Latest news from FE Week

Ofsted gives 12 months’ grace to apprenticeship unit providers

Ofsted will not inspect apprenticeship unit provision until next April at the earliest.

In an agreement with the Department for Work and Pensions, the education watchdog will not bring the new short courses into scope for at least a year to give providers time to develop and embed “effective” models.

The government said the timeline would allow the DWP and education watchdog to consider the design of an “appropriate” quality framework.

The move reflects the “distinctive nature” of apprenticeship units and will ensure quality oversight is “proportionate”, the update to FE providers added.

From now until April 2027, the DWP and Department for Education will monitor units with a “light touch” and exclude results from qualification achievement rates.

“As the test-and-learn phase progresses, further detail will be published on how apprenticeship units will be incorporated into the apprenticeship accountability framework in a proportionate and flexible way,” the update said.

Delivery on apprenticeship units, the government’s new flagship short course route, begins this month.

Units are part of Labour’s reformed growth and skills levy – marking the first time that levy funds can be used for non-apprenticeship training.

Ten short courses have been launched so far, ranging from AI leadership to battery manufacturing, lasting between 30 and 140 hours each.

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

But FE Week analysis showed the group includes those with achievement rates of below 50 per cent.

Providers also warned low funding rates, a milestone payment model and “poor design” could deter them from delivering apprenticeship units.

‘Education for all’: SEND reform bill confirmed in King’s Speech 2026

Special educational needs reforms will be legislated through the “education for all” bill, the King’s Speech has confirmed.

King Charles told Parliament that ministers “believe that every child deserves the chance to succeed to the best of his or her ability and not be held back due to poverty, special educational needs, or a lack of respect for vocational education”.

He added: “A bill will be brought forward to raise standards in schools and introduce generational reforms of the special educational needs system.”

Policy briefing notes reveal this will be named the education for all bill, subject to the ongoing consultation of the SEND white paper.

Documents released contain largely the same information released about the schools white paper in February, including the five reform principles early, local, fair, effective and shared.

‘A truly inclusive education system’

It said: “This bill will transform support for children and young people with SEND by providing early access to support close to home and ensuring all schools, nurseries and colleges deliver the stretching, rewarding education that all children and young people deserve.

“The government will build a truly inclusive education system that works for every family.”

The schools white paper and a corresponding consultation, set out proposals to SEND reform, most of which are expected to be enacted from 2029.

From that date, pupils with education, health and care plans (EHCPs) will have them reviewed when they reach their next transition point in secondary.

Documents outline the previously announced £4 billion investment in reforms over the next few years, including a £3.7 billion capital investment in education settings from 2026 to 2030, and the £1.8 billion investment into experts at hand.

It is the second time that government has named a bill ‘education for all’. In 2016, the Conservatives were planning to force all schools in “unviable and underperforming areas” into academies under the same name. But plans were shelved by the then education secretary Justine Greening.

The SEND consultation closes on 18 May.

Policy briefing documents said the government will “carefully consider the responses”, with ongoing engagement with families, the sector and experts.

King Charles also used his speech to confirm that ministers will “continue to invest in apprenticeships and measures that tackle youth unemployment”.

“They will respond to the Milburn Review and the Timms Review and continue to reform the welfare system to support both young and disabled people to flourish in work as the basis for long-term economic security,” he added.

LSIPs are closing the skills gap, but the system’s still out of sync

Almost one million young people in England are not in education, employment or training (NEET). But our research shows that almost three‑quarters of businesses are facing skills shortages. That is a profound mismatch between our education and skills system and the labour market.

Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs) were created to help close this gap. We’ve analysed if they’re doing the job they were designed to do – whether employers and providers are now working together to create local skills provision based around real jobs, in growth sectors with high demand.

Employers are engaging at scale

Of the 39 LSIPs in England, 33 are led by Chambers of Commerce. They sit at the heart of their local business communities and are trusted by employers of all sizes and sectors.

In just the first few months of delivery, LSIPs engaged more than 65,500 small and medium-sized businesses – many for the first time. These are firms that had previously found the skills system fragmented, opaque and hard to influence. LSIPs are translating that system for employers and driving behaviour change. Firms are beginning to think more strategically about their medium and long-term skills needs, rather than firefighting immediate gaps.

Employer insight is now directly shaping college provision and helping to create clearer, more credible pathways into work for young people.

Prevention better than cure

But the research also found that prevention needs to start earlier. Evidence from LSIPs consistently shows that young people – and often their teachers – lack awareness of the full variety of local job opportunities available. This is particularly true in priority growth sectors such as manufacturing, construction, life sciences and the green economy.

Time-strapped teachers clearly don’t have the capacity to investigate their local economies in forensic detail. But there is a clear opportunity to apply the principles of LSIPs more widely, including to careers information, advice and guidance before age 16.

Shaping learner demand around real labour‑market opportunities earlier would raise aspirations, improve take‑up of technical routes and reduce drop‑out later on.

Pathways, progression and productivity

Another recurring message from LSIPs is that skills planning cannot stop at entry level. Employers are clear that strong career progression pathways are vital for retention, productivity and workforce resilience.

The introduction of foundation apprenticeships is a positive step, creating new entry routes at level 2. But this must sit alongside a strong offer at higher levels. Almost all LSIPs identify cross-cutting skills such as leadership and management as critical. Yet higher-level and management apprenticeships are being squeezed at precisely the moment businesses need them most.

This is short‑sighted. Well‑trained managers are essential for supporting young people in work, particularly those who need additional pastoral support. These apprenticeships are also a key progression route for existing staff. Defunding them weakens productivity and closes off opportunities.

Cost pressures cannot be ignored

Feedback from LSIPs also gives voice to a harder truth. Businesses want to invest in young people and their workforce, but employment costs have risen sharply – seven out of ten businesses are feeling pressure from labour costs. Taking on a young person who may not be fully productive for months and needs additional pastoral support, is a significant financial risk for a small firm.

Larger employers are paying into the levy, yet experiencing less flexibility in return, as apprenticeships are streamlined and funding rules changed. Without action to ease these cost pressures, tweaks to skills policy alone will not be enough.

When partnership works, it really works

But all is not lost. Where employers and providers work together, the impact is striking. From advanced manufacturing to creative industries, LSIPs have unlocked capital investment, curriculum reform and new employer/provider partnerships that simply did not exist before.

Initiatives such as the Young Chamber programme, led by the West Cheshire and North Wales Chamber, show what is possible when local leadership, business engagement and education align. Through industry-specific workshops, a career passport to develop essential employment skills, and an enterprise challenge, the programme helps students build confidence, understand workplace expectations and develop skills valued by employers. In two years, local employers contributed 226 business hours to the programme, benefitting 3,128 pupils.

The message from the Chamber network is clear. LSIPs are working. But to deliver their full potential, they need long‑term stability. That means multi‑year funding, clearer integration with skills and careers policies and the confidence to embed employer leadership for the long haul.

Shakespeare for ESOL? It turns out it works

One of the things I never expected to be doing as an ESOL teacher was teaching plays by William Shakespeare.

Teaching Shakespeare to non native English speakers might sound tricky, but for young people rebuilding their lives in Bradford these 400 year old stories are helping them find confidence, belonging and a voice.

It started with an email from our performing arts department asking if anyone wanted to join Shakespeare Club. I was teaching level 1 ESOL, and I thought it wasn’t going to be relevant. But…perhaps it might be nice to do something different? So I took my students along. They loved it, and it became part of our curriculum.

Eight years later, it’s grown. Now 250 16-18 year old ESOL learners take part, and this year we’re piloting it with 19 plus learners too.

Using the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) ‘rehearsal room pedagogy’, the classroom becomes a theatre company.

We don’t want to turn our students into actors. The ‘company’ is about teamwork, building confidence and them feeling part of something.

Some students have no English at all when they start, and the learner profile has changed over time. When I started, we had a lot of Eastern European students. Now we have many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Iran and Iraq.

I always say I’ve got two jobs; teaching English, and helping students feel settled and secure in the UK. For those who don’t have family here, it’s about creating that family atmosphere within the classroom, making them feel like they belong and helping them understand society and British values.

Shakespeare helps with that in a way I didn’t predict. People say, Shakespeare for ESOL?! Even native speakers struggle. But the way we do it makes it accessible.

This year we’re doing Hamlet. The RSC give us a script, then I can edit it down. For E3 and L1, we use the original Shakespeare. For E1 and E2, I rewrite it in very simple English. Then we explore the themes: love and loyalty, relationships, family.

Everyone can relate to those themes. In the safety of the classroom, they bring their own understanding to it. This week we were talking about “to be or not to be”. Students turned it into choices they face: to be or not to be a good student, to be or not to be successful, to be or not to be honest.

At the end of the year, we put on a show. Students take part in the lessons, and the ones who want to perform learn lines. It’s brought cohesion into the department. Students with higher-level language support the lower-level students, and lower-level students want to reach up, even with Shakespearean English, because there’s a kudos in doing it.

There are transferable skills. The techniques we use to unpick Shakespeare help students later with GCSE, because they learn how to handle unfamiliar vocabulary and work out what a speech is really saying.

When we won the Bell Foundation Prize for Excellence in Teaching ESOL, students from previous years told me the difference it had made to them wasn’t about acting but confidence. Former students are now qualifying as nurses, doctors, engineers and IT specialists.

We work with Bradford’s Alhambra Theatre, which offers students the chance to attend workshops and shows. Whilst watching a pantomime, an Afghani student whose father had been kidnapped she said that she forgot all her stress.

There’s a lot of negativity about immigrants and asylum seekers on social media these days. But when you meet these young people, you see that they are amazing: they want to work hard and positively contribute to our community.

Shakespeare’s work, even four centuries on, is helping to support growth in confidence, belonging and an understanding what’s possible for our students’ future selves – and that’s amazing too.

V Levels won’t fix vocational education – T Levels didn’t

For years, England’s education system has made it clear that the only route that counts is the academic route. A Levels lead to university. University leads to a career. Everything else is framed as a back-up. So the government’s goal to tackle ‘snobbery’ around vocational education feels like a great step forward.

The proposed new V Levels aim to give students more flexibility by allowing them to combine vocational and academic subjects after GCSEs. Courses in areas such as digital skills, finance, and education could sit alongside traditional A Levels, with each V Level equivalent to a single A Level.

Giving young people more choice in how they build their education appears to be a step forward. But is another qualification really the change the current system needs?

Why haven’t T Levels worked as intended?

The UK has spent the last decade trying to strengthen technical education. The introduction of T Levels in 2020 was meant to be a major turning point, designed to create a high-quality alternative to A Levels.

T Levels combine classroom study with industry placement, giving students the chance to spend time working directly with employers. In theory, they represent exactly the kind of practical learning many people say is needed to change the system for the better.

Yet, despite the ambition, T Levels have not shifted the vocational education landscape.

Are vocational and technical qualifications valued?

Recognition has been one of the challenges. When T Levels were first introduced, some leading universities indicated they would not accept the new qualification as a direct alternative to A Levels for undergraduate entry. A government-commissioned review also found that some students applying to university were rejected because they had taken T Levels rather than traditional A Levels.

And when we look at employment, a government report from 2025 found just 19 per cent of employers reporting they had a ‘very’ or ‘quite good’ understanding of T Levels. Over a third – 36 per cent – had no understanding at all.

While this doesn’t mean employers or universities will not accept T Levels, it does highlight mixed signals and a lack of awareness. That can leave students uncertain about what doors are open, and which may be closed – and how hard they could have to push to get through.

So the announcement of V Levels raises important questions: if the introduction of T Levels nearly six years ago is still yet to reshape opportunities for young people, why would this new qualification succeed?

Why new qualifications alone won’t fix vocational education

If policymakers genuinely want to transform vocational education, the focus must shift away from the names of qualifications, or broad definitions of what type of study sits where, and towards the conditions that allow learning.

Employer engagement is crucial. Strong vocational systems rely on close partnerships between education providers and industry. Apprenticeships and placements depend on employers having the capacity and incentives to train young people, support them to develop practical skills, and create opportunities that help them move into employment smoothly. Without this infrastructure, no one gets anywhere.

What young people really need from the education system

The ambition behind V Levels is to challenge outdated hierarchies between academic and vocational learning – and that is important. But, ending the ‘snobbery’ will take more than adding another category qualification to the post-16 landscape. It will require sustained investment in further education, stronger partnerships with employers, and a genuine commitment to building pathways that combine learning with real-world experience. Until that is achieved, the deeper challenges remain unsolved.

Young people don’t need a different certificate. They need real opportunities to build skills, gain experience, and move confidently into the world of work.

AI is a mirror. FE must decide what it reflects

We are navigating “second contact” with AI, according to The Centre for Humane Technology (CHT). If our first contact was social media – a decade that commodified our attention – this second wave is more profound. We are moving from the attention economy into the intimacy economy.

In further education, we are uniquely positioned to signpost the opportunities of this shift while safeguarding against its dangers. We do not want learners entangled with AI companions or enmeshed in simulated worlds; instead, we must show how AI can partner for human thriving only when anchored in reality, where educators provide the sense-checking and validation no algorithm can simulate.

From machines to ‘mirrors’

In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), George Orwell reflected on industrial-age machines with suspicion, concerned by the “mechanisation of the palate” and the loss of human craft. He suggested treating the machine like a potent pill: with extreme caution and an eye on the side effects.

For us in 2026, the scrutiny must be more rigorous. While medical pills require regulatory approval, Generative AI arrived without ‘quality assurance’ from our leaders. In the absence of official gatekeeping, educators have assumed that responsibility. We are quality-assuring a toolset never officially “cleared” for humanity. GenAI is not just a tool, nor is it merely the kind of mechanical substitute Orwell discussed. It is a mirror that simulates a personality it does not possess, with emergent capabilities its own creators did not plan for. Because these systems can create, please, and manipulate with such high fidelity, we risk a reality crisis where mirror neurons are hacked by machines designed to satisfy our every whim, potentially eroding the “social muscle” Orwell sought to protect.

Reclaiming agency

Educators must exercise their power to dictate the tempo of tech in our classes. By co-designing with these tools and adjusting the levers that incentivise deep learning, we can hold tech companies accountable. We must demand they prove their choices are informed by pedagogical incentives before they enter our institutions.

Google’s head of learning, Ben Gomes, argues that while AI has “unlocked” language, it cannot carry desire. If AI is the accelerator, the human educator remains the ignition. Our responsibility is to spark the curiosity that ensures tech serves as an intentional scaffold, not a cognitive surrogate.

As a digital optimist, I see edtech used to amplify our intentions daily. Our duty is to scaffold the ‘why’, turning these tools into a Socratic spine that supports what we need rather than replacing it.

Take Student A, a Manchester United fan with ASC and ADHD. We created ‘The Theatre of Dreams: United Academy’ for him—a bespoke environment to practice English through simulated transfer deadline scenarios. In maths, a ‘VAR review’ mechanic ensures he cannot score the goal until he completes a reverse calculation to verify his work.

Each week, Student A delights in ribbing me about my football team’s failings. In these moments, I role model resilience and restraint. This knee-to-knee connection is where skill development occurs – AI provides the engagement, but mentoring provides the character.

The college as a ‘third space’

FE provides physical third spaces where human skills are forged for workplace mastery. For example, one teacher uses ALICE (Advanced Longitudinal In Care Emulator) with health and social care students to rehearse the emotional reality of difficult patient dialogues before clinical placements.

Another uses Gemini Live to empower ESOL learners with a private, risk-free space for speech practice. For many, the fear of making mistakes inhibits cognitive function; the AI provides a low-stakes way to overcome that anxiety.

While Big Tech is incentivised by “stickiness,” education is incentivised by growth. A “human anchor” is non-negotiable. A machine shouldn’t tell a student they are amazing; a consistent, regulated human should.

We must listen to the anti-edtech movement, such as the “Close Screens, Open Minds” campaign – a group supported by figures like Jonathan Haidt, Hugh Grant, and Sophie Winkleman – with empathy. Their warnings on attention and mental health sound a necessary alarm; they want what is best for the human spirit.

We should be mindful of worst-case scenarios, such as the suicide of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer, but we must distinguish between predatory commercial tech and intentionally scaffolded edtech. Simply turning off tech in the classroom kicks the problem down the road. We are not opposing the sceptics; we are the front-line practitioners of their caution.

Unified pro-human movement

Whether we like the advancement of AI is irrelevant; this is the world as it is. FE provides the physical space and expert coaching required for essential human-to-human connections. We are the place where the analogue and digital meet to enhance our thriving.

I challenge the suggestion that technology has no place in our craft. When used with intention, tech is a magnificent equaliser, making learning more inclusive for every student. While high-profile campaigners may not see what we see daily, I am certain that if they experienced the lived reality of our FE spaces – seeing tech empower a learner with ASC to find his voice, or help a vocational student master theory because it connects to their own ambitions – they would understand our intention.

Nobody wants humanity to surrender to convenience. We are all working toward high-quality learning that develops human capacity. This isn’t a “pro” or “anti” tech argument; it is a unified, pro-human movement.

To learn more about building a pro-human future with AI, see human.mov.

We can’t tackle NEET numbers without fixing 16-19 funding

Our country is on the brink of a grim milestone. Later this month, the number of young people who are NEET (not in education, employment or training) could cross the one million threshold for the first time in 13 years.

Still, every summer, at the very moment when the roots of the NEET problem are taking hold, we allow funding for thousands of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to fall away.

This high-stakes moment is marked by the transition from secondary school into sixth form or college. For the 180,000 year 11s eligible for free school meals, this moment also marks the end of their pupil premium allocation – ringfenced funding to support their education and outcomes. As a result, the minute GCSE exams are over, funding for those from disadvantaged backgrounds falls off a cliff.

The Education Policy Institute (EPI) estimates that each of these young people lose about £1,000 in investment and support at this transition.

This makes no sense. The barriers that young people from low-income backgrounds face do not suddenly abate on that last Friday in June. In fact, the Education Policy Institute’s research shows that it is both at and soon after this transition that the patterns of disengagement emerge.

Meanwhile, we still expect these young people to continue to participate in education and training, build their skills, gain qualifications and develop their confidence, all in preparation for the world of work and adulthood. It has been over a decade since the participation age was raised to 18. Sadly, the way we fund education has yet to catch up.

The disadvantage funding cliff edge is particularly nonsensical amid a crisis in NEET numbers. The 16-19 phase in education is the last opportunity in compulsory education to address and prevent disengagement. We should seize it to ensure that young people gain the strongest set of qualifications they can – the single biggest protective factor against becoming NEET. Impetus’s Youth Jobs Gap Index shows that the correlation between having low levels of qualification and being NEET is twice as strong as the correlation between having special educational needs and disabilities and being NEET. Lacking English and maths gateway qualifications is the single biggest shared characteristic of young people who are long-term NEET. Each step up the qualification ladder roughly halves the chances of being NEET in your early twenties.

The NEETs crisis is not just a post-19 problem. This is why Get Further last year joined forces with 13 other leading social mobility and education organisations, launching a campaign calling on the government to introduce a student premium – an extension of the pupil premium to support 16-19-year-olds facing disadvantage. Evidence from across the Student Premium Coalition shows what is possible when targeted interventions are in place. These include tutoring and mentoring, enriched learning experiences, strengthened transition, pastoral and mental health support, attendance and retention programmes, and tailored academic support to help students achieve essential gateway qualifications, including English and maths.

Colleges, sixth forms and training providers are well-placed to be able to identify and deliver the interventions needed to support the attainment and participation of young people in their final years in compulsory study. But their ability to do so is severely constrained by the steep drop in disadvantage funding. The coalition is clear that the student premium, which would be worth around £430m a year from 2027-28, should be new and additional money, as part of the government’s commitment to tackling the NEETs crisis.

Over a decade on from when the participation age was raised to 18, our country is going backwards, not forwards, on NEET numbers. It is time to invest in our 16-19 education system so that it can fully play its part. Only then, will we make a dent in this crisis and prevent lost opportunity.

AI leadership apprenticeship units: right ambition, wrong delivery model

Skills England has launched three new AI leadership apprenticeship units as part of the flagship reform to the growth and skills levy. The intent is right. Employers tell us they need leaders who understand AI, can make good decisions about it, and can create the conditions for it to deliver value across their organisations. The government has heard that and responded. That matters, and I want to be absolutely clear about it before I say what comes next.

Sadly, in their current format the apprenticeship units are not fit for purpose.

The evidence on how leaders develop is clear. Flexibility beats intensity. After training tens of thousands of leaders at Corndel, we know that live instruction alone doesn’t produce behaviour change. The leaders who change how they work are the ones who combine structured learning with applied practice, peer reflection and self-directed development.

Yet, the government’s three new apprenticeship units each mandate 30 hours of live delivery. Across all three, that is 90 hours of synchronous instruction – nearly three working weeks of getting senior leaders in a room or on a Zoom call. We have tested this directly with employers. It’s no surprise that it simply will not work.

A live delivery requirement is not a learning design decision, or a guarantor of impact. It produces programmes optimised for compliance rather than outcomes. That is an unintended consequence of a system that was meant to increase flexibility, not reduce it.

There is a better way. Corndel is designing AI leadership units around impact – made for leaders, not rules. Genuine blended delivery, where live teaching is one ingredient alongside applied practice, self‑directed learning and peer reflection. Programmes designed around what leaders actually need, not what is easiest to count.

BCG research published last year found that only 5 per cent of organisations are genuinely generating transformative value from AI. What separates them from the rest is not technology investment. It is leadership commitment. Getting AI leadership development right is the highest-leverage intervention available to most organisations right now.

At Corndel, we have made a clear decision. We will not deliver a levy-funded model that is not fit for purpose. Instead, we have built our own AI leadership programme, using the subject matter of the apprenticeship units but designed around what employers and their leaders tell us they need. We’re choosing not to charge the employers we partner with. It will be better than anything the funded model currently allows.

We are launching it with employers, building in their voice from day one. Their experience, and the impact data we gather, will go back to government – in the hope that it helps improve a model that has the right ambition, but serious flaws when it comes to delivering impact on the ground.

We support what the government is trying to do. We want apprenticeship units – whether in AI or more broadly – to work. If the live delivery requirements for leadership programmes are revised to reflect the evidence on how adults learn, and if the funding model is adjusted to make quality provision viable, Corndel will be at the front of the queue.

Until then, we will do what is right for employers and learners.

Capital City College staff strike during exams over workload

Hundreds of staff at Capital City College are striking for four days during this week’s exam period over “workload concerns”.

Members of the University and College Union (UCU) are holding picket lines outside the London college group’s eight campuses between today (Tuesday 12) and Friday.

The union claims the college has “refused to deal seriously” with concerns about workload and student learning conditions since a meeting in January.

CCC told FE Week it is “disappointing” that UCU members have chosen to strike during exam period “when students should be the main focus”.

A college spokesperson added: “We want to reassure students, parents and carers that all exams and assessments will go ahead as planned and will not be affected.”

UCU claimed around 500 of the 1,700 staff at the college group’s 11 centres are striking this week.

The latest strike at the London college comes after a January agreement that included a 4 per cent pay award for staff, additional annual leave, support for workload discussions and a commitment to review incremental pay scales.

The UCU said management had initially promised two meetings to discuss workload issues by the Easter break, but only “belatedly” met with union reps for the first time last week in response to the threat of strike.

The union said its demands include increased tutorial time, more support for students with special needs, and additional student wellbeing staff.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Our members are on strike this week because management has refused to meaningfully improve staff working and student learning conditions.

“This action could have been avoided had senior leaders met with our reps earlier in the year to progress negotiations.

“Unfortunately, they have refused to deal seriously with workload concerns. We hope they now come back to the table so we can avoid further disruption.”

A CCC spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that the University and College Union has called its members to strike despite an agreement reached in January 2026.

“It is also disappointing that industrial action is taking place during the exam period, at a time when students should be the main focus.”

The spokesperson claimed that “misinformation” has been circulated about the strike, but did not respond when asked for evidence.

In January, CCC also settled a dispute with National Education Union (NEU) members at its sixth form college campus over whether pay should increase in line with Sixth Form College Association (SFCA) pay scales.

After 19 days of strike, the NEU accepted that pay will increase in line with the SFCA for the rest of this academic year only.

CCC is one of the largest college groups in the country, with 12 main centres across central and north London that merged from three individual college groups, including City and Islington College, in 2016 and 2017.