Latest news from FE Week

Bonding at a bootcamp before their march east to China

It’s half past seven on a sunny Saturday morning and two dozen of the UK’s most talented young tradespeople are on their feet, running through a pre-match warm-up.

This is Team UK’s final push before WorldSkills Shanghai, and after 18 months of training and with less than 70 days to go, there’s no time to waste.

The group flies out to China in September to join 1,500 competitors from more than 80 countries, all chasing gold, silver and bronze stardom at the “skills Olympics”.

The 28-hour bootcamp, held last weekend, is a final chance for the entire squad to train together and refine tactics for competition, evaluate their psychological mindset and, for at least one competitor, get a lesson in not sleeping in.

Oliver Coombs, an apprentice with BIMTek in Bath who competes in additive manufacturing, misses the early wake-up call entirely.

His excuse is he had been waiting for a fellow team member to arrive from Scotland the previous evening, “so I stayed up a little later for him to get here,” he says.

The morning energiser, comprising a mix of physical activity and team bonding, will be good practice for the team out in China. The group will run through the same pre-match routine on every day of competition in Shanghai.

The bootcamp, run at the University of Warwick, also involves sessions designed to make competitors dig deep.

WorldSkills UK psychologist Louise Kerr encourages squad members to break down their goal of victory into manageable targets, such as examining scoring criteria and sharpening awareness of their own personal strengths.

For Coombs, who began 3D printing as a hobby seven years before his lecturer at Bath College entered him for a competition, the exercise does not come naturally.

“I’m terrible at self-reflection,” he says.

“One of the things we had to do was ask ourselves why we are doing this. I answered, ‘why not? I enjoy doing it’.

“Everyone around me sees my potential to do well at Shanghai. I’m taking their word for it because I’m very bad at saying that I can.

“I definitely have more of a motivation now to live up to expectations. I don’t want to be too self-deprecating about it, but I also don’t want to be too up myself.”

Elsewhere, renewable energy competitor Madeleine Warburton is taking her ambitions in her stride.

She is an apprentice with RWE where she works on offshore wind turbines, and joined Squad UK ahead of WorldSkills Lyon in 2024 but didn’t make the final cut for the team until now.

“I knew from the start I wanted to get as much out of this as possible,” she says.

“I really threw myself into it. I do want to aim for a medal but I know if I focus and fixate on that, I won’t be performing as well as I could do.”

She says the pressure of a WorldSkills competition is, in some ways, easier than her day job.

“Doing it through WorldSkills you’re doing it in a safer environment, where you’re training under pressure but it’s a known pressure.

“Whereas when I’m working on the turbines, we’ve got weather pressure, the sea state, we’ve got lightning fronts coming in. There’s a lot of unknowns that can come out of nowhere.”

Both the additive manufacturing and renewable energy competitions were introduced at the WorldSkills 2022 special edition. The UK first participated in the events in Lyon two years later but did not come away with any medals.

During the summer, Team UK will continue their rigorous schedule with training managers, including international pressure test “friendlies” against overseas peers.

Robot systems integration duo Peter Jenkins and Pratham Lohia recently returned from a friendly in China, and web technologies competitor Finn Gallagher is also heading to the host country this month for training.

Marginal gains

Back in Warwick, as the competitors take part in exercises, Team UK’s training managers learn about marginal gains, a practice that helps competitors order their tasks during competition.

“We’re trying to build on the baseline knowledge and understanding but it’s also about being tactical that is going to give competitors an edge,” says Parisa Shirazi, director of standards at WorldSkills UK.

Christian Notley, cabinet making training manager and WorldSkills expert since 2011, leads the session and uses the bootcamp to brief the team on a significant change to this year’s competition: fully blind test projects.

For the first time, WorldSkills International organisers will withhold details of competition tasks from competitors until competition day.

The change is an attempt to curb so-called “hot-housing”, where some countries recruit and drill competitors specifically for WorldSkills events instead of developing rounded workplace competence.

Shirazi is pleased by the move, and says it will create a “level playing field” for all participating countries.

“Some projects used to be shared amongst participants. What that resulted in is people training specifically on one element,” she explains.

“For us in the UK, we’re not training just for competition. Well, we are, to some degree, but most importantly you’ll be better in the workplace because you’ve got a full set of skills at your disposal that you’ve been trained in over this period of time.

“That’s why we’re good at innovation, creativity and problem solving. Our competitors are able to adapt and adjust to whatever that project may be.”

Team UK at evening reception receiving their enamel badges

By the evening, the Team UK members are ceremonially presented with their ‘enamels’, the silver badges worn by competitors at opening and closing ceremonies.

The squad have just enough time to squeeze in some light relief from their packed schedule to catch England’s World Cup match against Norway.

WorldSkills Shanghai runs from September 22 to 27. Team UK are set to take on rivals from more than 80 countries across 24 skills disciplines.

FE Week is the media partner of WorldSkills UK and Team UK.

Security regulator bans BIIAB after fraud probe

BIIAB has been stripped of powers to award security industry qualifications in an “unprecedented action” that puts an estimated £805,000 of qualification-fee income at risk.

On Tuesday, the government’s Security Industry Authority (SIA) gave BIIAB 20 working days’ notice that it would terminate its recognition agreement after intelligence-led investigations, including unannounced inspections, uncovered “serious examples” of malpractice among BIIAB-approved training providers.

The regulator found “serious and persistent material breaches” of BIIAB’s obligations which were “not capable of being remedied”.

It follows Ofqual’s decision earlier this month to block the awarding organisation from registering new learners on three security qualifications. The SIA’s termination marks a significant escalation, withdrawing BIIAB’s approval across all five of its licence-linked awards.

BIIAB, a subsidiary of Skills and Education Group, must immediately stop registering new learners on any of its five SIA-linked qualifications and cannot issue SIA licence-linked qualifications after August 10.

Qualifications awarded by BIIAB before that deadline will continue to be accepted by the SIA.

The SIA told FE Week that BIIAB had failed to undertake necessary quality-assurance activity, keep and maintain appropriate records, and co-operate with its monitoring and auditing procedures.

“Extensive work was undertaken by our quality assurance investigation teams, including multiple unannounced visits to BIIAB’s training providers, following information reported by whistleblowers and employers,” a spokesperson said.

The regulator declined to disclose detailed findings but said information had been passed to relevant authorities “where appropriate”.

A BIIAB spokesperson said the awarding organisation was “disappointed” by the termination notice.

They said: “We continue our efforts behind the scenes, and it is deeply frustrating that this ongoing work has not been acknowledged or allowed to embed.”

They added the matters related to a “small number” of BIIAB qualifications and did not reflect or “involve” the group’s wider operations or governance.

“As an organisation, we are committed to actively working with both SIA and Ofqual. Quality assurance, our customers and their learners remain our highest priority.

“We will be working with all parties concerned to provide clarity on the next steps for learners.”

However, Skills and Education Group’s accounts state that a monthly scrutiny group attended by its executive and senior leadership team reviews “regulatory needs across all awarding functions” in the group.

They also say risk registers for each subsidiary are reviewed monthly by senior leaders and quarterly by trustees. Regulatory changes and a failure to respond adequately to maintain compliance are listed among the group’s key risks.

An SIA spokesperson added: “The SIA, Ofqual and BIIAB will be meeting on a regular basis to ensure that there is an orderly conclusion for learners. BIIAB have an ongoing obligation to Ofqual to ensure that they protect the interests of learners.”

£805,000 of earnings at risk

The termination covers BIIAB’s level 2 qualifications for door supervisors, security officers and CCTV operators, alongside door supervisor and security officer refresher awards.

FE Week analysis of Ofqual data found BIIAB issued around 26,700 certificates across those five qualifications in England in the year to March 2026.

These included 18,100 certificates for the main door supervisor award, 6,660 for its refresher qualification and 1,485 for the CCTV operator award.

A further 380 security officer refresher certificates were issued, alongside fewer than 50 for the main security officer qualification.

Applying BIIAB’s published per-learner training-provider charges suggested the five qualifications had an annual value of around £805,000 in England, before separate charges paid by centres.

The estimate does not represent confirmed BIIAB income because it is based on certificates rather than registrations and does not account for any discounts or alternative pricing arrangements.

BIIAB listed a £31.50 provider fee for the main door supervisor, security officer and CCTV qualifications, and £26.50 for both refresher awards on its website before its pages promoting the courses were taken down.

The estimate is equivalent to more than a quarter of BIIAB’s latest reported annual income.

Newly published Skills and Education Group accounts show BIIAB generated income of £2.95 million in the year to August 2025, down 7 per cent from £3.17 million the previous year.

It spent £3.1 million and recorded a £147,540 deficit. Although that was an improvement on its £605,329 deficit in 2023-24, BIIAB’s post-acquisition reserves were £459,081 in deficit at the end of the year.

BIIAB also owed its parent organisation £582,032 after Skills and Education Group recharged it £1.62 million for wages and other costs during the year.

The accounts were approved in April, before Ofqual’s direction and the SIA’s decision to terminate BIIAB’s approval.

The five SIA-linked awards also accounted for about half of all BIIAB certificates issued in England during the period.

Every affected centre faces inspection

Ofqual first intervened in September 2025, requiring BIIAB to conduct additional checks before releasing results for three security qualifications.

It issued a formal direction on July 2 preventing new registrations for the main door supervisor, door supervisor refresher and security officer awards.

The full legal direction, published this week, states that Ofqual determined BIIAB “has failed, and is likely to continue to fail” to comply with its conditions of recognition.

Ofqual’s direction requires BIIAB to commission an independent review of every centre connected to its level 2 door supervisor, door supervisor refresher and security officer qualifications.

The review must include a physical, unannounced inspection of each centre, checks on staff and invigilators, and scrutiny of potential malpractice or maladministration.

Ofqual must approve the reviewer and terms of reference before the work begins, and can accompany inspectors on visits.

BIIAB is also prohibited from issuing results to existing learners until it has completed a compliance pro-forma for each cohort.

The checks must cover assessment conditions, authentication of learners’ work, invigilation, previous quality-assurance activity and any outstanding malpractice or maladministration cases.

Ofqual can require results to be withheld if it is not satisfied with the assurances provided.

The September controls applied to the same three security qualifications had required similar cohort-level assurances before results could be released.

Ofqual said BIIAB was drawing up a plan, required under its conditions of recognition, to ensure learners were not disadvantaged.

It said BIIAB and Skills and Education Group Awards were regulated as separate legal entities, but confirmed it was “considering the impact” of the regulatory action in light of the relationship between them.

Ofqual declined to say which conditions BIIAB had breached, whether it had complied with controls imposed last September or whether further sanctions, such as financial penalties, were being considered, citing “ongoing regulatory action”.

It said it continued to monitor BIIAB’s wider qualifications and assessment activity.

Five security awarding organisations remain

BIIAB was one of six awarding organisations approved by the SIA in a market that issued 158,000 licence-linked qualifications during 2025-26.

The SIA said it would work with Ofqual and the five remaining organisations to ensure there was sufficient capacity for learners and training centres.

Operation RESOLUTE, the SIA programme behind the inspections, has targeted poor standards, malpractice and fraud in commercial security training over the past 18 months.

The SIA carried out 24 unannounced inspections across training centres in England during the past month, although it has not disclosed how many involved BIIAB providers.

It said Operation RESOLUTE had resulted in learners’ qualifications being revoked and licences suspended where they were found to have been obtained fraudulently.

A number of investigations into specific allegations of training malpractice were under way at any one time, but the SIA did not say whether any qualifications or licences linked to BIIAB had been revoked or suspended.

Tim Archer, the SIA’s executive director of licensing and standards, said it was “critical to public safety” that frontline security operatives obtained licences through legitimately earned qualifications.

Amanda Swann, Ofqual’s executive director for delivery, said the case demonstrated that regulators were working together to tackle malpractice.

“Those that do not take these matters seriously will be held to account,” she said.

DfE sticks with ‘overly broad’ digital V Level

Ministers will press ahead with a wide-ranging digital V Level despite fewer than half of consultation respondents backing its proposed content.

The Department for Education has published final subject content for the first V Levels and new level 2 qualifications due to be taught from September 2027.

But just 45 per cent of the 59 responses to its digital systems and data V Level consultation said the content as proposed would fully or mostly enable students to achieve the qualification’s aims.

Another 45 per cent said it would only partly do so, while 6 per cent said “not at all” and 7 per cent were unsure.

The DfE received 260 responses across eight consultations covering three V Levels, two foundation certificates and three occupational certificates.

FE Week reported in March that the first V Levels would launch in education, digital systems and data, and accounting and finance. They have been designed to be the same size as one A Level with 360 guided learning hours, and can be combined with other V Levels or A Levels as part of a young person’s post-16 study programme.

The nationally set content is intended to ensure learners studying the same subject gain comparable knowledge and skills wherever they are.

Broad digital course retained

Respondents welcomed the proposed digital V Level’s coverage of data analysis, cyber security and digital solution design.

However, the DfE said a “consistent theme” was it was “overly broad for a single qualification”, creating a risk that teaching several complex areas would limit depth.

Concerns were also raised about gaps in core IT skills, programming fundamentals and database concepts. Some respondents also believed there was too much emphasis on data and artificial intelligence in the proposed content, instead of networking, hardware and general IT.

Some respondents questioned whether learners without previous digital knowledge could access the content effectively, while others warned that limited technical depth could leave students insufficiently prepared for degree-level study and technical pathways.

The consultation surfaced deliverability issues, including whether providers would have staff with expertise spanning all of the specialist areas, as well as access to hardware, software and secure environments for practical cyber security learning.

Respondents also warned the volume of content could not be taught effectively within the available guided learning hours.

The DfE said it had made “targeted refinements”, including making programming logic, systems understanding and digital solution design more explicit, and strengthening requirements around data quality, limitations and bias.

But it has “retained the broad applied structure”, arguing the V Level is intended to provide a sector focus rather than a specialist route.

Headline feedback about the level 2 digital foundation certificate content was more positive, with 77 per cent saying it fully or mostly achieved its aims.

However, “many” respondents still considered it too demanding for level 2 learners because of its breadth and expectations around programming, networking and analytical skills.

The other foundation certificate has been renamed from “education and early years” to “education”, although early-years content will remain. The DfE said the new title better reflected its broad scope across different ages and education settings.

Early years occupational course hours cut

Only 53 per cent of respondents fully or mostly backed the proposed level 2 early years practitioner occupational certificate.

Feedback suggested the proposed content was too theoretical and did not place enough emphasis on practical skills and day-to-day work in early years settings.

However, the DfE said many respondents appeared to have mistaken the introductory content for the full curriculum, when it was intended to sit alongside its existing “full and relevant” criteria.

Others warned about the availability of high-quality placements, staffing and workplace assessment capacity, while the proposed two-year length risked affecting learner engagement and delaying progression into work.

The DfE responded by cutting the qualification from 600 to 540 guided learning hours and adding a section setting out the additional content that awarding organisations must include to meet “full and relevant” early years requirements.

Meanwhile, the accounting and finance and education V Levels received stronger support, with 63 and 73 per cent of respondents respectively saying the proposed content fully or mostly met the qualifications’ aims.

Respondents to the education consultation nevertheless questioned whether a qualification intended to prepare learners for employment in the sector should include a compulsory placement or practical experience.

The DfE has not added a mandatory placement, but said links between core knowledge and work-related purposes had been strengthened to support the application of educational knowledge in context.

Skills England staff morale among worst in civil service

Staff morale at Skills England was among the worst in the civil service after the agency was moved to a new department, its first annual accounts reveal.

Fewer than half of staff were proud of, felt attached to or would recommend the agency as a great place to work. Skills England’s score of 46 per cent on the 2025 civil service people survey engagement index was 19 percentage points lower than the last one recorded by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), the body it replaced.

Only one of the 105 civil service organisations in the published survey results had a lower rating.

IfATE scored 65.3 per cent in the 2024 survey. The Department for Education, which sponsored Skills England for the whole of the reporting period covered in the accounts, scored 65.5 per cent in the 2025 survey. The civil service median was 64.9 per cent.

Staff completed the survey between September 23 and October 21. Prime minister Keir Starmer had laid a written ministerial statement on September 16 confirming that Skills England, along with responsibility for apprenticeships, adult skills, training and careers, would move from the DfE to the Department for Work and Pensions with immediate effect.

The index is the Cabinet Office’s headline measure of how staff feel about their employer. It’s based on five survey questions covering: whether staff are proud to tell people who they work for, would recommend the organisation as a great place to work, feel a strong personal attachment to it, find it inspires them to do their best, and find it motivates them to help meet its objectives. Every civil service organisation is measured the same way.

Skills England took on IfATE’s staff and functions when it was created on June 2, 2025, along with the DfE’s analysis, insight and regions teams.

The agency did not take part in the people survey in its own right, so its score does not appear in the published benchmark results. Of the 105 organisations listed for 2025, only the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory scored lower, on 42.8 per cent.

Fifty-nine per cent of Skills England staff completed the survey, against 82 per cent at IfATE in 2024 and 80 per cent at the DfE in 2025.

Skills England’s own risk register linked the pressure on staff to the machinery of government change. Workforce gaps, evolving structures and uncertainty “were heightened during the transition to the DWP and the introduction of new operational processes”, the accounts said, risking “staff uncertainty, affecting morale and retention”.

Neither chair Phil Smith’s foreword nor that of joint chief executives Sarah Maclean and Tessa Griffiths mentioned the move to the DWP. Smith did write that Skills England “aspires to be the grease in the wheel that gets the skills system turning, achieving growth and spreading opportunity”.

The agency rated its risk register as “improving” by the end of the year, saying recruitment processes had stabilised and transition activity had become “more predictable”.

IfATE had been more upbeat about its own result. Reporting its fifth and final People Survey in its 2024-25 accounts, it noted its 2024 score was unchanged on 2023 and a point above the civil service benchmark. “Given the significant amount of change IfATE has experienced this year, our results paint a positive picture of the resilience and determination of IfATE and its people,” it said.

At that time, IfATE was being abolished. The government announced Skills England in July 2024, IfATE’s staff filled in the survey that autumn, and the abolition bill received royal assent in May 2025.

A Skills England spokesperson said: “Our staff survey results are very important to us and improving employee engagement will continue to be a priority for us in the coming year.

“Since the survey was conducted, staff have formally moved across to the Department for Work and Pensions. We are already seeing the positive impact this has had on our ability to do what we are most passionate about – changing lives through apprenticeships and other skills products that deliver more for young people and employers.”

Other findings

Skills England’s net operating expenditure was £30.4 million for the ten-month period, which works out at around £36.5 million annualised. IfATE spent £28.7 million in its final full year to March 2025.

The figures are not directly comparable, however. Skills England’s total included £7.8 million of local skills improvement plan (LSIP) grants to employer representative bodies, which IfATE did not manage. IfATE’s final expenditure tally included £1.4 million of T Level contract delivery costs, which Skills England does not do. Without those, Skills England and IfATE had similar total expenditure figures at £27.1 million annualised and £27.3 million respectively.

Elsewhere in the accounts, we learned Skills England employed an average of 257 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, fewer than IfATE’s 285 in its final year, with 233 permanent staff on the books at year-end. Staff costs worked out at roughly £82,400 per FTE annualised, almost identical to IfATE’s £82,361.

The accounts also showed recruitment stalled after the September announcement. Budget forecasting was knocked off course by “slower-than-expected recruitment to the approved staffing complement, following the machinery of government announcement”, and expenditure came in “lower than expected”.

Skills England paid five exit packages worth £239,000 in the ten-month period, three of them worth between £50,001 and £100,000. None were compulsory redundancies. IfATE paid a further 30 packages worth £1,815,000 in its final full year under a voluntary exit scheme.

Co-investment cost hike ‘will turn firms off apprenticeships’

A fivefold increase in apprenticeship co-investment costs will force employers to cut recruitment, including for young jobseekers, unless ministers rethink the policy, business leaders have warned.

From August 1, levy-paying employers that exhaust their growth and skills levy funds will see their contribution towards apprenticeship training and assessment jump from 5 per cent to 25 per cent, with the government’s contribution falling from 95 per cent to 75 per cent.

For an employer with an apprentice on a level 3 installation and maintenance electrician apprenticeship, which carries a £23,000 funding band, co-investment will rise from £1,150 to £5,750 over the course of the apprenticeship – a 400 per cent increase

The change comes as ministers seek to free up funding in England’s apprenticeship budget, which has been fully spent in recent years.

They also want to pivot the system back towards younger people after apprenticeship starts among under-25s fell by 40 per cent over the past decade, and bring down the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) which has topped one million.

But employers across industries including engineering, construction, dental, childcare and professional services told FE Week the policy move risks having the opposite effect by reducing apprenticeship opportunities, including for young NEET people.

Around 36,900 employers paid the apprenticeship levy in 2024-25. A recent parliamentary answer to Conservative MP Richard Holden showed that of those, 9.2 per cent spent more than 100 per cent of their levy funds, meaning roughly 3,400 employers would have been pushed into the new 25 per cent co-investment rate.

A further 12.5 per cent – around 4,600 employers – spent most of their levy allocation and could soon face the higher charge.

Steve Tellwright, people and quality director at Capula, said the company spends more than £400,000 a year on apprenticeships despite paying a growth and skills levy of about £100,000.

“If you’re trying to do what the government want you to do, which is take on apprentices, then all of a sudden you’re going to do one of two things – either reduce the number of apprentices or take a load more cost.”

The business recruits around 20 mainly higher-level apprentices each year in the construction and engineering space. Under the new rules, Tellwright estimates co-investment costs could rise by around £120,000 to £150,000 annually.

“We’d probably swallow it this year, but next year we’d probably say, right, we can’t now take on 20, we’ll take on 15 or 14 or 13. That cannot be in the government’s interest.

“The bureaucracy around the apprenticeship system is huge, and then when employers do get involved, they’re penalised.

“Government says it wants more apprenticeships, and then all of a sudden, they put so many barriers up. It’s just turning employers off.”

Marginal levy payers hit hardest

A business becomes a levy-paying employer if its salary bill is greater than £3 million. This has not changed since 2017.

For the 2024-25 financial year around 36,900 employers paid the levy, compared to just 22,000 when it was introduced. Association of Employment and Learning Providers deputy CEO Simon Ashworth said this was a result of fiscal drag and wage inflation, which has significantly extended the ‘tail’ of the levy.

He explained it has created a large group of marginal levy payers who “by their very nature are the same small and medium-sized enterprises that the government supposedly wants to enlist to help employ and train more young people”.

Ashworth added: “These are employers doing the right thing. They are engaged, investing in skills, and often recruiting young people into the labour market. Yet under the current reforms, they risk becoming the biggest losers.”

Skills minister Jacqui Smith acknowledged concerns this month, saying: “We understand, from our engagement with employers and other stakeholders, that employers with smaller levy balances may be more affected by this change and we will carefully monitor the impact as we implement it.”

However, employers warn that the government is heading for another “I told you so” moment.

Lily Brothwood, business operations manager at engineering firm Intelect, said the company has around 40 apprentices from level 2 up to degree-level at any one time, and maxes out its levy every year.

The co-investment announcement initially prompted the company to reduce planned electrical apprentice recruitment to four places because of uncertainty over costs. But the firm added three additional places after receiving more than 600 applications and deciding the quality of candidates, and past positive experience of the apprenticeship model, justified the investment, as well as the industry’s dire need for skilled professionals.

“It has added a level of reservation for sure,” Brothwood said, and explained that the increased co-investment along with other employment costs, including rising minimum wage and equipment expenses, have made extra investment in apprenticeships “more of a deterrent”.

The gift that might not keep on giving

Intelect currently relies on levy transfers from another large employer to offset additional co-investment costs but fears that support could disappear as more businesses retain their own levy funds.

Alongside the co-investment hike, from August the government will remove a 10 per cent uplift for levy payers and halve the time levy payers have to use their levy funds from 24 to 12 months.

Experts have warned all three of these factors are likely to result in levy payers being even more cautious about gifting levy funds.

Brothwood said: “Our next concern is whether our transfer partner will choose to continue supporting us. There is always that uncertainty that at any point they may remove that support, given the high numbers we put through our programme.

“The reforms have caused a lot of uncertainty for businesses who currently invest in apprentices, and even more so it has turned into a deterrent for those who don’t employ apprentices.”

Her anxieties are echoed elsewhere.

Testing, inspection and compliance specialist SOCOTEC has increased its apprenticeship programme from just one apprentice five years ago to 194 today across 36 standards.

It currently overspends its levy by around £5,000 a month under the existing 5 per cent co-investment model. HR director Lisa Massey questions whether the cost increase of between £25,000 and £30,000 every month after August is affordable.

“At the moment, if somebody steps forward and says, ‘I’d like to do an apprenticeship’, the answer is yes,” she said.

“I don’t worry about that today, but I am going to worry about that in the future.”

SOCOTEC has successfully secured levy transfer funding to help offset the co-investment in the past. But Massey is aware that levy gifting is “becoming more rare these days” due to policy changes, which has potential to be “hugely” damaging.

She fears managers will become more cautious about recruiting inexperienced candidates.

“It’s driving employers to be more risk averse… they may then go for someone with more experience rather than give the young person with no experience a chance.”

Childcare businesses are also reassessing their apprenticeship plans.

Grandir UK, which employs around 340 apprentices across the early years sector, estimates the higher co-investment rate would have added between £80,000 and £100,000 to last year’s costs.

Professional qualifications lead Cathy Agozzino said apprentices remain essential to tackling chronic recruitment shortages across the early years sector.

“We don’t want it to interrupt our recruitment of apprentices because the sector as a whole is suffering in terms of recruitment. We’re in a recruitment crisis, so the only way we’re going to move forward is to grow our own workforce.”

Grandir plans to rely more heavily on levy transfers, although Agozzino fears it will face growing competition for dwindling transfer funds.

“We’ll all be vying for those levy transfer funds,” she said.

“If it becomes very competitive, then the government will start to hear employers’ voices. We had a good, robust apprenticeship system where we were employing young apprentices to help tackle NEETs, and now you’ve almost punished us for that.”

Kat Learner, head of learning and development at The Old Station Nursery, which employs around 2,000 staff, said apprenticeships underpin the group’s workforce strategy, with most staff training through level 2 and 3 early years programmes.

While the group does not want to reduce apprenticeship recruitment, the higher co-investment rate means it is exploring alternative ways to upskill staff and maximise levy transfers. “It came out of the blue,” Learner said. “We don’t know what the competition is going to be like. I think it’s definitely going to be far higher than we’ve been used to.”

Patrick Milnes, head of people and work policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, warned that higher co-investment will undermine the government’s skills ambitions.

“For many levy-paying employers, particularly those operating on tight margins, increasing co-investment once levy funds are exhausted is a significant additional outlay,” he said.

“When this is piled on top of other rising costs, there is a real risk that some employers will reduce the number of apprentices they recruit or scale back investment in workforce training.

“Apprenticeships remain an important way to address skills shortages, so it is vital that changes to funding arrangements do not discourage employer participation.”

Zero issues with fivefold increase for some

But not all employers are discouraged by the fivefold bump to co-investment.

Dental firm mydentist employs around 1,000 apprentices each year, primarily on the level 3 dental nurse programme, 400 of whom are funded through co-investment.

Jayne Owen, head of learning and development, said mydentist is “fully committed to maintaining our apprenticeship recruitment plans” as the apprenticeship route “provides the best all-round knowledge, skills, and practical experience available to learners in the dental industry”.

A government spokesperson said: “We are determined to address the long-term decline in young people starting apprenticeships, giving businesses the trained workforce they need now and in the future.

“Our £2.5 billion youth employment package will support almost one million young people and help deliver up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn.

“In addition to this we have introduced a £2,000 incentive for each new employee aged 16-24 taken on by a small business, while national insurance contributions are waived for most employees under 21 and apprentices under 25.”

Watchdogs on the lookout for AI experts

Ofqual is searching for an “exceptional” senior leader to head its artificial intelligence (AI) plans and protect the integrity of assessment.

The qualifications regulator is on the lookout for a director of assessment integrity and innovation to provide “increased leadership capacity” on technology.

In the advert for the £81,000 a year job, Ofqual said: “While technology can deliver meaningful benefits for learners, the standards and public confidence underpinning England’s world-leading qualifications must be protected.

“Balancing these priorities is central to the role.”

The appointee would be responsible for “protecting assessment integrity and test security” from technological risks, including malpractice.

They would also shape Ofqual’s regulatory approach to AI and other new technology, making sure any innovation was “safe and beneficial”.

Ian Bauckham, the chief regulator, told the Festival of Education this month that written coursework would face “far, far more scrutiny” once reformed qualifications were rolled out to ensure that AI-generated output did not replace learners’ own coursework.

But he acknowledged that AI could “improve efficiency and both cut costs and increase accuracy” in marking.

Ofsted has also launched a recruitment round for a lead AI security specialist.

‘Thought leader’ on AI

It said the new director must be an “exceptional senior leader” who would help the regulator “navigate this changing landscape and shape how regulation responds”.

It involved anticipating and addressing threats to validity, security and trust across qualifications, and setting up effective ways of preventing and detecting malpractice enabled by AI.

The director would also be a “authoritative voice and thought leader” to influence government, regulators and the sector and “shape national thinking” on AI and assessment integrity.

Successful candidates should understand the potential and use of technology in assessment, and have experience leading “through ambiguity and making high-stakes decisions with incomplete evidence”.

The £70,000-a-year Ofsted AI lead would act as a “subject-matter expert on AI security”, making sure the systems used were “secure, resilient, and compliant”.

They would also provide expert cyber security guidance across projects, working with different teams to identify risk and to make sure that AI use was compliant with policy and standards.

Ofsted said it was committed to making sure its AI use “complies with legal obligations, mitigates risk to the organisation, providers, the public and employees” and fits civil service guidance.

Ofsted bins £3.9m IT project paused to fund pay rises

Ofsted has written off the entire £3.9 million it spent on software meant to replace its scheduling and case management system, after an external review found the stalled project was not worth reviving.

The watchdog recorded a £3.1 million impairment of a software asset in its 2025-26 annual report and accounts, published this week. It followed an earlier £800,000 impairment of the same asset in 2024-25, which Ofsted confirmed covered work that would have needed redoing.

Ofsted told FE Week the two write-offs account for the full £3.9 million spent on the project before it was paused.

The inspectorate paused the work in 2023-24, when it reallocated funding to support civil servant pay in the organisation after the Conservative government announced unfunded public sector pay rises.

Ofsted confirmed the system was being built to replace the software it uses to schedule, case manage and support workflow across all its inspection and regulatory work.

Its latest accounts for the financial year ending March 31, 2026, said an independent review had confirmed that restarting the work would not represent value for money, because of “technology changes and evolved business requirements”.

“We resumed work on the replacement system last year, starting with an external review to decide whether we would be best re-start the paused work or begin again with a different approach,” an Ofsted spokesperson said.

“That review recommended we should go down a different route, leading to us needing to write this work off.”

Ofsted’s accounts state that “elements of the work completed will inform future digital solutions”, though the watchdog did not specify what elements have been kept. A further £125,000 impairment was identified after the year end, which Ofsted judged immaterial and did not adjust for.

Ofsted is required to report write-offs of more than £300,000. Its latest accounts also reported a £400,000 “fruitless payment” for three months of rent and running costs on a vacant London office, incurred after Ofsted relocated as part of the Government Property Agency’s programme to reduce Civil Service office space.

Total losses reported by the inspectorate rose to £3.67 million across 68 cases in 2025-26, up from £54,000 across 50 cases the year before.

The scrapped project is unrelated to Ofsted’s electronic evidence-gathering (EEG) system, the software inspectors use to record notes during inspections.

Ofsted reiterated that it was considering replacing the EEG system, after long-running technical issues of lost data and freezing glitches when inspectors attempt to type their notes into the application.

A spokesperson added: “We’re currently undertaking a programme of digital modernisation aimed at ensuring long-term and sustainable digital inspection tools, including evidence gathering tools. We don’t have any further update at this stage.”

Ofsted’s digital and IT costs have climbed steadily since the pause. The organisation spent £6.4 million in 2023-24, rising to £7.2 million in 2024-25 and £9.6 million in 2025-26 — an increase of nearly a third in a year.

To fix apprenticeships we must back employers, not just fund them

The government’s new ‘deal for young people’ and renewed focus on youth apprenticeships is a welcome step towards reversing the long-term decline in under-25 apprenticeship starts.

But if this ambition is to succeed, we must recognise a fundamental truth: the problem is not a lack of interest from young people.

Every month, Lifetime receives more than 5,000 applications from young adults looking for apprenticeship opportunities, yet vacancies fall well short of demand.

That tells us something important. Young people are motivated, ambitious and eager to learn. The challenge is creating enough opportunities for them to take that next step.

Apprenticeships remain one of the most effective ways for employers to build a skilled and loyal workforce, develop talent aligned to business needs and create a pipeline for long-term growth.

Yet for many employers, particularly in hospitality, retail, care and early years, recruiting a young apprentice can still feel like a significant commitment. Many are taking on someone entering the workforce for the first time, requiring additional time, support and investment.

Increased funding has an important role to play, especially during the early stages of employment. But funding alone will not unlock employer demand.

Employers consistently tell us they need practical support: clear guidance, simple processes and confidence that they have the right structures in place to help a young person succeed. When that confidence exists, they are far more likely to invest.

This is where policy needs to go further. We should focus on genuinely de-risking the decision to recruit, whether through targeted incentives such as salary offsets or practical support that helps employers manage the realities of bringing new talent into the workplace.

The government’s recent apprenticeship announcements reinforce both the opportunity and the challenge.

The review of funding bands has the potential to better reflect the true cost of delivering high-quality apprenticeships. However, without additional funding entering the system, difficult trade-offs remain and there is a risk that some areas of provision will be squeezed.

The renewed focus on younger learners is welcome and overdue. Rebuilding entry-level pathways is essential for social mobility, productivity and economic growth.

However, entry-level does not always mean young. In sectors such as adult social care and early years, many new entrants are over 25. A strong apprenticeship system must support young people starting their careers, older career changers, existing employees looking to upskill and those returning to work. Solving one challenge should not create another.

Alongside employer demand, there is another equally important priority: preparing young people for the workplace.

Employers consistently tell us that communication, teamwork and other employability skills matter just as much as technical knowledge. Stronger collaboration between schools, employers and training providers can make a real difference.

Better work experience, mentoring and opportunities to develop workplace confidence can help young people understand employer expectations before they apply for an apprenticeship.

Too often, employers engage too late or have limited relationships with schools and local communities. Our recent research found that only 37 per cent of parents had received any information from employers about apprenticeships. Earlier engagement would raise awareness of apprenticeship pathways, shape expectations and strengthen future talent pipelines.

The government’s ambition to create 50,000 additional youth apprenticeship starts by 2030 is achievable. But it will require more than additional funding. It means giving employers the confidence to recruit, helping young people become work-ready and maintaining a balanced apprenticeship system that supports young entrants, career changers and workforce development alike.

The talent is already there. Now we need a system that gives more young people the opportunity to fulfil their potential while helping employers build the workforce they need.

The career ladder is missing its first rung

Alan Milburn’s recently published Young People and Work Review has drawn significant headlines, but one of Milburn’s most striking observations – that “the first rungs on the old career ladder have weakened” – deserved greater focus.

This is not simply about whether young people have the right qualifications, or access to careers advice and employment support. It is about whether the labour market still provides enough opportunities for young people to get started, gain experience and build careers. The deterioration of established pathways from education into entry-level roles and stable career-track employment may be one of the most important structural drivers of declining social mobility and young people’s growing disillusionment with the economic and political system.

While many young people are affected by these changes, those from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to face the greatest challenges because they are often most reliant on accessible entry-level opportunities to gain a foothold in the labour market. As these opportunities decline, it may become harder for them to transition into independent adulthood.

Before the mid-noughties, we became used to the labour market offering large numbers of jobs that acted as stepping stones into sustainable careers for young people. These roles did not always pay well, but they provided accessible entry points for young people to gain experience, develop workplace skills and build a platform from which to progress.

However, opportunities to access low-skilled, accessible jobs have long been waning and recent labour market changes suggest this trend has accelerated. NFER research, The Skills Imperative 2035, showed that AI, automation, and wider demographic, environmental and economic changes are reshaping the labour market, with employment growth concentrated in higher-skilled, higher-paid occupations, while most lower- and middle-skilled occupations decline. Actual employment changes in recent years suggest the pace of change has been faster than previously projected, by as much as three times for some groups.

Many of the jobs that historically provided young people with a foothold in the labour market – such as administrative and routine customer service roles – are shrinking. These roles were important not necessarily as destinations, but as first steps; jobs where young people built skills and experience, helping them later progress into more stable career-track jobs.

At the same time, the requirements of the remaining entry-level jobs are rising. Employers increasingly seek experience and a combination of technical and transferable skills, creating a challenge for young people who need employment in order to gain the very experience employers are asking for. This risks creating a cycle where young people face higher barriers to accessing opportunities that were previously more accessible.

Consequently, young workers now start further down the career ladder than they used to and progress more slowly after that point . Even graduates are experiencing a ‘triple whammy’ of challenges due to a general labour market slowdown, a sharper decline in graduate-level job openings, and reduced demand for lower-skilled ‘stepping stones’ roles. NFER research shows that the sharp slowdown in hiring in the tech sector, for example, has hit entry level roles disproportionately.

The result is that the labour market is shifting from one that facilitates efficient education-to-employment transitions to one with fewer entry points into occupations offering good career and salary progression, especially outside London; rising experience requirements for roles that historically provided that experience; and a growing risk of becoming trapped in forms of underemployment.

As is often the case when opportunity structures weaken, disadvantaged young people are likely to bear the brunt particularly those with fewer qualifications and family connections or financial support that can help others navigate a more competitive labour market.

Milburn’s interim report rightly acknowledges occupational changes in the structure of the labour market and the erosion of early career entry points. But these changes should be treated as more than just background context. They are central to understanding why so many young people are struggling to establish themselves in the labour market.

Policy focus is on improving the education, welfare, health, and careers systems around young people, without adequately acknowledging that the structure of opportunity has changed and is likely to change further still. This risks helping young people compete for existing opportunities, rather than addressing the shrinking structure of opportunities themselves.

The erosion of entry-level opportunities is not just a temporary disruption but the consequence of deeper structural changes that are reshaping the demand for labour. Milburn’s final report needs to start from this premise. Young people don’t just need help to climb the rungs of the career ladder; we also need to rebuild the ladder itself.