Latest news from FE Week

In defence of messy whiteboards

I began teaching back when the world wide web was a mere cyber strand. It existed as a novelty but had not yet really begun to change the world as it would. As for whiteboards, they were interactive only in the sense that you had to wipe them clear, leaving a smeary blue residue until they finally received their big clean every half term break. In those halcyon days, a particular mark of teacher pride was always their board work. I even recall being assessed on it in observations; it was that big a deal.

I went to school in the mythic days of blackboards – both static and rolling varieties – with flying fag-ends of chalk bouncing off unwitting bonces and flung board rubbers exploding in cloudy white puffs against badly-behaved boys’ dark blazers. That would provide a talking point throughout any pupil’s day.

But my teaching career began as these more primal times were ending. Gone was the chalk that dried out teachers’ fingers and in came multi-coloured whiteboard markers that left them stained with ink instead. A brave new world beckoned. When learning how to teach, I even had classes on how to use a whiteboard properly. I was told nothing at all about computers and their screens. They were reserved for the computer science specialists, who hogged them then like ancient druids did their special stones. But I remember the lessons on how to use a whiteboard well.

I learned long ago to appreciate the craft of whiteboard work. A good board develops as the lesson progresses, displaying the creativity of the moment, new thoughts unfurling as light bulbs pop into being above students’ heads. Key words are circled and lines drawn to link ideas, quick and clumsy doodles illustrating a point while hasty under-scorings stress important terms that need to be learned. Sometimes a well-used whiteboard is a true work of art. I’ve sometimes even taken pictures of boards I was pleased with.

Back before I had my own classroom, I’d find boards with a message inscribed in the corner in bold capitals, a big box around the words ‘Please leave’. Where then was your board work to be done? But it was a request mostly granted. Although occasionally you’d only see the request after half the work was already erased.

With modern interactive whiteboards, screens can be saved and scrolled through afterwards, referred back to or sent on to absent students. Board work can be made to last. But that seems to betray the beauty of the ephemerality of the learning moment, full of surprise and discovery. An organically developed whiteboard can contain a dynamism within its borders with which the dull bouncing titles and slow-fade-in photos of a pre-planned, earlier-prepared Powerpoint presentation can never compete. A pre-written, already-saved interactive whiteboard screen is simply no match for the slowly evolving, madly adapting quasi-organic life form of a well-worked whiteboard. That is a thing of beauty brought into being by the alchemical interaction of a class and a teacher inhabiting a moment together.

In a previous job, I was told to always close my gates on leaving any home I’d visited, primarily to stop pets escaping onto the street. It became a useful phrase later to indicate the need to never leave shared jobs half done for someone else to complete. Always close your gates. When I was later training to be a teacher, one of the only bits of advice I can recall was to always wipe your whiteboards clean at the end of your lesson. Partly this was to preserve the surprise for any incoming group but also the thinking was that, as a new teacher, you might well be sharing classrooms. Antagonising older colleagues by leaving whiteboards half-filled and still in need of a clean wasn’t a politic move to win hearts and minds in a school where you might soon want a job.

But throughout my career, I’ve loved entering empty classrooms to find filled-in boards that were inadvertently left behind. I’ve peered closely into the mysteries of such boards like some ancient crone looking deeply into her crystal ball or darkling mirror. Sometimes whole lessons from the recent past have swum back into view before my very eyes. I’ve somehow sensed the excitement of the enthusing pen-wielding teacher. I’ve traced the swirling eddies of side-questions and clarifications as inspiring ideas have been tracked and developed across the width and height of the board.

The liveliness of the lessons before mine have thereby become clear to me through the simple medium of that well-worked whiteboard. I’ve often found it frankly inspiring, knowing I stand in a line beside masters of the art and craft of teaching.

So despite the good advice I’ve received over the years about closing my gates and wiping my whiteboards, I now have another plan. I’m determined instead to forever keep my gates open wide with a welcome awaiting all and to happily invite all free whiteboards to constantly be filled. Let the tumble of learning commence.

The UK has a commercialisation problem, not just a skills problem

The UK has become very good at creating expertise and surprisingly poor at commercialising it.

For years, the national conversation around growth has focused on digital capability, engineering, healthcare and green jobs, all rightly important. But there is another capability hiding in plain sight: the ability to turn expertise into economic value.

Brilliant products do not create growth on their own. Commercial capability does. The UK does not just have a skills gap. It has a sales capability gap, and we rarely talk about it on the main stage.

Across the country, highly technical businesses are hiring brilliant engineers, consultants and specialists while relying on inconsistent sales capability to bring that expertise to market. Having worked with organisations in over 60 countries undergoing commercial transformation, one pattern repeats: businesses rarely fail because they lack expertise. They struggle because they cannot consistently translate expertise into commercial outcomes.

In many organisations, sales remain one of the few business-critical functions where people are expected to pick it up as they go, despite carrying responsibility for revenue, customer trust and growth. It is still too often viewed as personality-driven rather than professional, instinctive rather than structured.

The reality is very different. Modern selling is commercial problem-solving. It requires critical thinking, communication, financial understanding, stakeholder management and the ability to navigate increasingly complex buying environments.

Ebsta and Pavilion’s research found that 69 per cent of sales professionals missed quota last year, while just 17 per cent of sellers generated 81 per cent of total revenue. Sales cycles are becoming longer and more complex. If sales is the engine of growth, sales capability is economic infrastructure.

The symptoms are familiar: opportunities stall, new hires take too long to ramp up, managers firefight instead of coach. 58 per cent of managers say they received no management training when first appointed, according to the Chartered Management Institute. Capability gaps compound across teams over time.

High activity can disguise weak commercial conversations. Confidence can mask poor qualification. I was speaking to a so-called top performer recently and when you dug into the numbers, they closed more deals because they received more leads. Their close rate was identical to mid-level performers. Effort does not always equal effectiveness.

Too much sales development still operates like an event rather than a profession. Organisations send people on courses, measure attendance and hope performance improves. But capability does not develop through exposure to training alone. It develops through professional formation: building commercial capability, professional identity, ethical grounding and behavioural consistency over time.

Buyers do not lack information – they lack confidence in the person delivering it. LinkedIn’s Trust Advantage study found 86 per cent of buyers say seller expertise drives trust, yet only 45 per cent trust the sellers they meet. That gap has direct commercial consequences. When sellers are professionally formed and independently recognised, decision friction reduces, buyers move faster and relationships deepen.

Research conducted through ISP, Cranfield School of Management and Westfield Health found professionally formed sales teams achieved an 18.2 per cent quota uplift and reduced unwanted attrition by 60 per cent over 24 months.

We would never allow finance, legal or engineering teams to operate without standards, structured development and recognised pathways. Yet many organisations still approach sales that way.

AI will automate more transactional elements of selling: prospecting, research, forecasting. But that shift makes human capability more valuable, not less. As AI reduces information asymmetry, competitive advantage moves towards trust, judgement, commercial insight and relationship quality. The future salesperson will not need to be less professional. They will need to be more so.

Professions like procurement, accountancy and HR have long-established chartered pathways and recognised standards. Sales, one of the most commercially influential functions in the economy, is still treated as informal or instinctive.

The UK economy needs growth. Employers need productivity. Individuals need opportunity. Sales capability sits at the core of all three. Until we start treating it as economic infrastructure, we will continue underestimating one of the most important drivers of sustainable growth.

A professionally recognised sales workforce would not just improve organisational performance. It would strengthen productivity, accelerate innovation, improve customer trust and help the UK compete more effectively on a global stage.

The professionalisation of cheating should alarm every awarding body

Impersonation and exam fraud is not new. As long as there have been candidates willing to cheat, there have been those with the knowledge and skills prepared to sit assessments on their behalf, usually in exchange for payment.

This form of cheating has typically been associated with small local networks operating through personal contacts or word of mouth.

What was once a localised and limited form of cheating has developed into a global online marketplace offering sophisticated impersonation services to paying clients.

ASRG’s latest whitepaper, Candidates for Hire: A Case Study of Impersonation Services in Assessment, explores how these operations now function as organised commercial services combining technology, identity fraud and professional impersonators into a single package. It also includes a case study of a website that openly advertises its services online.

The internet has fundamentally changed the scale and accessibility of impersonation.

Services that once relied on local connections are now advertised openly through polished websites, encrypted messaging apps and social media. Some providers encourage customer reviews, offer guarantees of confidentiality and make bold claims about achieving the highest possible scores for their clients.

Impersonation is increasingly being presented as a normalised commercial service rather than a covert illegal arrangement.

The methods used by these groups are equally concerning. They may combine remote access software, physical disguises, identity fraud, behavioural coaching, hidden communication tools and cheating devices to bypass detection.

In online exams, candidates may be guided on how to act naturally on camera while an impersonator completes the assessment from another location. For in-person assessments, fake documents or disguises may be used to bypass identity checks and verification.

ASRG also identified examples of websites selling fraudulent identity documents while encouraging buyers to protect their privacy. These sites advise customers to “consider payment methods that protect your privacy”, with cryptocurrency often recommended as a preferred option for anonymity.

Online assessment has created new opportunities for impersonation. It removes many of the barriers that once made this form of cheating more difficult. Candidates can now pay someone else to complete their assessment from anywhere in the world. At the same time, online payment systems, cryptocurrency and digital advertising have made it easier for these impersonation services to operate across borders.

In Candidates for Hire, we examined one website openly advertising impersonation services for high-stakes qualifications. The website was not hidden in obscure parts of the internet – it operates in plain sight.

The website appears to focus on qualifications commonly associated with the United States, including the LSAT, GMAT, GRE, and TOEFL. These assessments are globally recognised and often used as gateways to higher education, employment opportunities or immigration.

The pricing alone highlights the scale of this market. The site states that online assessment services begin in the thousands of dollars, while in-person impersonation services start at $20,000.

How would you feel if you discovered that your doctor or surgeon had not actually completed the assessments required for their degree? Or if the person you hired was not as qualified as their CV suggested? Impersonation may be seen as rare, isolated incidents, but the exitance of sites like this suggest the issue is a lot bigger than we think.

What makes these services particularly concerning is how normalised they appear online.

Professional branding, customer testimonials and assurances of discretion frame impersonation as a legitimate business rather than misconduct or fraud. Normalising impersonation services undermines the value and public trust placed in educational and professional qualifications. These websites depend on operating under the radar, so awareness is vital to expose their practices, reduce their ability to target users, and encourage stronger action from platforms and regulators.

To stay informed on emerging assessment security threats and future research, join ASRG for updates and ongoing insights into the latest in assessment security.

Sussex ruling is a warning shot for the OfS – not the end of the free speech debate

FE colleges with higher education (HE) provision and regulators more generally will have noted with interest the recent High Court decision in The University of Sussex v The Office for Students (OfS).

Not only did the High Court find that the OfS had failed to apply the law correctly in its approach to freedom of speech, it also found bias, concluding that the OfS had approached its investigation with a “closed mind”.

Despite this severe criticism, which is particularly significant for a regulator whose remit depends on correct interpretation of the law and procedural fairness, the OfS has confirmed that it will not appeal, saying in a statement that it wants to “focus on the future” and “learn lessons from the judgment”. However, HE providers should not be under any illusion that freedom of speech and academic freedom has moved down the OfS’s regulatory radar.

The same statement makes clear that the OfS anticipates having a “range of sharper tools” to help it “effectively intervene where freedom of speech or academic freedom is compromised” including the complaints scheme due to launch this September. This will be open to staff, members and visiting speakers of HE providers to raise complaints directly with the OfS about freedom of speech or academic freedom breaches, but not to students.

The OfS adds that “it is important to note that the judgment broadly endorsed the approach set out in our free speech guidance”. The guidance referred to here – Regulatory advice 24: Guidance related to freedom of speech – was published last year, after the OfS’s decision to fine the university £585,000 for freedom of speech related breaches.

The High Court decision highlighted that the guidance has a proportionality test to be applied by organisations when taking decisions in this often grey area. However, the OfS did not apply this test in its own investigation, taking instead what the court considered to be a legally incorrect approach – effectively treating lawful speech as determinative, rather than properly applying a structured proportionality assessment.

The judgment, and the OfS’s response to it, provide some reassurance that a more nuanced approach is correct. That said, such decisions remain highly complex and at risk of challenge.

Governing documents and policies require careful drafting to ensure the right balance is struck and, as the judge noted, even the OfS’s own guidance does not make this an easy task: “The very complexity of the OfS’s own regulatory documents and of the three-step approach relied upon by the OfS illustrates the difficulty of drawing up a simple document, which will meet the various competing legal and good governance requirements.”

The OfS has made clear that it expects HE providers to review their policies and processes, highlighting issues such as the handling of protests and staff recruitment. That review should not be limited to headline freedom of speech codes but should also entail looking at governing documents, equality, inclusion and complaints policies and procedures as well as those for staff and visiting speakers. The importance of consistency between policies and a clear governance framework when it comes to sign off and hierarchy of policies has been underlined by this case.

There are interesting parallels to draw between this decision and recent UK case law involving other regulators. One view is that this case can be read as part of a broader pattern in which courts appear willing to apply closer scrutiny to regulatory reasoning, evidential foundations and procedural fairness in certain contexts (for example in financial services and competition law). In some instances, this has resulted in decisions being quashed or remitted, increasing litigation risk and cost for regulators. The University of Sussex judgment is consistent with that direction of travel, particularly in its rejection of inadequate or overly loose reasoning and emphasis on the critical importance of a clear statutory footing and disciplined analysis.

Concerns may arise where regulators are perceived to be pursuing exemplar or signalling cases – echoing criticism that the OfS appeared to target the University of Sussex to set an example.

There is arguably potential for a more cautious, legally defensive regulatory posture across sectors. It remains to be seen how this will translate once the OfS begins to operate its self-described “sharper” range of intervention tools.

Multiply programme showed us what works in adult numeracy

When adults learn, our society and economy thrive is the strapline for Learning and Work Institute’s Get the Nation Learning campaign. It came to mind while reading the recently published findings of the Multiply programme evaluation.

Rishi Sunak’s £270 million ‘Multiply’ adult numeracy programme, funded courses across England between 2022 and 2025.

The evaluation was unable to show whether the programme improved adults’ numeracy skills, which has generated some debate in the sector. But it did reveal much about how to engage adults in learning.

In some ways, that’s the point: it’s only when adults do actually decide to engage in learning that people, businesses and society benefit from improved skills. You can’t improve people’s skills without engaging them in learning in the first place. So, to borrow a favourite evaluator’s phrase – and without apology for the pun – what should be our ‘key takeaways’ from the Multiply programme?

Clearly, there are important lessons for government around the commissioning of future programmes like Multiply. In an ideal world, much more lead-in time would be allocated for a clear purpose and vision for the programme to be developed from the start. And with sector input on whether the programme’s activities are intended primarily to engage people in learning or deliver outputs such as qualifications. It would have helped ensure that all the funding available in year one could have been used.

That skills gains couldn’t be systematically measured across the programme doesn’t mean that no one improved their skills. There are plenty of examples from across the programme of people developing practical, everyday numeracy skills and confidence in topics like managing money. But early engagement and collaboration with expert evaluators prior to commissioning could have helped develop more appropriate approaches to measuring and capturing improvements in skills, even in the context of short, non-formal, non-accredited learning interventions.

Gains in skills are important, but once the remit of Multiply changed to focus primarily on engagement in learning, the issue of skills measurement becomes less of a priority. And just engaging people in numeracy learning matters. The OECD’s 2023 Adult Skills survey shows that in England, 8.5 million adults have low skills in numeracy and/or literacy.

Adult participation in numeracy learning has declined by around 60 per cent over the past decade, with only around 230,000 people participating in adult maths courses each year. At L&W we believe on current trends, it would take around 25 years to make sure that everyone has the essential literacy and numeracy skills needed for life and work. Of course, we can’t achieve that goal without first getting more people into learning.

The Multiply evaluation findings should be read in this light. The programme made a notable contribution to adult numeracy learning participation, with over 200,000 learners taking part, increasing total numeracy enrolments by 63 per cent compared to the three years before Multiply. Crucially, the evaluators found that 85 per cent of those enrolments would not have happened without the programme.

There were high levels of participation among groups considered to be under-represented in adult numeracy education, including learners with English as an additional language, learners from ethnic minority backgrounds, and people with long-term health conditions. Rates of retention, completion and progression were high, with a third going on to take another numeracy course and a quarter taking a non-numeracy course. Of the learners who went on to further study, 55 per cent subsequently started a qualification bearing course, representing 32 per cent of all Multiply learners. Those skills gains – and the benefits – didn’t show in the Multiply evaluation.

The programme also successfully stimulated innovation in adult numeracy provision. New ways of teaching numeracy – or perhaps more accurately, for too long overlooked ways of teaching numeracy – were developed, including embedding maths in family learning, ESOL and vocational programmes. Delivery partnerships with community and voluntary sector organisations have suffered in recent years, due to funding cuts and the resulting loss of sector capacity. Through Multiply, partnerships were re-kindled and strengthened, and emerged as an effective feature of the programme, although employer engagement remained a challenge. These positive features of Multiply are consistent with the wider evidence on ‘what works’ in getting people into adult numeracy learning.

It’s encouraging that a large majority of Multiply providers report planning to embed elements of their programme into their future adult learning programmes, and just under half plan to continue building and deepening relationships with community organisations to help recruit and engage learners.

Taking forward the learning from Multiply doesn’t just rest on providers, though. It also requires commissioners, including the Department for Work and Pensions and mayoral strategic authorities, to re-evaluate and re-think the priority they afford to opportunities for flexible, non-accredited adult learning.

Within the adult skills fund, that means valuing the tailored learning element, and other flexibilities, to realise the benefits of non-formal learning in supporting the engagement and progression of those furthest away from participation in learning and other skills initiatives. Because if too few adults learn, we risk our society and economy languishing.

Three colleges land share of £80m defence skills fund

Three FE colleges have won a share of an £80 million government fund to increase defence-related education places and improved facilities.

The colleges are part of a group of 24 institutions, mostly universities, that have been awarded funding over the next five academic years from the Ministry of Defence.

All three colleges have already been awarded a share of defence technical excellence college funding: City College Plymouth, Lincoln College, and Yeovil College.

Around £50 million of the £80 million will involve grants that ministers hope will create 2,400 new student places in defence-focused courses such as engineering and computing, at level 4 and above.

The remaining £30 million is capital funding for new, “cutting edge” teaching facilities.

The funding will be distributed via the Office for Students’ (OfS) strategic priorities grant.

The Ministry of Defence said the funding will be focused on areas such as cyber security, robotics, autonomous technology, aerospace engineering and advanced manufacturing.

Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard MP said: “We are creating more opportunities for young people across the UK to learn new skills and secure good, well-paid jobs in defence.

“This funding will see 24 superb universities and colleges offer more students places to learn these skills of the future.

“We know our outstanding Armed Forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them, and through this investment we’re strengthening our national security and helping drive defence as an engine for growth.”

According to the OfS, which ran the grant competition in February and March this year, the programme funding will support “increased growth” in student places and can cover £7,000 per place on higher cost provision.

Programme funding will start from the 2026-27 academic year and support new cohorts starting each year 2028-29.

The capital funding will be available for three years, ending 2028-29.

In awarding the funding, the OfS was asked to take into account how bidders would increase students on the target courses, alignment with local skills improvement plans, and links to the defence industry.

The £80 million is part of a wider defence industrial strategy skills package, worth £182 million, which also includes, £50 million to set up five defence technical excellence colleges.

Treasury reviewing college free meals freeze but offers no VAT decision timetable

The Treasury is “actively looking into” a controversial freeze to free meals funding for college students, while ministers are continuing to review FE’s long-running VAT dispute without committing to a decision timetable.

Financial secretary to the Treasury Lord Spencer Livermore made the comments during oral questions in the House of Lords this afternoon.

Here’s what we learned.

Please sir, can FE have some more?

Prime minister Keir Starmer hailed a “truly historic moment for our country” last June when the government announced it would expand free school meal eligibility to all young people in households receiving universal credit.

But the further education sector was then hit with the news in March that free meals funding for college students would remain frozen at £2.61 per meal in 2026-27, while the rate for schools will rise by 5p to £2.66.

College leaders criticised the decision as “insulting” and questioned why the Department for Education had not explained the disparity.

Labour peer Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway raised the issue in the Lords today.

“I strongly welcome the expansion of eligibility for free meals,” she said. “But in my experience, teenagers who attend FE colleges are no less hungry than those who attend schools. So, will my noble friend agree to look again at the funding rate for free meals?”

Livermore replied: “Yes, absolutely. I hear what she says. I can reassure her that the government is aware of this discrepancy, and we are actively looking into it.”

VAT spat continues

The government also faced fresh questions over the long-running VAT anomaly affecting FE colleges.

Despite being reclassified as public sector bodies in 2022, colleges teaching 16 to 18-year-olds remain unable to reclaim VAT on most education and training-related purchases. Schools and academies educating the same age group can recover those costs through the government’s VAT refund scheme.

Research commissioned by the sector estimates the policy costs colleges around £200 million a year.

Starmer pledged during a liaison committee session in December to “have a look” at the anomaly.

The issue was today raised by Labour’s Lord Nick Forbes of Newcastle, who was appointed president of Capital City College last month.

He told peers that FE colleges, unlike councils, academies and most other public sector organisations, have been excluded from VAT refunds since 2011, leaving students at a funding disadvantage and reducing resources available for priority subjects such as construction, engineering, digital and health.

Forbes also highlighted the role colleges play in supporting disadvantaged learners and asked whether ministers would review the issue as part of the government’s response to Alan Milburn’s review into young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).

Livermore said: “The government is continuing to look into the VAT position of these colleges.

“Of course, admitting further education colleges to a VAT refund scheme would be a change in tax policy, and as my noble friend knows, the chancellor makes decisions on tax policy at fiscal events in the context of the overall public finances.”

He also pointed to a series of recent investments in further education, including funding for college estates, post-16 capacity expansion and support for priority technical subjects.

No timeline for decision

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Garden of Frognal pressed the minister on when the government expected to reach a decision.

“The noble Lord keeps saying the government is looking into this,” she said. “Can you put some timescale on that, please? Is it looking into it this year, next year, way in the future?”

Livermore replied: “As I’ve said, we are looking into the VAT position of these colleges, and I’m not in a position to put a timescale on that just now.”

The exchange comes as colleges await the final recommendations from Milburn’s review, which has already criticised aspects of the sector’s funding system, including the use of lagged funding that can make it harder for providers to take on NEET young people.

Conservative peer Lord Jo Johnson raised those concerns in the Lords today, asking whether ministers agreed that lagged funding discourages colleges from taking on more young people at risk of becoming NEET.

Livermore did not respond directly, saying only that he looked forward to receiving Milburn’s final report and recommendations later this year.

The solutions to the NEET crisis will not be neat

The much-anticipated interim Milburn Report is comprehensive and powerful, especially coinciding with the news that there are now more than 1 million NEETs.

Milburn has articulated the problem with nuance and humanity. But, as he himself said when I saw him last week by chance in Parliament Square, the diagnosis is easy. Creating the solutions is the hard part.

Moving at pace and against the backdrop of major political uncertainty is a huge task and will, ironically, be made harder by the very thing that makes this report so powerful: the human stories of NEETs (those not in education, employment or training), brought to life powerfully and movingly.

Why? Because the power of these human stories will drive stakeholders, the government and backbench MPs to focus on addressing those stories as quickly and directly as possible.

That would be a mistake. Scare resources, energy and political capital need to go on solving the causes, not addressing the symptoms.

The NEETs crisis is a system crisis. The solutions need to be systems solutions.

Yes, we need more youth provision, to add to the amazing work of long-established charities like The Kings Trust, Generation, Spear and Onside Youth Zones, and more recent various youth hubs and trailblazers. Vital though this type of activity is, more of it, on its own, does not solve the NEET crisis.

Why not? Because while these services are designed to catch and support young people at risk, they cannot, on their own or at scale, lead to NEETs becoming self-standing individuals in the labour market.

Instead, the Milburn prescription must add three more interwoven strands of activity to work with reinforced youth services. All are needed.

1) Employer desire

Without employers employing young people, there is no solution to the NEET crisis. While we might temporarily render someone not NEET by getting them onto a course, in the end they need the employment ‘E’. And each and every employment E depends entirely on an employer’s discretionary decision to employ a young person.

Government should be bending over backwards to create the conditions in which employers want to do this. First, they need to reduce the costs of employing young people. National insurance contribution (NIC) exemptions are not enough: overall employer NICs, youth minimum wages and the Employment Rights Act all need to be softened.

Second, they must run a sustained ‘hearts and minds’ advertising campaign to make firms feel good about employing young people.

Third, the government must re-embrace the levy as an elegant mechanism not just of securing funds for training, but also of securing that precious commodity: C-suite ownership of ‘their’ apprenticeships and skills programmes.

Finally, government must actively support independent training providers (ITPs) and other providers to engage employers. Recent government defunding and half-cooked product launches have done the opposite: there is remedial work to do here first.

2) Focus on optimising existing programmes

This needs to happen so that they work better and, crucially, are better connected to each other. Make sure young people on pre-employment/pre-apprenticeship programmes are not punished by the benefits system.

Remove disincentives (such as achievement rate measures) that stop ITPs and colleges moving a young person on and up when it is right for them.

Stop pretending that skills providers have a magic inflation cloak: increase funding bands, especially of those at level 2 and level 3 that are the turning points for many young people as they shake off the NEET label.

Crucially, Milburn and government must embrace the fact that sometimes the best way to help someone who is NEET is to train and promote someone who is not NEET, in order to free up the precious entry level berth, to give employers confidence and to role model to NEETs looking on what can happen.

3) Confront the truth staring us all in the face

The school system and the obsession with GCSEs systematically destroys the self-belief of between a quarter and a third of all young people when it should be doing the opposite.

Complex, complicated and not neat. But the right approach.

DWP launches hunt for 25 jobs guarantee national delivery partners

Applications have opened for organisations to deliver the government’s national jobs guarantee, with ministers expecting the scheme to support more than 90,000 long-term unemployed young people across Great Britain.

The subsidised work programme for 18 to 24-year-olds who have claimed universal credit for more than 18 months will expand from six pilot areas to 25 regions from November. The rollout is expected to run for two years, with the option of a one-year extension.

A five-week grant application window opened today and will run until July 13, with organisations specialising in employment, skills, youth services and wraparound support invited to bid.

Ministers now expect the scheme to support up to 90,000 young people, up from previous estimates of around 55,000.

Announcing the application window opening, work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden said: “This national rollout marks a significant step in delivering our commitment to every young person that they have the opportunity to succeed.”

He added that he was “grateful” to the six organisations delivering the first phase of the jobs guarantee in six areas of the country, who worked “at pace” to achieve the first job starts in May.

Delivery partners will receive between £2,150 and £2,650 per participant, while the government will separately cover employers’ costs for 25 hours a week at the national minimum wage for six months, as well as up to £250 in onboarding costs.

According to guidance documents, areas including Birmingham, Solihull and Coventry, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire are expected to see demand of up to 4,200 young people recruited onto the programme.

Areas with the highest projected demand could receive grants worth up to £11 million over the initial two-year rollout.

Referrals, which can only come through Jobcentres, are expected to begin in November, with the final funded employment placements due to start by May 2028.

It comes amid growing concern over Britain’s rising number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), with estimates suggesting the total has exceeded one million for the first time in 13 years.

Delivery partners could include specialist support organisations, charities, local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities.

Organisations may also partner or subcontract in a region, provided a single lead organisation is identified for each of the 25 areas.

The Growth Company and Reed in Partnership, both existing phase one delivery partners, have already published advertisements seeking organisations to join them in bids for the national rollout.

‘Meaningful paid work’

Department for Work and Pensions guidance states that delivery partners will be responsible for sourcing “meaningful paid work” opportunities, matching suitable young people to employers and providing wraparound support and training throughout placements.

Jobs must include a clear description of duties and responsibilities, appropriate supervision and opportunities to develop skills. They must not displace existing employees.

The guidance also limits the number of jobs guarantee participants an employer can host. Organisations with 10 to 49 permanent employees, for example, may recruit one participant for every four full-time employees, up to a maximum of six participants at any one time.

If a participant leaves before completing six months, delivery partners will be expected to try to re-engage them. Where that is not possible and they have completed less than four months in work, partners must attempt to find them another job through the scheme.

The guidance also confirms that apprenticeships may be offered through the guarantee “where appropriate”, provided delivery partners are satisfied that the option is suitable for the individual.