonus payment is factored in.

HR leaders and senior staff told researchers the same bonus was making long-serving teachers feel overlooked and undervalued.

Resentment among ineligible teachers

Targeted retention incentive (TRI) payments range between £2,000 and £6,000 (after tax), which are eligible for teachers in FE with up to five years’ experience.

To get the maximum bonus, eligible teachers would need to teach for at least 12 hours per week at a college where 50 per cent or more 16 to 19 year olds were disadvantaged.

Bonus recipients said the payments had reduced stress by being able to cover unexpected costs or managing the cost of living.

“The FE TRI gives you that little bit of tranquillity… to know that you have a little [financial] back-up there,” one teacher said.

Teachers also reported that the payment helped to offset drawbacks of working in FE such as low pay and high workload.

However, HR leaders and seniors reported concerns that non-eligible teachers consider themselves “less valued” than colleagues who joined recently.

“You have staff that say, ‘Well, it’s not fair because I’m not a maths teacher or an engineering lecturer, but I’m equally committed, equally hard-working and passionate about what I do,” one FE staff member said.

The report added it was “particularly pertinent” for long- serving FE teachers who felt their skills and experience were being overlooked.

“This was perceived to be leading to resentment between colleagues which in turn was affecting working relationships,” the report said.

Of the 87 surveyed HR staff that administered the bonus, a few reported cases where the salaries of FE teachers with 10 years’ experience were lower than early career teachers when the FE TRI was taken into account.

The report warned it could lead to more experienced teachers to leave the profession.

Recruitment fixes

In the first year of the scheme, £34.1 million was handed out to nearly 6,000 teachers, targeting subject areas where there are “critical skills priorities”.

More than a third of HR and senior leaders surveyed said they found it difficult or very difficult to retain teaching staff, while nearly three in five reported the same for recruitment.

The issue is more acute in the subjects the TRI targets, such as building and construction and engineering.

Nine in ten HR respondents said retention difficulties had increased workload for remaining staff, disrupted teaching and driven up the use of agency cover.

The report concluded that it was too early to “definitively” determine the impact of the FE TRI on FE teacher retention and recruitment, but cited emerging evidence that progress towards these outcomes is being achieved.

Cliff edge when payments stop

Applications for round two of the TRI opened in March and closes next month.

Respondents were “frustrated” about the timing of the application window as attrition is greater during the autumn term of the academic year so staff who could benefit from the bonus could leave before the application window opens.

No funding beyond round two has been confirmed, causing fears of a cliff edge to payments.

“If they stop rolling [the TRI] out, it will be like a sudden pay cut,” one teacher said.

“It makes you look elsewhere, and it makes you less likely to keep pushing through the hard times and those pinch points.”

Green skills gold rush leaves safety and quality fears simmering

“Ready to power up your future?” asks Barnsley College of adults hoping to “break into the booming green energy sector… whether you’re retraining, upskilling, or starting afresh”.

The pitch from the college’s new clean energies training centre for a 10-week solar PV installer and operator course is one of many across the country as providers race to meet demand for solar, heat pump, EV charging installations and retrofit skills.

But behind the upbeat marketing lies a complicated picture: stop-start government funding, a chronic shortage of expert tutors, patchy demand from learners and employers, and concerns that some courses are sold as gateways to green jobs but without the necessary safety training.

The government says clean energy will bring 400,000 extra jobs by 2030 and wants to install 450,000 heat pumps a year by the end of the decade. But the path from policy ambition to classroom delivery is proving anything but smooth.

Selling green dreams

A recurring problem is many green skills courses are easier to sell to beginners, young people or career changers. But the people the market most needs are qualified plumbers and electricians who can upskill.

Courses with no entry requirements include Merton College’s ‘introduction to solar panels’ and Riverside College’s four-week level 3 course in ‘principles & maintenance for the photovoltaic solar panels’. “Learners do not need prior knowledge, we just ask for a willingness to learn,” its website says.

The concern is not that beginners should be barred from green skills training, but that introductory courses can be marketed in ways that imply a much shorter route to competency than industry standards allow.

Insiders fear this creates unrealistic expectations and risks fuelling a problem of rogue traders incorrectly installing equipment or being unable to maintain it.

Completing a short course, they stress, doesn’t provide the competence to install safety-critical technologies.

To fit heat pumps under government-funded schemes, for example, learners must work for, or become part of, a business approved under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme.

Mike Blakeley, chair of the Green Skills Advisory Panel, says there is a “real danger” of people being “sold a course that makes you able to do A, B and C but out the back end of it, there is no licence to practise”.

Mike Blakeley of GSAP

Bootcamp bonanza

Skills bootcamps are one of the government’s favoured tools for rapid retraining. They are short, flexible and are required to offer learners a guaranteed interview. The number of colleges offering bootcamps rose from 52 to 81 in 2024-25.

But Kerry Boffey of the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) believes there are “growing concerns about the effectiveness and sustainability of the bootcamp model”.

The unweighted adult skills funding rate is only £6 per hour per learner, and Boffey says FIN is “increasingly hearing reports of corners being cut”, with “online group sessions replacing interactive tutoring”.

FE Week found examples of green skills bootcamps that did not appear to require prior qualifications, including courses preparing people to work with electric vehicles, heat pumps and solar thermal.

Industry experts say such courses can have a place. But in the rush to meet demand, some short courses risk blurring the line between introductory training and occupational competence.

Chris Claydon, JTL

Units outcry

There is a “similar challenge” with the new apprenticeship units, Blakeley added.

Two of the government’s 10 programmes – in electric vehicle charging point installation and solar PV installation and maintenance – have caused some in the electrical sector to blow a fuse.

Andrew Eldred, managing director of the Electrical Contractors’ Association (ECA), said these “government-led ‘products’…pay no heed to sector competence and training standards”, while Chris Claydon, CEO of charity training provider JTL, believes they are “hugely bureaucratic” and still require an electrical qualification to be “tacked on” at the end, involving “additional time and cost”.

The Electrotechnical Skills Partnership (a network of employers, industry bodies and training partners) warns that “for work of this nature, which has direct safety implications, valid regulated assessment is essential… without that, these units cannot and should not be treated as evidence of occupational competence.”

The Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering (CIPHE) favours the apprenticeship route to train people in heat pump work.

But just 80 people started the low-carbon heating technician apprenticeship when it launched in academic year 2024-25, and 40 starts were recorded between August and January this academic year.

And refrigeration air conditioning and heat pump engineering apprenticeship numbers stuttered from 410 in 2023-24 to 350 last year, and 380 so far in 2025-26.

Piggy bank beside a compact heat pump on a white surface, with green bubbles in the top-left corner. — A heat pump course for beginners

Quality concerns

The greatest anxiety from industry experts is not whether courses exist, but whether they are good enough.

Heating engineer and lecturer Nathan Gamble is sceptical of some short heat pump training. “No one is failing these courses,” he says. He does not believe the standard three-day courses assessed through observed assignments and multiple-choice open-book theory tests are enough to prove competence.

CIPHE technical manager Jerry Whiteley is more blunt. Some government-subsidised heat pump training has been “pretty diabolical across the country”, he says. In some cases, “the tutor didn’t know any more than the person sat in front of them”.

Claydon says his team have seen instances of providers selling certificates for electrical qualifications online, without any training taking place.

One electrician who attended a solar panel installation bootcamp told FE Week they were “absolutely horrified” by its quality. The tutor read through regulations and learners “couldn’t ask any questions”. Assessment included multiple-choice questions and photographs of panels learners had installed – which, the learner pointed out, could easily have been someone else’s work.

They passed “with flying colours”, but did not subsequently feel competent enough to do the installations.

Online courses are also drawing scrutiny. Blakeley worries online provision can deliver theoretical knowledge without the practical experience needed to apply it.

Paul Conroy, CEO of training provider Impact Academy, says he recently interviewed 30 candidates for domestic energy assessor and retrofit assessor tutor roles, all of whom said they had completed their relevant industry qualifications online.

When asked about those courses, “100 per cent” told him they were “absolutely useless” because they offered no exposure to real homes.

Beyond publicly funded provision, non-accredited commercial green skills courses for beginners perform well in search rankings.

The top result in FE Week’s Google search for solar PV installation online courses was a course hosted by the San Francisco-based online provider Udemy, with “no prerequisites needed”, which claimed to be “the only online course with everything you need to know on solar energy”. “All the students I work with go on to get a full-time job in the solar industry,” reads the description.

Second in the rankings was an online diploma in sustainable energy from Training Express. Both providers offer huge ‘discounts’ if courses are bought before a clock ticks down.

Dark-themed online course page for 'The complete SOLAR ENERGY course' with a video preview on the right and a purple 'Start subscription' button nearby. — A solar panels course from US-based provider Udemy

Safety-critical work

Industry bodies argue the risks of inadequate training are real.

Without appropriate safety cut-offs, solar PV systems pose a fire risk. Rooftop solar panel installers need to understand weight-bearing limits. EV charging installers must understand the implications of location and electrical load.

Claydon warns that cutting corners in safety-critical trades is a “ticking timebomb” of fire risk.

“This is the danger of trying to short-circuit training for these core trades,” he says. “We see that from what happened with the Grenfell fire, and how much building regulation has been tightened up since then. To then go backwards is potentially dangerous – we just need properly trained electricians who can then very quickly upskill.”

The National Audit Office’s recent findings on insulation failures underline the point; 98 per cent of homes that had external wall insulation installed under two previous government schemes had problems that could lead to damp and mould. The NAO cited an “under-skilled workforce” as one reason for the failures.

In a subsequent report by the Public Accounts Committee, its chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said the public’s confidence will have “rightly been shaken in retrofit schemes… and government now has a self-inflicted job of work on its hands to restore faith in the action required to bring down bills and reduce emissions”.

Demand still uncertain

Partly because of the public fallout from previous policy failures, the market for green skills training is weaker than the policy rhetoric suggests.

In September, 23 providers won bids to deliver training for qualifications in solar panel installation, fabric insulation and retrofitting until July this year under the government’s £8 million warm homes skills programme. It is understood to be significantly underspent. When asked for comment, The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero pointed out it was also providing up to £21 million through its heat training grant to support existing heating engineers to upskill.

Industry evidence suggests 39 per cent of trained heat pump engineers do not go on to install the technology because of weak consumer demand.

Blakeley says young people are interested in green skills. “Without a doubt, young people want to make a difference,” he says. “But we can’t guarantee jobs at the end of that.”

To overcome this problem, Plymouth Council is part-funding a programme that offers independent advice for homeowners on green improvements to help ensure its residents are not being mis-sold to.

Blakeley believes it is these types of micro initiatives that will stimulate the market, by removing “doubt and worry”.

His approach at Exeter College has been to build green skills into mainstream construction and electrical courses rather than create standalone provision that may not lead directly to work.

“At some point policy will shift and drive through this agenda,” he says. “And we’ve already primed everyone to make sure we’re ready for it.”

Policy outpaces provision

Launching a new course takes time. But colleges and training providers are also being asked to place expensive bets on technologies that can shift quickly. Predicting which green technologies will survive political change is even harder, especially given Reform UK’s lack of support for net zero.

The previous government planned to require all new gas boilers to be “hydrogen-ready” by 2026. Some training centres responded by promoting hydrogen awareness courses. But hydrogen for home heating has since fallen out of favour. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has now said its role is likely to be limited.

But Riverside College’s “state-of-the-art” hydrogen training centre, opened in 2024, still advertises hydrogen-related courses, telling learners that hydrogen will play a valuable role in low-carbon heating and power.

Colleges face the dilemma of moving too slowly on green skills and missing the market, or moving too quickly and seeing expensive facilities go underused.

David Warnes, principal of Chelmsford College and former head of the Mayor of London’s green skills construction academy network, says it is “very common” for green skills centres to be repurposed for other provision.

Some colleges “jumped quite early”, he says – “probably too early”. The market in some areas is only now beginning to catch up.

Warnes believes that in areas with political momentum behind green skills, colleges are “pushing at an open door”, but it is a “postcode lottery”.

Essex Council is “very committed” to the green agenda, and the pipeline of new homes that need to be fitted with heat pumps locally has given his college the confidence to plan accordingly. But in other areas it is proving hard to build momentum.

David Withey at his SGS Wise campus

Ghost hubs

Capital funding, often linked to local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) calling for more green skills, has helped colleges buy solar panels, heat pumps and retrofit equipment that, in some cases, is now gathering dust.

One college in the home counties said its ground source heat pumps and solar panels bought through LSIP investment had been underused because demand for the training was low.

MidKent College launched a sustainable construction “skills factory” in 2023, but no longer provides those courses.

SGS College received almost £40,000 of shared prosperity funding for green skills training and opened a new centre, but CEO David Withey admits it has been “tricky” to recruit enough learners.

“I would like us to be doing more in it,” he says. “But there is a risk we just build provision that we can’t then fill, because maybe it was too bespoke.”

Technology is also moving quickly.

“With retrofit and insulation, I don’t think there is a settled technology platform yet,” Withey says. “So you have to pick which skills you’re going to try and teach.”

The tutor problem

Even where colleges do have the right kit, the right course and local demand, they often struggle to find people qualified to teach.

The government’s five new clean energy technical excellence colleges are all building on existing green energy provision, rather than creating new centres.

At one of them, City of Liverpool College, head of apprenticeships and workforce skills Robert Marshall-Slater told a conference that finding staff to deliver refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump engineering had been “almost impossible”.

“I’ve got a live application out permanently on the website,” he said.

Warnes says few colleges employ dedicated full-time staff for heat pump or solar PV installation. Instead, many rely on associate lecturers who are still working in industry.

“We generally share the same people,” he says. “There are a few names out there that most colleges know, because they’re using them.”

That creates another problem: the people most needed to teach are also those most needed on the tools.

The Energy & Utility Skills Group, a partnership body representing the energy, water and waste industries, is urging the government to support it in retraining up to 7,000 smart meter installers to fit EV charge points, which its director of strategic engagement, Stephen Barrett, stresses would “expand workforce capacity without compromising safety or standards”.

But the ECA’s head of education and skills Keith Sanderson disagrees. “Civil servants and politicians want to believe it, because they know they’re in a hole and they’re looking for an easy way out,” says Sanderson.

For now, however, the sector is caught between urgency and uncertainty. The green transition needs skills. But if training is too fast, too shallow or too detached from occupational competence, it risks damaging public confidence in the very technologies ministers need households and employers to embrace.

Signs of weakness among units’ ‘strong’ providers

Training providers where barely half of apprentices successfully complete training are among the “strong” organisations picked to deliver the government’s flagship apprenticeship units.

Starts on the short courses could begin from Tuesday, allowing businesses to spend levy money on non-apprenticeship training for the first time.

Skills England guidance states that initial delivery is “limited to a targeted group of existing apprenticeship providers who already demonstrate strong performance in the occupational standards from which the units are drawn”.

But FE Week analysis found that while most providers have overall achievement rates above the national average of 65.4 per cent and a good Ofsted record, some recorded fewer than 20 total leavers and achievement rates just above 50 per cent last year. One had such low numbers that it does not have a published achievement rate at all.

And most of the selected apprenticeship unit providers do not record an achievement rate for the occupational standards their short courses are drawn from.

It comes after an FE Week investigation found grave provider concerns with the design, funding rates and payment model of apprenticeship units – with some warning it has put them off delivery.

[Story continues after the table]

[NOTE: If your provider is approved to deliver apprenticeship units but is not listed here it will be because the government’s Find Apprenticeship Training system was not updated before our snapshot was taken at 2pm on April 30]

Demonstrable strong performance?

To be eligible for the initial launch of 10 units, training providers must “already demonstrate strong performance” in delivering the apprenticeship standards or tier-two sector subject areas from which the units are drawn, based on 2024-25 delivery data.

Criteria states that providers must also be actively delivering apprenticeships, not have any indicators rated as ‘at risk’ on the Apprenticeship Accountability Framework, and be free from contractual funding restrictions.

Eight of the 80 providers listed during FE Week’s analysis had fewer than 20 apprenticeship leavers in total in 2024-25, and three of those had fewer than 10.

One – London Vesta College – signed up to deliver the three AI units and had just three apprenticeship starts in total last year. It had such low leaver numbers it does not record an achievement rate.

Another provider, Scotland-based Bragd LLP, is signed up for the three AI units after recording a 52.9 per cent overall achievement rate based on 20 leavers.

Five other providers listed to deliver units have an overall achievement rate of below 60 per cent.

Multiverse, which is prolific in the AI space and has grown in recent years to become England’s largest apprenticeship provider in terms of starts, is a noticeable absentee from the units list.

The firm, run by Euan Blair, has an overall achievement rate of 52.6 per cent. It was judged ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted in 2021 and is awaiting the outcome of a recent inspection conducted under the watchdog’s new report card framework.

It is unclear whether Multiverse was invited to deliver units.

A government spokesperson said: “We cannot comment on individual providers due to commercial sensitives but have standard processes for managing contracts to protect learner outcome.”

Employers can choose from lists of eligible training providers on the Find Apprenticeship Training real-time system.

Data dive

Skills England’s website shows the standards from which the AI units are drawn include the soon-to-be defunded senior leader and chartered manager (degree) apprenticeships, as well as machine learning engineer and artificial intelligence and automation practitioner.

The welding unit is drawn from the welder standard, both the EV charging point and solar PV units are drawn from the installation and maintenance electrician standard, while the permanent modular building assembly unit is drawn from the construction assembly and installation operative – permanent modular standard.

Three units – battery manufacturing, mechanical fitting and assembly, and electrical fitting and assembly – do not appear to be drawn from any specific standards.

FE Week found a minority of the chosen unit providers recorded leavers in the connected apprenticeship standards in 2024-25.

The government does not publish achievement data broken down by sector subject area tier two, so analysis of rates related to these criteria is not possible.

Our analysis of official data found examples of extremely low achievement rates for some providers on the specific standards from which the units are drawn.

Heart of Yorkshire Education Group is delivering six units, including EV charging point. It had 530 apprentice leavers in 2024-25 and an overall achievement rate of 66.2 per cent. But 30 of those leavers were on the installation and maintenance technician standard where EV charging is drawn from and which has an achievement rate of 28.1 per cent.

Nottingham College, delivering six units including EV charging point, has an overall achievement rate of 58.1 per cent based on 660 leavers, but a 43.3 per cent achievement rate for 30 leavers on the installation and maintenance technician standard.

Similarly, Hopwood Hall College is signed up for eight units including EV charging point. The Greater Manchester-based college has an overall achievement rate of 65.8 per cent based on 270 leavers, but a 43.5 per cent achievement rate for 20 leavers on the installation and maintenance technician standard.

To ensure consistency in our analysis, we included Ofsted grades under the old grading system of ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’.

The majority were ‘good’ and six were ‘outstanding’.

Four were ‘requires improvement’, but three of those – St Helens College, The Growth Company and Alphabet Training Group – have had recent inspections under the new framework and mostly received ‘expected standard’ judgments.

The Department for Work and Pensions told FE Week that “Ofsted inspection arrangements will be set out in due course” for apprenticeship units.

Seeking more than a sticking plaster for hospitalised teens

For over a decade, teenagers too sick to attend classes have been left without guaranteed education support after age 16 due to a long-standing gap in hospital education law.

A rule that provides schooling for the long-term sick up to age 16 was left outdated when from 2015 teenagers had to remain in education or training until 18.

The anomaly has left hospital school leaders using their own funds and charity partnerships to help seriously ill young people pursue FE courses.

Now, the Department for Education’s SEND reform consultation aims to amend the 30-year-old duty on local authorities and increase support to teenagers up to adulthood.

Hospital headteachers have welcomed the reform, saying it could reduce the risk of 16 to 18-year-olds falling through the gaps and prevent hospital schools from using their own funds to support learners transitioning to post-16 education.

But with pressures on children’s health services and mounting council SEND budget deficits, experts warned the changes could prove little more than a “narrow” technical fix that doesn’t guarantee dedicated post-16 funding.

Bedside education

There are around 35 hospital schools in England, each with multiple sites ranging from inpatient CAMHS units to at-home provision. Bespoke (and often bedside) education is provided for anxious school refusers, long-term ill young people and those with the most serious mental health difficulties.

Current DfE guidance suggests hospital education should be arranged for children with inpatient stays of more than 15 days.

Just over 17,000 under-18s have been unable to attend mainstream education due to serious healthcare needs, according to the latest data by the Children’s Commissioner.

Local authorities’ “section 19” duty to provide education arrangements is triggered when a child is admitted to paediatric wards, long-stay specialist units such as oncology, or psychiatric inpatient units, up to age 16. Ministers are considering correcting this “anomaly”.

Headteachers are providing unfunded provision and relying on charity partnerships to facilitate access to functional skills, work experience or volunteering for young people on the mend.

“Morally and ethically that’s the right thing to do,” said Cath Kitchen, chair of National Association for Hospital Education.

“There’s no way we’d say, ‘Sorry, you’re now in year 12, we won’t be funding you’.”

Medically vulnerable young people are not always classed as having special educational needs, though some have disabilities and qualify for funded provision via their ECHP.

“Many of those children with medical needs don’t have an EHCP and are reliant on third sector support,” added Sarah Johnson, founder of Phoenix Education Consultancy.

Expansion and enrichment

Extending the section 19 duty up to 18-year-olds could allow hospital education providers that already facilitate post-16 education, typically inpatient CAMHS units, to enrich their offer.

Therapeutic curriculum at Magpie Learning Centre, Leicester Children’s Hospital School

“We might be able to extend the offer or maybe employ teachers who can teach up to A Level, rather than trying to outsource it,” Kitchen said.

At The Leo Kelly School, one of six sites in Manchester Hospital School, provision is strictly bound by the section 19 duty and caters to around 60 children with anxiety, eating disorders and autism.

“When they get to the end of year 11, we start identifying an appropriate next destination for them so we encourage applying for college places or apprenticeships,” says Gwen Rees-Moffitt, deputy headteacher of Manchester Hospital School.

She explained that due to the “incredibly complex” needs of its learners, who are often bedbound from their conditions, the school frequently faces barriers to access “appropriate” FE college placements, partly from their historically poor attendance in mainstream education.

“They’re going from a small, nurturing, very bespoke education package to something that is only as flexible as the college can be under their own funding restraints,” Rees-Moffitt added.

She told FE Week that her hospital school would “absolutely welcome this change” proposed in the SEND white paper, “because we would then be able to support young people all the way up to 18”.

Former Leo Kelly school student Bethany Fletcher was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and spent two years in hospital with added complications. Fletcher passed her English and maths GCSEs but struggled to receive an offer to enrol at a sixth form college.

“She would have been one of those high achievers, but she had a really tough time of it with her health,” her mother Fiona said.

Joshua Pelled, chief executive of charity Bright Futures, which delivers education support programmes to re-engage sick young people, said the transition at 16 can become a “cliff edge”.

“They may be academically capable, but historic attendance, treatment demands, fatigue, fluctuating health and complex support needs can make mainstream sixth forms or colleges reluctant to offer a place,” he said.

Pelled welcomed the proposal to correct the funding anomaly but warned that it must not be treated as a “narrow technical fix”.

“There are already duties under the equality act and SEND framework to avoid discrimination, make reasonable adjustments and use best endeavours to meet special educational needs, but these duties are not always translating into confident, consistent practice,” he added.

Funding boost doubts

Local authorities pumped £120 million into hospital education this academic year via the dedicated schools grant high-needs funding block, a 6 per cent uplift from the previous year.

While local authorities are free to make discretionary arrangements with individual school needs, hospital leaders are doubtful about receiving any topped-up future funding while policy consultations are ongoing.

Kitchen said: “I don’t know if it will mean any additional funding.

“Hospital education funding is not ringfenced. If it was, I think that would make a big difference, as we’ve sadly got a postcode lottery.”

Hospital schools receive annual funding pots, but quantifying how much is dedicated to post-16 is difficult.

Leicester Children’s Hospital School executive headteacher Stephen Deadman said its CAMHS unit picks up “some” 16 to 18-year-olds but is ultimately funded for 15 beds regardless of age.

“I don’t know who’s going to be taking up that bed, whether it’s a 12-year-old or an 18-year-old. We’re funded for 15 beds.”

Deadman was dubious about the DfE proposal to extend funding to post-16.

“Just by saying local authorities’ duties increase to 18, it won’t necessarily help if they haven’t got any funding to do that,” he said.

Deadman, who is a member of the DfE’s complex needs group, told FE Week his hospital school had seen a real-terms cut in its budget, which has stayed at £3.6 million for the last two years.

Council deficits related to high-needs costs swelled to the point of government intervention last year, where the so-called SEND deficit “statutory override” was extended until the end of 2027-28.

The Local Government Association recently suggested that around eight in 10 councils were teetering on insolvency due to exorbitant high-needs funding.

Clear guidance needed

The DfE’s SEND consultation will close next month. Leaders have warned the “devil will be in the detail” of local authority SEND strategies.

“We need some detailed guidelines of what post-16 providers need to have in place so that all of the support doesn’t drop away when they turn 16,” Rees-Moffitt said.

The DfE is simultaneously consulting on whether to extend statutory guidance for managing medical conditions to post-16 providers.

Pelled added FE colleges should be issued national guidance on flexible admissions and attendance expectations for sick young people.

Association of Colleges senior policy manager David Holloway said he hoped the reforms would also address poor access for colleges to external health experts and an “inflexible funding model” for small groups of high-needs learners.

The reforms have earmarked £1.8 billion over three years for a new ‘experts at hand’ scheme, bolstering external support for students with SEND.

“I’m encouraging our members to contact their local authority to talk about how we can support them with experts at hand,” Kitchen added.

Meanwhile, the DfE’s 2018 rollout of mental health support teams (MHSTs) in colleges still remains much lower than in schools.

Just 41 per cent of learners in post-16 settings were supported by an MHST, compared to 70 per cent in schools, according to 2025 data.

Insolvency experts probe Acacia deal

Forensic accountants are investigating the apparent cut-price sale of a group of stock market-floated training firms to two shareholders.

The companies, which include the now-insolvent apprenticeship providers Acacia Training and Academy 1 Group, were part of investment group MBH Corporation PLC until their sale in 2023.

Insolvency practitioners took control of MBH and began probing its affairs in February 2024 after it failed to honour repayments on debts of at least £24 million.

Reports lodged with Companies House show investigations into the training companies’ sale are focused on whether their disposal to a connected company, known as Unity, achieved a “fair consideration”.

Joint insolvency practitioners Begbies Traynor and WSM Marks Bloom found Singapore-based Unity never paid for the companies, and instead agreed a £2.5 million, zero-interest loan that it now reportedly disputes “in full”.

It is “not known” if the companies were independently valued during the sale, the insolvency firms added.

Directors have a legal duty to act in the best interests of their company and shareholders, including achieving market value for assets sold before entering an insolvency.

According to the latest report published this month, “several lines of investigation” related to MBH remain active, and a specialist forensic team at Begbies Traynor is reviewing evidence that includes company audit files, email records and financial data.

While the reports provide an outline of the two-year investigation, which has cost almost £600,000, some details have been withheld amid concerns they would threaten ongoing financial “recovery prospects” and wider investigative work.

But the insolvency practitioners revealed they had sent the Insolvency Service watchdog a confidential conduct report on MBH’s directors containing “substantial information”.

FE Week understands the Insolvency Service is running a separate investigation into MBH, although a spokesperson declined to confirm this on the record.

Training company deals

Companies involved in the £2.5 million loan deal between MBH and Unity included Acacia Training, Logistica Training and Consultancy, Academy 1 Group Ltd, and UK Sports Training, as well as a care home in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

After the deal, the companies immediately moved ownership again, with Acacia Training, Logistica Training and Consultancy, and the care home being owned by Victoria Sylvester and entrepreneur Jeremy Harbour, who also owns Unity.

Acacia had almost 1,000 apprentices on its books before closing in December, leaving £383,000 owed to 87 employees.

At the time, CEO Victoria Sylvester blamed “exceptionally challenging economic conditions” for the company’s voluntary liquidation.

It is unclear whether investigations into the MBH sale affected Acacia Training’s collapse.

Logistica Training and Consultancy continues to operate as a training provider specialising in adult care training and is understood to have about 360 apprentices.

The care home, which MBH reportedly bought for £1.95 million in 2020, also remains open and is under Sylvester and Harbour’s ownership.

Two other companies sold to Unity – Academy 1 Group Ltd and UK Sports Training Ltd – were also briefly owned by Harbour and Sylvester before moving into what the Insolvency Service described as an “insolvency avoidance scheme”.

An investigation into the so-called “Atherton scheme” resulted in company directorship bans for three people who had helped dissolve hundreds of companies without following the correct process.

Academy 1 Group Ltd was a ‘requires improvement’ rated provider in the early years, sports, business and digital marketing sectors with about 100 apprentices.

Romford-based UK Sports Training Ltd does not appear to have delivered regulated training, although its Linkedin profile claims learners could access “fully funded” advanced learner loans.

The MBH ‘investment vehicle’

MBH was described as a “rollup” company or “investment vehicle” that raised investment by grouping together at least 23 small to medium-sized companies based across the world under a single ownership structure.

It raised £24 million via a bond that was floated on a German stock exchange in 2020 – including £17 million from investment banks Morgan Stanley, HSBC and BNY.

This scheme is also under investigation by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, FE Week has learned.

A prospectus published by MBH ahead of its stock market flotation in 2020 said the business owners who joined MBH still owned about 70 per cent of their companies and continued to manage them “autonomously”.

MBH was also 8 per cent owned by its founder, Unity, formally known as Unity Group of Companies Pte Ltd.

Neither Victoria Sylvester or Unity founder Jeremy Harbour have responded to requests for comment.