Skip to content
20 October 2026

Latest news from FE Week

City & Guilds Foundation pulls plug on Blackledge CEO hire

Trustees at the embattled City & Guilds Foundation have withdrawn Ben Blackledge’s chief executive job offer just days before his planned start next week.

Blackledge will now continue as chief executive of WorldSkills UK after its board agreed to let him withdraw his resignation. He had been due to leave today after 12 years at the organisation, which had already begun recruiting his successor through an executive recruitment agency.

The reversal comes a year after the controversial £166 million sale of the foundation’s awarding and training business to PeopleCert, which remains the subject of a Charity Commission statutory inquiry and a separate investigation commissioned by the foundation following pressure from its members.

The foundation appointed learning tech-firm boss Jessica Leigh Jones as its new chair in April. Blackledge’s appointment, announced the following month, was to give the charity its first permanent chief executive since the sale.

The foundation, formally called the City and Guilds of London Institute, said trustees have now decided not to proceed with appointing a new chief executive at this stage.

A spokesperson said: “The institute is undertaking a wider review of its future strategy, organisational structure, and operating model to ensure it is best placed to deliver its charitable mission in the years ahead. Trustees have decided it would be more appropriate to complete this work before making a permanent leadership appointment.

“Existing interim leadership arrangements remain in place, and the organisation’s day-to-day operations, services and commitments continue as normal.

“As part of the review process, trustees will consider a range of evidence and stakeholder feedback before determining the timing of a future recruitment process.

“The trustees and team have enjoyed working with Ben Blackledge during his preparation to join the Institute and thank him for his contribution during this period and wish him every success for the future.”

The foundation’s website lists Barbara le Fleming, its executive director of finance and operations and secretary of the institute, as acting chief executive.

Announcing his appointment on 12 May, Leigh Jones praised Blackledge’s “exceptional track record” and said: “Ben’s leadership will be vital as we deepen our impact.”

The role was advertised with a salary of around £130,000 and responsibility for an annual grant-making budget of £3 million to £5 million, alongside policy work and developing a long-term strategy.

FE Week has asked the foundation what changed after the appointment was announced, why Blackledge could not lead the review, and whether either investigation into the sale informed its decision.

Back to Blackledge

WorldSkills UK had already begun recruiting Blackledge’s successor through recruitment firm Starfish Search. Final interviews had been scheduled for 15 and 16 October.

Marion Plant, chair of WorldSkills UK’s trustees, said: “The WorldSkills UK board has agreed a request from Ben Blackledge to withdraw his resignation and continue as chief executive.

“Following Team UK’s success in Shanghai alongside exciting developments in our workforce development activity, and the continued opportunity to support young people into the world of work, we are delighted that Ben will continue to lead WorldSkills UK.”

Blackledge said: “I am delighted to be continuing as chief executive of WorldSkills UK.

“There is so much to look forward to as we meet for our national finals in Wales next month and begin the next international cycle for WorldSkills Aichi 2028.”

Blackledge has led WorldSkills UK as chief executive since May 2023, having previously worked as its deputy chief executive. He stayed on to lead the organisation through Team UK’s participation at WorldSkills Shanghai last month.

Investigations continue

City & Guilds Foundation trustees agreed to sell the City & Guilds awarding and training business to PeopleCert in October 2025.

Reports of million-pound bonuses paid to senior executives involved in the transaction prompted scrutiny from the regulator.

The Charity Commission opened its statutory inquiry in January and is yet to report. It is examining information the charity supplied about the sale and trustees’ decision-making, including the information they considered before agreeing the transaction and a coexistence agreement with the new company.

The regulator had sought assurances before the sale, although the deal did not require its approval.

City & Guilds Foundation members voted for an independent inquiry at their annual meeting in April. Following a campaign, the charity agreed in June to commission a King’s Counsel-led investigation into the reasons for the sale and its governance processes.

That inquiry has begun but is also yet to report. The foundation previously said its findings would be shared with its advisory council this autumn and published.

Meanwhile, PeopleCert has claimed it is seeking to recover almost £3 million in bonuses paid to former City & Guilds chief executive Kirstie Donnelly and finance chief Abid Ismail after an internal investigation concluded the payments were “unauthorised”.

Donnelly and Ismail “categorically rejected” the allegations and previously said they would present evidence to the courts that “overwhelmingly demonstrates” all bonus payments were “approved, documented and implemented” as part of the transaction process.

ASCL council passes no confidence vote in Ofsted’s leadership

The Association of School and College Leaders’ union has said it has no confidence in Ofsted’s leadership to “address the damage being done by the new inspection system” following a vote of its ruling council.

The union has also agreed to survey members “on whether to hold an indicative ballot on industrial action if change is not forthcoming”, calling for a pause to inspections so Ofsted can “review the inspection system as a matter of urgency”.

Around 60 school and college leaders are meeting in the Midlands this week to discuss key matters of education policy.

The vote comes amid mounting tensions between Ofsted and teaching and leadership unions following growing reports of adverse impact on leaders’ health.

In a statement issued today, ASCL council said it had seen “no meaningful progress on the part of Ofsted to address significant wellbeing issues caused by inspections, and that it is increasingly concerned about the welfare and morale of members”.

Introduced last year, the new inspection framework was supposed to decrease the pressure placed on leaders and their teams.

It scrapped headline grades and now gives FE providers one of five ratings in up to 16 judgment areas.

Ofsted-commissioned research, released today, found three quarters of FE providers said their inspection had negatively affected their, or their staff’s wellbeing, with one third saying the impact was ‘a fair amount or a lot’. Most responses, however, were from independent training providers.

An Ofsted press release highlighted that most education providers said inspections had been conducted respectfully, while more than six in 10 said their inspection would help improve their setting.

Oliver said the research showed the watchdog was “on the right track”, sparking backlash from unions, who branded the findings “damning” and Oliver “out of touch”.

Pepe Di’Iasio, ASCL’s general secretary, said: “This motion reflects the strength of feeling among our members. It is not a step we have taken lightly but only after our repeated attempts to resolve our concerns through discussion and negotiation have hit a brick wall.

“Ofsted’s warm words about recognising wellbeing pressures on school and college leaders have not been matched by the action necessary to dial down the incredibly high stakes of an inspection system which is damaging people’s health and driving them out of the profession.

“School and college leaders agree with the importance of having an inspection system which gives parents information and assurance and works in the best interests of children and young people.

“But the current system is not fit for purpose. It is an overbearing mess and urgently needs to be reviewed.”

Ofsted was approached for comment.

ASCL’s statement in full

ASCL has no confidence in the ability of Ofsted’s leadership to address the damage being caused by the renewed inspection framework.

We have seen no evidence of meaningful progress on the part of Ofsted to address the significant workload and wellbeing issues caused by the framework, and are increasingly concerned about the welfare and morale of our members.

The evidence is clear that schools serving disadvantaged communities are penalised by the methodology being used in inspections and we are not convinced that enough weight will be placed on similar schools comparisons to take school context into account. Neither are we persuaded that report cards are clear and helpful to parents given that they can only be properly understood by reading the toolkits provided to inspectors.

Furthermore, we fear that the disproportionate stress and anxiety exerted by the inspection system will lead to leaders deciding to leave their posts with a consequent impact on schools, children, and young people.

Repeated attempts to resolve these matters through negotiation have not been productive and ASCL does not believe that genuine change is achievable within the current culture of the inspectorate.

We call upon the government to pause inspections and review the inspection system as a matter of urgency in order to allow these issues to be properly examined and acted upon in the best interests of families, schools, and colleges.

Inspections are harming wellbeing, FE staff tell Ofsted

Three quarters of FE providers inspected under Ofsted’s report card regime said the process affected staff wellbeing, according to the watchdog’s own research.

Meanwhile, a similar proportion said the inspectorate worked to minimise stress and anxiety.

Ofsted said the survey proved its reforms were “on the right track” as providers across early years, schools and FE “were generally positive about their inspection experience under the renewed education inspection framework”.

But union leaders criticised chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver for his “rose-tinted portrayal” of Ofsted’s new framework, claiming he was “completely out of touch”.

The survey was based on 699 responses, including 57 from further education. It comes as education secretary Lucy Powell hinted at potential further changes of Ofsted’s approach, just a year after the report card system was launched.

Mental health impact

The survey, by IFF Research, polled education providers inspected from January and whose report cards were published before the end of May.

Of the 57 FE and skills respondents, three quarters said their wellbeing – or that of staff who took part in an inspection – was negatively affected ‘at least a little’.

Almost one third (32 per cent) said mental health was impacted ‘a fair amount or a lot’.

Survey results finding provider rating of mental wellbeing impact, Source: Ofsted

Less than half (46 per cent) agreed the workload caused by an Ofsted inspection was manageable.

However, 77 per cent praised inspectors for taking action to minimise stress and anxiety, compared with 62 per cent of schools.

The vast majority (86 per cent) of FE providers agreed with a statement that the inspection team worked collaboratively with them to identify areas and priorities for improvement.

Survey results finding provider rating of workload impact, Source: Ofsted

Small-scale poll

Researchers warned of differences in the FE findings. Some questions were not asked of all respondents as the base size of 57 providers was too low to “report robustly” in some areas.

Ofsted’s own data shows 151 FE and skills providers were inspected from January, with reports published by the end of May. There were 1,142 school inspections published during that period and over 3,000 for early years settings.

The survey response rate among FE and skills providers was 37 per cent. Most responses came from independent learning providers.

Jonathan Childs, Ofsted’s post-16 director, told ITPs in June that the first eight months of the new inspection process was not a “representative view” of the sector.

Of all education providers in the IFF survey, three quarters said the inspection process was collaborative and inspectors had taken account of their unique provision.

Simon Ashworth, deputy chief executive and director of policy of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the overall findings “broadly” reflected what members had experienced.

“Many describe a more consultative process, with greater opportunity to discuss the evidence and a clearer understanding of how their provision is being judged,” he added.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said it was difficult to read into the results as the number of college responses “seems low”.

“I have written to the education secretary asking her to include college concerns in any review or reforms she has in mind for Ofsted,” he said.

“We are very concerned about how context and inclusion operate within the renewed inspection framework and support the need to put stronger emphasis on understanding the progress students make in colleges, rather than inspection simply becoming a box-ticking exercise.”

‘Out of touch’ Oliver

Oliver said the data showed “we are on the right track” with Ofsted reforms but acknowledged that workload and wellbeing “continue to be challenging”, adding “I don’t take that lightly”.

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, argued the findings should be “ringing alarm bells” instead of the “positive” way in which the watchdog presented the data.

“Three-quarters of FE and skills providers said inspections have negatively affected their wellbeing, and less than half said the workload caused by their last inspection was manageable,” he said.

“These are hugely alarming numbers that reveal inspections are clearly still having a hugely damaging impact on the FE workforce and should not be explained away as ongoing challenges.”

Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, added that the survey was a “rose-tinted portrayal” of Ofsted’s new framework and “could not be further from the truth”.

“Sir Martyn Oliver remains completely out of touch,” he said. “The new inspection framework is no better than the previous, and in many respects has worsened. Workload has increased. The sense of dread remains.

“Ofsted is a key driver of fear, anxiety and stress. Lucy Powell has indicated a readiness to review. We want to see a new system that is more supportive, but also fair and effective. It is what the profession is crying out for.”

Following union warnings that the new system was “even more stressful” than the old framework for school leaders, Powell last month said that she would work “to make sure we get this Ofsted framework, but also the culture and the whole regime, right”.

According to The Guardian, Powell is poised to tell Ofsted to “go back to the drawing board”, after becoming concerned the framework is causing too much stress.

Pathway to devolution test delays adult learning courses

Councils are scrambling to spend extra adult education funding that was previously delivered by independent training providers and overseen by Whitehall officials.

At the start of this academic year, the Department for Work and Pensions handed Adult Skills Fund grant increases of up to 60 per cent to 19 local authorities chosen for the government’s ‘pathway to devolution’ programme.

Officials say the scheme, now in its second year, is designed to test whether local authorities are “better placed” to address their local skills needs than central government by using funding that was previously spent in their areas via the nationally procured adult education contract launched in 2023.

But in September, several of the councils involved told FE Week they were still deciding how they would distribute the funding, and some contracts had not yet been awarded.

One council said it declined to join the programme due to the “limited timeframe” offered by DWP officials.

The uncertainty around how extra adult education and skills funding will reach learners this academic year has raised questions about whether councils on the programme are sufficiently resourced to manage larger budgets at short notice.

Last week, the government confirmed 29 more councils would join the programme as its nationally managed ASF contract, which funds ITP delivery in non-devolved areas, will expire at the end of this academic year.

Procurement delays

This week, Leicester City Council, where allocation grew 39 per cent to £5.8 million, said it was still “currently reviewing applications” from potential subcontractors.

In response to a freedom of information request, the East Midlands council said it could not launch a procurement exercise until it had received the funding in August – a claim the DWP contests.

West Sussex County Council told FE Week it recently completed tender evaluations for the additional £700,000 it received from the DWP but that contracts had not yet been awarded by its legal team.

In June, East Sussex County Council said it was still “determining how best” to use the funding and issued a call for expressions of interest from independent training providers in late July. A spokesperson said they were unable to provide any update when approached this week.

Essex County Council, whose grant grew £1.8 million to £9.9 million, said “no formal decision” had been made on the funding as of June and its strategy was “still in early discussions” internally. Its media team did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Very real commercial impact’

A leader of an established training provider, who asked not to be named, said that while they supported the move towards greater local control of adult skills, “the delays and uncertainty” during the transition were having “a very real commercial and operational impact”.

They added: “In the majority of cases we have experienced, procurement processes have not delivered against the original timescales.

“There have been repeated delays to tender outcomes, changes to anticipated start dates and, in some cases, opportunities being withdrawn altogether after providers have already invested significant time and resource in preparing bids.”

The delays have impacted decisions about staffing, premises and recruitment, and “contributed directly to restructuring and redundancies”, they told FE Week.

Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “In adult skills funding, access to provision highly depends on commissioners’ capacity and expertise, which has been inconsistent in the first two years.

“Local authorities need resources, guidance, support and realistic lead-in times, with a mechanism to draw on areas already managing devolved adult skills funding. Rewiring responsibilities must deliver opportunities wherever people live.”

Some councils on track

Portsmouth City Council, which received an extra £171,000 through the programme, said it signed a contract with an external provider starting in mid-September.

A spokesperson for Hampshire County Council, which joined Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight councils in a combined authority this summer, said it decided not to join the pilot “due to the limited delivery timeframe”.

The new combined authority is due to receive devolved skills funding from the 2027-28 academic year, they added.

The pathway to devolution does not require the same level of preparation for local authorities as full adult skills devolution.

Full adult skills devolution usually requires authorities to submit detailed plans to central government officials showing their “readiness”, including a strategic skills plan with supporting evidence and an implementation plan for commissioning.

Meanwhile, several local authorities, including Cheshire East, Brighton and Hove, Milton Keynes and Westmorland and Furness, all told FE Week they had direct delivery and contract or grant agreements in place with local providers by the start of the academic year in August.

Thurrock Council, which decided to directly deliver its £1.6 million budget, which increased 24 per cent this year, said the additional money was “long overdue” since funding had been frozen for “at least” 15 years.

Milena Bingley, Thurrock’s cabinet member for education, skills and children’s services, said: “Thanks to this funding, more residents of Thurrock will be able to take up the opportunity to gain skills and achieve qualifications that will help them get jobs, better paid jobs and improve their and their families’ health, wellbeing, and daily lives.”

Councils’ decision to make

DfE officials first approached the pathway to devolution authorities in November last year and confirmed allocations in April.

In their initial email in November, they told councils the funding could not be spent on tailored learning. It could be managed by single local authorities, or by one on behalf of a group.

The government also allowed up to 15 per cent to be used for “preparatory funding”, to be released between April and August, covering costs such as staff recruitment and procurement expenses.

Decisions on how to spend the funding, such as grants to local colleges, direct delivery or contracts with ITPs, were “entirely [the council’s] decision to make”, officials said.

However, they recommended that local ITPs “could be a useful partner” for the pilot and in future.

Councils can choose whether to directly deliver their ASF grant, deliver it in partnership, award a grant to another provider such as a college, or to subcontract.

Sue Pember, director of policy and external relations at adult education provider body Holex, warned against “criticising councils” for failing to have commissioning infrastructure in place when many councils will soon see some of their grants transferred to strategic authorities.

She added: “The pilots are a rehearsal for devolution: the real test is whether we learn from them and transfer that knowledge and capacity so the new strategic authorities are ready to commission effectively without destabilising successful existing provision.

“Readiness isn’t simply about whether a council can spend an allocation.

“It is about having the commissioning, provider-management and assurance arrangements in place to get money to the right provision quickly, transparently and without disrupting learners.

“The fact that councils are at different stages should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that local government isn’t ready for devolution.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “This government recognises that local leaders are best placed to understand the skills needs of their area, and that is why where possible we are continuing to move decision making powers away from Westminster.

“The pathways to devolution programme is part of this wider work, and its purpose remains improving local training opportunities based on informed decision-making and local need.

“We are continuing to work with local authorities on this pilot alongside reforms to the skills system to build a skilled workforce ready for the demands of today, and the future.”

The DWP did not respond when asked whether it was carrying out an evaluation of the programme.

ESOL waiting lists and duplication tackled by GLA

A pilot to tackle weak coordination and long waiting lists for English language lessons has been launched by the Greater London Authority.

Funded with £185,000 from the GLA’s £7.5 million Adult Skills Fund management budget, the 18-month programme will fund two English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) coordination services, one working across seven west London councils and the other at a borough-level in Camden and Islington.

The GLA plans to “test and learn” from the ESOL coordination services so it can develop best practice and later “scale an informed approach” across the capital.

The move comes amid funding cuts to adult education nationally, accusations of vague government promises to improve access to ESOL, and a lack of national strategy on how it should be delivered.

London’s pilot will include a £70,000 grant for a “single point of contact” service for employment and skills, including ESOL, run by the West London Alliance, a partnership of seven councils.

The GLA will also grant £65,000 to Camden Council for its borough-level ESOL Advice Service. The remaining £50,000 will fund an evaluation of the outcomes of the pilot which should be complete by May 2028.

According to a GLA decision report approving the funding, London’s ESOL offer is complicated by a mix of providers including local authorities, specialist institutions, civic organisations and FE colleges, not all of which are Adult Skills Fund financed.

It said: “Weak coordination in the ESOL ecosystem makes it extremely difficult for learners to navigate.

“For some potential ESOL learners, this is an added barrier to entering the labour market and socially integrating – as they may already be experiencing social isolation; may not have a fixed abode; and may not know how to access London’s ESOL offer.

“Weak and inconsistent coordination can result in providers’ processes and provision being duplicated – adding to pressure in the ESOL workforce.”

Services that the pilot will fund for learners include outreach and advice, assessment, registration, and “signposting” to FE and skills provision.

The pilot will also run provider networks and focus on “improving ESOL access and reducing administrative duplication”.

London’s needs

The GLA said ESOL demand is likely to “keep growing” due to high migration levels to the capital, labour market demand for English skills, and changes to visa and settlement rules requiring a higher level of English.

GLA officials selected the West London Alliance, one of four multi-council regional partnerships in the city, because it is the only one to already include ESOL in its GLA-funded ‘no wrong door’ initiative for advice on employment, skills, health and support services.

Camden and Islington’s ESOL advice service was chosen as it had been operating for eight years but faced a “financial sustainability challenge” that threatened its operations.

About 50,000 learners participated in GLA-funded ESOL courses in 2024-25, the majority (42,170) enrolled at entry level. These learners account for about a quarter of learners on London’s Adult Skills Fund courses.

FE Week asked the GLA how large London’s ESOL waiting lists are but did not receive a response.

Felix Norman, ESOL curriculum manager at WM College, said the college consistently faced a waiting list of more than 300 people for initial assessment.

He added: “In my opinion, the greatest challenge is about how we might create a standardised initial assessment and [information, advice and guidance] process that all providers could agree on.

“If there were a way that learners could be interviewed and assessed by a service such as Camden Advice Service, and then this information could be shared with providers in a way that is easily interpreted by providers, this could help to reduce workload and cut down on duplication of processes.”

Last year, the government’s immigration white paper promised to cut net migration by about 100,000 by demanding higher English language levels for people applying to extend visas or settling permanently.

But its promise to make it “easier” to access English language lessons was branded “vague” by ESOL leader Paul Sceeny, amid ongoing cuts to adult education funding and the lack of a national strategy.

Although there is no official data on ESOL spending nationally, an investigation by news outlet Hyphen found £183 million was spent on the courses in 2024-25, a 40 per cent real-terms cut since 2009-10.

The outlet also found that waiting times for ESOL courses in West Yorkshire can last up to two years.

Sceeny, co-chair of the National Association for Teaching English and other Community Languages to Adults which has been calling for similar single point of contact services in Lambeth and Hackney, also welcomed the GLA’s support for ESOL coordination.

He said single points of contact prevent learners from being “shunted from pillar to post”, such as through multiple initial assessments or being enrolled on provision that doesn’t meet their needs.

Training providers shouldn’t have to apologise for profit

We need to talk about the ‘p’ word.

Profit.

Whenever the government uses private-sector organisations to deliver public goods and services, there is suspicion: that they have the “wrong” motives; that they will cut corners; or pursue growth regardless of quality.

At the root is a suspicion about profit. And yet, as FE Week explored a few weeks ago, ITPs continue to be the overwhelming choice for apprenticeship delivery for employers.  Something appears to be working.

So what is the role of profit in the skills sector?

Every provider – whether college, charity, university or privately owned company – should aim to deliver for a cost below their income.

This operating surplus means an organisation can withstand shocks, invest in improvement and plan with confidence. A provider living from one payment to the next is not in a strong position to focus on learners, employers or compliance.

The test for any provider should be: does it improve learners’ prospects? Does it meet genuine employer needs? Is it sustainable?

Properly managed, profit serves these goals very well.

First, profit creates breathing space. A provider with breathing space can invest in its people, systems and curriculum rather than merely scrabbling to make payroll or fudge a reform. It can build reserves, improve learner support and maintain standards even when external conditions are deteriorating.

Second, profit – or the potential for profit – is a vital component of what attracts founders and investors to put in money upfront to create new organisations and new programmes.  This usually comes along with deep motivation from individuals to help learners and employers by doing something differently or better.

But money is needed in order to get going.  They use savings, borrow personally, borrow from investors and endure long periods of uncertainty while building their vision.

Tens of millions of pounds have over the years been put into the skills system in this way, at no cost to the taxpayer and with no guarantee of a return for the entrepreneur or their upfront investors.  And many of these programmes have gone on to be vital and valued parts of the system.

Institutional investors know that the only way to genuinely increase the value of their investment is to provide a high-quality service that delivers for a growing number of employers and learners.  Investors buying such businesses are laser-focused on judging whether this is the case or not.

Third, once the business is up and running, profit also creates the capacity and desire to innovate and go the extra mile. This is what has enabled providers to continually improve what they do, at no cost to the taxpayer – indeed, many have done so while funding has been falling in real terms: new learning platforms, better employer-facing services, high-quality curriculum content and more flexible support for learners.

All need upfront investment, yet beyond a handful of mayoral grants, ITPs receive no government money to renew their buildings, technology or learning infrastructure.

Investments can be risky: the upsides from the ones that work have to balance the downsides of the ones that don’t, even if the former are the only ones the rest of us see.

It would be strange for the system to welcome such initiative, risk-taking and ‘free’ upfront capital, but then regard any financial flow in the other direction as intrinsically suspect.

Of course, the profit motive needs guardrails.  The two best ways to do this are competition and regulation.  Competition – which government should nurture and steward – ensures quality goes up faster than prices.  Regulation prevents cutting corners (and applies equally to non-profit organisations: all need clear success measures and strong regulation).

This is one of the great strengths of the English apprenticeship system: vigorous and healthy competition, within a (now) mature regulatory regime.  Of course, government should not be complacent about either: competition and regulation can always be sharpened and improved to ensure they are pushing up quality, aligning with the profit motive.  In particular, government needs to do more to ‘market manage’ to address cold spots of delivery.

We have some big changes coming up.  The pivot to youth.  Devolution.  The inexorable march of AI and all its implications.  Alongside the whole sector’s passion and determination, profit can play a vital role in keeping the skills system moving forward, for the benefit of employers, learners and the economy.

Dale’s mission to ride a zipline of happiness

Mark Dale was enjoying a quiet smoke of his pipe in the woodlands surrounding Portland College Group’s Nottinghamshire campus, trying not to set anything on fire, when a vision formed in his head.

He imagined the college’s then mainly wheelchair-using learners having a “whale of a time” abseiling from a tower and racing along a treetop walkway.

That was in 2013. Seven years later, just as Covid lockdown measures came into force, the chief executive’s dream was realised when Portland’s Woodland Adventure Zone opened, complete with climbing tower, 90-metre zipline, adventure trail and archery zone.

It is Dale’s “pride and joy” – and symbolic of his “learning for skills and happiness” educational philosophy.

Portland College’s woodland setting

Epicurean college

Dale’s inspiration is the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus.

Happiness, he explains, does not mean “ice cream on a warm day, as lovely as that is”. It comes from five practices: nurturing relationships, keeping physically active – particularly in nature – helping others, continuing to learn and practising mindfulness.

Nowadays, the college mainly caters for learners with SEND and its more cognitively able learners practise meditation and fundraise for local causes.

But Dale is no misty-eyed idealist. He sees one of the principal jobs of a college leader much more prosaically: to “get money”.

“You can be full of passion and ideas, but if you haven’t actually got the resource to pay people, you’re barking into the wind.”

His happiness curriculum draws “hardly at all” on the teaching and learning theories he encountered during the 18 years he spent working in the University of Nottingham’s education department, before joining Portland as chief executive in 2006. Most of his learning, he says, has instead come from directly observing and participating in teaching.

Underlying it is his conviction that the culture of the mainstream education system itself is “wrong”, because “trying to force all children to be the same doesn’t work”.

He draws from personal experience. His two youngest children spent time out of school because they “couldn’t cope with the demands of mainstream” before moving to special schools. One son is now at Portland.

He is, by his own admission, “never short of a view”. Interviewing him, he jokes, will be “like the longest taxi ride you’ll ever have”. (Indeed, my visit to Portland does overrun by about two hours.)

He is also “far more radical” than the Portland charity itself and stresses that his views are his own.

Mark Dale outside one of the new residential buildings at Portland College

Student days

The youngest of three children, Dale grew up in Birmingham with a post office worker mother and telephone engineer father who were “focused on paying off the mortgage and mowing the lawn”.

Dale was bullied in three different schools for being “academically quite clever”. Teachers did “absolutely nothing” to stop it, and playtime was “torture”.

His striking height and stature made him “more than able” to defend himself, but he remembers well his peers who could not.

It would be easy to frame his life mission as being about helping the more vulnerable members of society. Dale sees it differently: his job is to help people help themselves by “arming them with knowledge, rather than with bats”.

An economic and social history degree at the University of Nottingham sparked his interest in adult education. He volunteered as an adult literacy tutor in a deprived part of the city and later taught at what is now Nottingham College but was then People’s College – a name whose ethos he “loved”.

Unsure what to do with his life amid soaring unemployment, he pursued a doctorate in urban planning. Studying institutional racism in Leicester’s planning system gave him a “crusading sense of wanting to tackle social injustice”.

He became a lecturer in adult education – the “youngest in the country for years on end because it was a dead profession” in universities. A restructure put him in charge of taught education studies, including teaching FE and adult education teachers. One was Portland’s then principal, Mike Syms, whom he took over from 20 years ago this month.

A celebration of Portland College’s history

Reinventing Portland

Portland was conceived in the mid-1930s as a support centre for injured miners on land donated by the Duke of Portland. After opening in 1950, it broadened its reach to war veterans and people with congenital disabilities.

When Dale joined, it had 125 learners. All but five were residential.

Portland was then the largest of nine adult residential providers in England, and Dale had inherited a declining Department for Work and Pensions programme for adults who had “fallen out of work”.

The programme was expensive – around £23,000 per job outcome – but it was “incredibly effective”. At its peak, 85 per cent moved into employment and more than 80 per cent remained in work for over six months.

When it was axed in 2015, Portland made a £500,000 trading loss.

Further DWP contracts followed, but Dale became increasingly frustrated with what he calls their “disastrous” payment-by-results approach. Portland’s wide footprint across the East of England made it challenging to meet the DWP’s stipulated parameters of success.

He remembers travelling to Sheffield on an “uncomfortable minibus” with a colleague with multiple physical disabilities, only to be put on the “naughty step” by six civil servants led by an “idiot with a toothbrush moustache”, who told them how “rubbish” their contract performance was.

Dale “breathed a sigh of relief” when the contract ended.

Another idea was emerging.

At least half of Portland’s DWP referrals had mental health difficulties. Dale became interested in the US-inspired ‘recovery college’ model, offering free courses to improve wellbeing as well as employability.

Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust was already running the model locally with general FE colleges, which Dale says withdrew one by one for cost reasons.

With £15,000-a-year backing from a local company, he established Portland Pathways and opened an office in Mansfield Citizens Advice Bureau to enrol jobseekers. Accessing public funding was less straightforward.

As a specialist college on the government’s approved ‘section 41’ register, Portland is in what Dale calls a “gilded cage” of restrictions on their remit, and the college can only access other funding streams through partnerships with other organisations. By the time he secured adult education funding, Portland was on its fourth such partnership.

Portland still operates the programme, now called Rebuild Your Mental Health and run independently of the healthcare trust.

It resembles the old DWP programmes, but with a “people first” rather than a “work first” approach. Nobody is “kicked off” a programme for failing to follow set rules or interrogated about how many jobs they have applied for.

And participants can benefit from counselling and psychotherapy from supervised master’s students at the University of Derby.

Demand is “skyrocketing”. The programme now supports around 120 people a year into employment, and is soon to be funded through the new East Midlands mayoral strategic authority.

Portland College’s cafeteria, which does around 300 covers each lunchtime

A college transformed

Portland’s main base is more than a college campus. It provides residential respite for families, rents out its hydro pool to Water Babies (infant swimming) classes and allows dog walkers to ramble across its picturesque woodland grounds.

Signs of Portland’s rapid expansion are everywhere. A front garden has become a car park; the former caretaker’s house is an independent-living training facility.

Dale can see therapy donkeys nibbling grass from his office windows.

“I live and breathe this place,” he says, offering me tea and biscuits as he proudly shows off a royal-themed mug a colleague gave him to celebrate his recent MBE.

Portland has substantially expanded its SEND cohort since the Children and Families Act came into force in 2014. Dale was at the time involved in DfE consultations about the changes, as vice-chair of specialist college body Natspec.

Despite commanding cross-party and cross-sector support, he recalls the reforms becoming “adversarial almost immediately”.

He partly blames funding. The £6,000 contribution providers make before local-authority high-needs top-up funding kicks in has remained unchanged for years, and Dale believes it should now be nearer £10,000.

The college now has 290 high-needs FE students, alongside another 30 learners at its independent special school and alternative provision in Mansfield and new complex-needs centres in Nottingham.

Although much of its accommodation has been converted into classrooms, around 30 adults on adult social care live in supported accommodation on campus.

Accommodation for adults on campus

‘Preloaded for a fight’

Being ‘outstanding’ means parental preference is a factor too, and the Ofsted rating has caused a rise in families of young people with fewer needs trying to secure a place at the college.

The tribulations of the SEND system mean the families of the young people the college serves are “used to fighting”, and often arrive “preloaded, ready for a fight”.

“You can see it in the body language,” Dale says.

Disabled people fare worse on health, wellbeing and employment measures, he adds, leaving the college with a “job to do” empowering those students who can help themselves.

Some colleagues, he believes, can display a “subconscious bias”: people with “very kind hearts” who are nevertheless “risk averse” and sometimes think more about learners’ limitations than their abilities.

The same suspicion of paternalism shapes his views on regulation.

Care Quality Commission policy, he says, weighs against supported living on Portland’s campus because it is not considered a community setting.

Yet some long-term care residents would “love” to move into supported living there and already consider the open campus, close to Mansfield and a GP surgery, their community.

“The regulator decides rather than the people. To me, that’s wrong.”

But Dale has a “very productive” relationship with Nottinghamshire Council, which he says acts quickly to resolve disputes with families. He is “surprised” to have been involved in only two tribunal hearings during his time at Portland.

Dale sees “parties of all political hues really trying their best to make it work” locally. Councillors responsible for SEND often have family experience of the system and “skin in the game”, as he does, which “helps with the discussions”.

But he also sees council officers with “lots of positive intent” being “overwhelmed” by demand.

He compares the SEND system to a video game in which players desperately scramble up a ladder to escape a room filling with water – except the water is rising faster than they can climb.

Mark Dale and Portland College curriculum manager David Winter

Rigid templates

Dale supports the principle behind the government’s reforms of making mainstream schools more inclusive.

However, he believes they are “destined to fail”.

The national curriculum, Ofsted’s influence on school improvement and academisation have, he argues, created a rigid template of what education should look like which some children “don’t always fit”.

He also attacks “the government obsession with attendance, and multi-academy trusts’ obsessions with uniform”, pointing to a local school that sent children home during this summer’s heatwave for wearing shorts.

“Whilst ever you have schools displaying almost barbarous inhumanity – isolation rooms, teachers who think it’s acceptable to measure the length of a girl’s skirt, or a boy’s skirt for that matter – even if you have the best skills in the world to understand neurodiversity, if you are working in a template around control and conformity, people are going to keep butting heads.

“Because with neurodivergent profiles, even if they wanted to conform, there’s wiring in them that means they can’t do it all the time.”

Dale also sees parts of the government’s education agenda as an “erosion of parental rights” and “regulation gone bonkers”, particularly increased local-authority oversight of home-educated children.

He experienced social workers visiting his own home to check on his children’s welfare when they were being home-schooled, which he “tried not to take personally”.

But he does not reject the logic of the government’s reform agenda entirely. Funding SEND more generously upfront through education providers is a “potentially sound” idea.

His concern is that young people with “complex presentations” requiring several forms of support could instead be “funnelled down a particular channel” when they need a blended approach.

Dale is “absolutely sure” the reforms will mean fewer EHCPs and, consequently, lower demand for Portland, and admits that worries him.

And health services, he believes, will have to do much more.

Dale recalls an impact report prepared for the local SEND board by an officer from Nottinghamshire’s integrated care board.

It was, he says with a tone of exasperation, merely a list of meetings they had attended.

For a man redesigning a college around the pursuit of happiness, that is perhaps the perfect encapsulation of what he has spent his career railing against: institutions mistaking process for progress.

 

Bickering big beasts’ sideshow is Tory skills highlight

“You have put words in my mouth that I absolutely did not say,” Amanda Spielman told David Willetts.

During a no-drama conference offering slim pickings on education and skills policy, this was more like it.

Spielman, the former Ofsted chief inspector who was quietly made a shadow work and pensions minister over the summer, had just delivered a damning judgment on universities from a panel called: “What should the Conservative plan be for tertiary education?” Too many students were getting little economic benefit from their degrees, some were bored and lonely, and student debt “hangs like an enormous sword over young people’s heads”, she claimed.

Willetts, a former universities minister and architect of the current student loans system, was visibly riled.

“I really do not believe that the evidence bears out the assertions which we have just heard from Amanda,” he said, before dismantling her arguments one by one.

Their disagreement at a King’s College London Policy Institute fringe event was admittedly entertaining. But it was just one example of how much further the Conservatives have to work on a coherent education policy platform.

Labour’s 2.0 vision at least had a clear role for FE and training in Andy Burnham’s hope agenda. Reform UK had ideas for skills in their first 100 days. But in Birmingham this week, the Conservatives’ most useful contribution was a discussion about why their own apprenticeship policy wouldn’t work.

As we approach the halfway point of a five-year parliament, the official opposition still has time to work out its offer. But the polls are not in their favour, with YouGov’s conference week poll putting the Conservatives on 20 per cent, behind Reform UK on 22 and Labour on 27.

Right on cue

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch’s stall was to go back to first principles. Her much-promoted 100-page ‘statement’, The Right Way, published on Sunday, intentionally harked back to pre-Thatcher Conservatism.

Badenoch argued that governments have taken responsibility for too much while losing the ability to deliver. Problems did not begin with Labour in 1997 or 2024, and previous Conservative governments made some of them worse, she argued.

There was no mention of further education, and the statement’s only point on education was a defence of the last Conservative government’s school reforms.

Elsewhere at the conference, the party pledged to remove inheritance tax from family homes, end the £100,000 income cliff-edge for free childcare, and create a £10 billion ‘Britannia Shield’ to protect us from missiles and drones.

Badenoch also promised to halve national insurance for under-25s and repeated her pledge to cut student loan interest.

Shadow education secretary Laura Trott’s main-stage speech echoed her former Tory colleague now-Reform UK education spokesperson Suella Braverman’s speech from a few weeks ago.

Trott’s “pledge to parents” promised stronger enforcement of impartiality rules for teachers and guest speakers, alongside a new law to keep trade union politics out of schools. The closest she came to vocational education was to defend English and maths, “They’re still the most important vocational qualifications,” like they were under threat.

Laura Trott speaks from the conference lecturn
Laura Trott

Degrees of disagreement

Out on the conference fringe, Willetts took Spielman’s critique apart, starting with how she judged educational quality.

As chief inspector, she had assessed schools on teaching quality. Why then were universities judged so heavily on graduates’ earnings? Creative and performing arts courses could have brilliant teaching but poor salary outcomes, while A Level courses were praised for their teaching without equivalent scrutiny of subsequent earnings.

On her argument that too many degrees delivered little benefit, Willetts said earnings were only part of the picture. Higher education also brought health and employment benefits, including for graduates working in jobs not classified as graduate occupations. And young people reporting mental health problems were more likely to remain in employment if they had attended university, he argued.

Next came the “gigantic” student loan write-offs. Their size reflected policy choices about repayment thresholds and loan terms, rather than simply universities’ performance. Changes introduced by the last Conservative government meant England’s system now required a lower taxpayer contribution than other European models, he said.

What about that “sword” hanging over graduates? What mattered was their repayments, not the headline debt. In Willetts’ illustrative calculation, graduates earned £4,000 to £5,000 more a year than non-graduates while repaying about £500, retaining most of the financial advantage.

Lords Willetts and Amanda Spielman exchange heated views across a conference panel
L-R: Lord Wiilletts, Bobby Duffy, Amanda Spielman

He also challenged comparisons between graduate and apprenticeship earnings. Measuring apprenticeship returns only up to age 28, while assessing graduates over a lifetime using different assumptions, was a shaky basis for redirecting young people’s choices, he said.

Spielman objected that he had misrepresented her position. “I made no suggestion about closing courses,” she said, insisting she had not presented economic returns as the only test.

Willetts’ scepticism extended to the very concept of a tertiary system. Universities, colleges and apprenticeships operated under fundamentally different rules.

Graduate earnings made loan repayments a viable funding model for higher education, he argued. Other provision needed different arrangements because extending loans could produce unacceptable write-offs.

Universities’ autonomy, colleges’ public-sector status and employers’ freedom to recruit apprentices further complicated any common framework. Employers did not face the same admissions scrutiny as universities, either.

 

Sums don’t add up

The Conservatives’ existing offer includes 100,000 more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds, funded alongside lower student loan interest by reducing the subsidy for degree courses they consider poor value.

It’s a soundbite peppered across the conference: fewer disappointing degrees and more opportunities to earn and learn. Reform UK made similar arguments about diverting funding from universities to apprenticeships.

It’s a two and half year old policy for the Conservatives announced by Rishi Sunak shortly before the 2024 general election.

Public First’s education director Jess Lister said polling now showed parents’ enthusiasm for apprenticeships had caught up with their preference for university. The difficulty was finding places.

“Good luck getting them. Good luck finding them,” she said.

Alison Wolf was blunter. “An apprentice is an employee. An apprentice needs an employer. And you don’t free up resource by closing down some humanities faculties.” If students from closed courses enrolled on different university courses, Wolf added, the supposed saving would disappear immediately.

Willetts challenged the accounting too. Student loan write-offs were not a pot of cash sitting inside the Department for Education ready to spend on apprenticeships, he argued.

He also warned that ministers taking control of degree offers risked tipping universities into the public sector, as happened to colleges in 2022.

Wolf at the door

Willetts and Wolf have a stake in this tertiary discussion. They were both in positions of power, the former a university minister and the latter a Number 10 adviser, in the last government.

Willetts was very much on the defence over a student loan system he introduced, but which is now almost universally derided.

Wolf, on the other hand, was hungry for change.

“I don’t think we’re being radical enough. I would like to strongly suggest that we look at 17th century London. People travelled to become apprentices; they had a special legal status, and their parents supported them, but they didn’t need to support them that much because the employer had a bargain there.”

Nowadays, “we have made apprenticeships expensive, we have made it awkward, we have tried to centralise it with an all-singing, all-dancing website, which is a horror,” she lamented.

Amanda Spielman and Alison Wolf behind microphones on a panel
L-R: Amanda Spielman, Alison Wolf

More controversially, she repeated earlier calls to bring degree apprentices into the student loan system. Willetts said this would free up levy money for younger people on lower-level programmes.

There was also an uncomfortable reckoning with Conservative skills reforms.

Wolf called for higher technical qualifications to be abandoned, arguing that they had consumed money without providing the right remedy.

Her warning about another round of qualification invention was met with nods of approval. She was equally dismissive of Labour’s vocational GCSE ambitions, recalling the abandoned hairdressing equipment left in school basements after earlier reforms, like the 14 to 19 diploma.

Spielman defended the principle of continued English and maths study after 16, arguing that GCSE resits helped explain improved adult skills results. Wolf agreed, while supporting the new stepping-stone qualifications.

Tough love

A more immediate offer to young people came from shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately.

The conference heard about her plans for a ‘get to work’ programme which would provide intensive support for out-of-work under-25s, with benefits conditional on attendance.

“If you don’t turn up, you shouldn’t be paid,” she said.

Badenoch’s closing speech promised no out-of-work benefits for school or university leavers and a restricted “spending card” for jobseekers that could only be used for essentials.

Whately also described employers telling her they could not afford to recruit, and choosing experienced or skilled foreign candidates when they did. That leaves a substantial policy problem for getting inexperienced young people into work quickly.

The national insurance pledge addresses part of that problem. The conference offered much less clarity about the training capacity needed for a compulsory out-of-work programme.

The tertiary debate had at least established some common ground. English and maths mattered. Young people needed more apprenticeship opportunities. Another round of qualification invention was unlikely to solve the problems employers and providers already faced.

But the panel also exposed how far the party has to go. The people who helped shape Conservative education policy in government were still arguing over what counted as value, who should pay and whether the savings behind its now two-year-old apprenticeship pledge existed at all.

A general election may still be some way off, but colleges, providers and employers looking for an alternative skills agenda had little to learn this week.

Councils ignore Milburn’s NEET taskforce call

Fewer than a quarter of councils have agreed to set up local taskforces to tackle NEET numbers as part of a drive led by Alan Milburn.

Leaders from 89 councils across the UK have pledged to set “at least one” objective to keep 16 to 24-year-olds in education, training or work.

Out of 382 UK local authorities, 23 per cent agreed to bring together schools, colleges, employers, heath and voluntary services to form a joint plan and monitor NEET numbers.

Latest figures show 13 per cent, or almost one million 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK, were NEET between April and June.

Milburn, the government’s NEET tsar and a former Labour cabinet minister, said: “Nobody knows a community like the people who serve it. That’s why so many councils are stepping up now to grip the NEET crisis on their own doorsteps.”

Milburn’s interim NEET report, published in May, calculated NEET young people were costing the economy around £125 billion in welfare, lost tax receipts and health bills. He warned that without action, the number of NEETs could rise to over 16 per cent within five years, to more than 1.25 million people.

Milburn’s final report and recommendations to the government are due this autumn, reportedly after the chancellor’s budget.

The NEET taskforces sit alongside eight youth guarantee trailblazers aimed at reducing youth inactivity, run by mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority. Trailblazer funding was extended by £45 million to run until March 2027.

Clear commitments

The Department for Work and Pensions appealed to all councils through bulletins via the Local Government Association to join the “NEET taskforce”.

The taskforces will commit, for at least 18 months, to:

  • Convene key local stakeholders such as schools, further education, the DWP, health sector, employers, voluntary sector and the community and social enterprise sector to create one joined‑up plan and monitor transition outcomes regularly.
  • Set at least one objective in support of sustained participation of 16-24 year olds.
  • Agree on a set of practical actions they can deliver quickly, using powers they already have, with each area free to decide what will work best for their young people and economy.

In England, 83 of the 317 councils have signed up.

No councils in Wales or Northern Ireland are on the list, but six Scottish councils will launch a taskforce.

LJ Rawlings, chief executive of Youth Employment UK, said: “People pledging and being committed is not the same as a strategy.”

London forms the bulk of boroughs on the list. The City of London Corporation and 31 of the capital’s 32 boroughs have signed up, with Havering the only omission.

Several south London boroughs are working together through the South London NEET Taskforce.

“The South London NEET taskforce is a significant step towards creating a more responsive system that helps young people progress into good jobs,” said councillor Barry Lewis, chair of South London Partnership and leader of London borough of Sutton.

“By working collectively, we can ensure support reaches those who need it most and help more young people make successful transitions into good, sustainable work.”

Meanwhile, Kent County Council and Medway Council are running a joint Kent and Medway NEET taskforce.

Councillor David Wimble, cabinet member for economic development at Kent County Council, said the task force will come up with “clear actions and solutions” to provide more opportunities for local young people.

He added: “Nearly 7 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds in Kent and Medway are not reaching their potential due to the challenges they face with finding the right training and securing a job.

“At the same time, our employers are struggling to find the people they need to help them grow.

“We will work with local partners to take practical steps, starting with providing clearer information and advice for our young people and businesses.”