FE inquiry: MPs grill Smith on pay, cuts and careers

Teacher pay rises in FE should “keep up” with schools over the next few years, the skills minister told MPs today.  

In a wide-ranging final session of the education committee’s inquiry into FE and skills this morning, Baroness Jacqui Smith also revealed that the Careers and Enterprise Company (CEC) would be “mapping” schools’ compliance with the Baker clause next year.

Smith said she had listened to the inquiry’s evidence sessions “with interest” and that the government’s “plan for change” missions would be impossible without the contribution of the sector.

Five committee members, including the chair, attended the hearing, all of them were Labour MPs.

Here are six things we learned from the session:

Teacher pay

Smith said she “can’t really see a justification” for the pay difference between college and school teachers, which she admitted is “part of the reason” for high vacancy rates in FE colleges.

The minister said funding confirmed in the recent spending review aimed to ensure that college teacher pay at least “keeps up” with schools.

Unlike in schools, college teachers do not receive a nationally agreed pay rise each year. Instead, individual colleges decide their own pay awards. 

In recent years, the DfE has released extra cash to colleges through the 16-19 funding formula, with advice to spend it on staff pay. 

Several MPs today raised the growing gap between school teachers and college teachers believed to be harming colleges’ ability to recruit and retain staff. 

Smith’s comments hint that the DfE will be continuing to provide extra cash to colleges to go towards pay.

Smith outlined other ways the government hopes to support recruitment, such as retention incentives, professional development and funding premiums for high priority courses, but was pushed again by Hayes on the “fairly basic problem” of pay parity between schools and colleges.

Smith replied: “I didn’t want to sit here and say that we could achieve something in this spending review period that we don’t currently have the funding to be able to do. 

“But what I did want to do was to spell out the considerably increased efforts that we’re making in order to get FE pay, recruitment and retention nearer to where it should be”.

Baker clause compliance

School compliance with the so-called ‘Baker clause’, which requires them to give pupils a set number of “meaningful encounters” with apprenticeship and technical education providers, will be “mapped” for the first time next year. 

Responding to a question about parity of esteem between academic and technical education routes, Smith revealed that the CEC will “map” compliance to reassure ministers that pupils are getting informed about technical training options at school. 

Smith said: “One of things we’re going to do next year is, with the Career and Enterprise Company who are running much of the careers provision, to ask them to map the compliance with that particular requirement so that we can be confident that students are getting the ability to be able to see what the options are for them”.

The legislative requirement for schools to provide at least six “encounters” with further education providers came into force in January 2023. Guidance at the time said schools could be subject to a “ladder of support and intervention” if they didn’t comply. 

Four mayoral combined authorities and the CEC will also pilot a work experience programme that will be part of Labour’s young guarantee election pledge.

Average school compliance with the wider Gatsby benchmarks currently scores 5.8 out of 8, Kinniburgh said.

Adult education cuts

Reduced adult education funding has been focused on providers that can deliver “the biggest bang for the smaller amount of buck that I’m afraid there has to be for adult skills funding” Smith said.

The minister was quizzed by MP Amanda Martin, who said the committee has heard that “cuts to adult education directly threaten the government’s ability to complete and achieve its five missions.”

“What assessment have you made of the impact these cuts will have on the government’s missions?” Martin asked. 

Smith said the government “ideally wouldn’t have made 3 per cent cuts in the adult skills fund” blaming the “financial position that we inherited”.

Mayors were told in February their devolved adult skills funds will be reduced by around 3 per cent for the year 2025-26. Meanwhile non-devolved allocations were subject to a 6 per cent “affordability” reduction, though Smith confirmed “not every provider got the same cut”.

“What we’ve also tried to do is to make sure that we focused the money through the changes that we’ve made to funding rates and other elements of it on those which are likely to deliver the biggest bang for the smaller amount of buck that I’m afraid there has to be for adult skills funding”. 

College VAT impasse

Hayes wanted to know why colleges’ VAT liabilities hadn’t been addressed by the government since colleges were reclassified as public sector organisations in November 2022. 

On a recent visit to City College Norwich, Hayes heard their £1.2 million VAT bill was enough to have raised staff pay by 1.2 per cent. 

“It seems completely unjustifiable that they’re still in this anomalous position where they’re having to pay VAT and are not able to claim it back,” Hayes said.

Smith replied: “I do understand the situation well. I think it’s obvious that, whilst we have discussed it with the Treasury, we haven’t yet come to a conclusion that would be satisfactory for colleges like Norwich”.

SEND transport

Smith was asked if the government could bolster local authorities’ statutory responsibilities so post-16 SEND students could continue to receive transport to college. 

MP Mark Sewards raised the issue at the committee this morning. 

“There’s no legal requirement for local authorities to provide free school transport to students with SEND who are aged between 16 and 19 .

“We’ve heard evidence as a committee that local authorities, as they retreat into their statutory obligations because of funding restrictions, are now choosing to restrict these free transport programmes or even limit their criteria very strictly, so that special educational needs students can’t get into FE. 

“Will you consider extending the statutory duty to provide free transport for special educational needs students so that they can access FE?”

FE Week has reported on numerous cases where local authorities have introduced charges for families pay for transport for post 16 SEND students. 

Local authority transport cost savings have even led to significant safeguarding issues for specialist college students, and delayed the start of the year for some learners. 

Responding to concerns that transport for SEND students is no longer free once they turn 16, Smith said the government has no plans to change the age of legal entitlement.

Answering Sewards, Smith said “we’re not committing to that at this moment”.

The minister added that local authorities do have to publish statements which tell students know what is available to them, and pointed to the 16-19 bursary fund which colleges can spend on transport. 

Disadvantage gap

Smith was also asked what measures the government is taking to support disadvantaged young people who achieve poorer grades than their peers in FE.

She said education secretary Bridget Phillipson has been “very clear” about the disadvantage gap around the lowest performing group, “white, working class boys” and has “committed the department to doing far more work” on the issue.

Extra funding for disadvantaged students is already part of the funding formula, Smith explained, which will increase in the next academic year.

The committee’s Liberal Democrat and Conservative members have told FE Week they were unable to attend due to other parliamentary commitments.

Ofsted: Unions consider asking leaders to quit as inspectors

Leaders’ unions will consider the “unprecedented step” of asking their members to quit as Ofsted inspectors unless the watchdog delays roll-out of new inspections and ditches plans for five grades.

In a letter to Sir Martyn Oliver and Bridget Phillipson (read the full letter below), two education unions said the action “underlines the strength of feeling about the proposed reforms”.

Proposed new report cards would see colleges and providers rated one of five grades across up to 20 areas.

‘Unfeasibly narrow window to prepare’

But ASCL and the NAHT said they “do not believe it will be possible” for inspectors to make “many finely balanced judgements during the course of a single inspection in a way that is reliable and consistent”.

They also repeated concerns over the timeframe to implement reforms.

Despite Ofsted delaying publication of its consultation response until September – which will confirm how report cards will work – the watchdog has insisted new inspections will be rolled out in November.

The unions said this leaves leaders with an “unfeasibly narrow window of time in which to prepare for a completely new, and radically different inspection framework”.

“It will significantly add to workload pressures, negatively affect leaders’ and teachers’ wellbeing and mental health, and further undermine trust in the proposed framework,” they added.

‘Unprecedented step’

Unless there are “changes to both the timeframe of implementation and to the five-point grading scale”, the unions will consider “encouraging members to withdraw their service as Ofsted inspectors in the autumn term”.

Many education leaders work part-time as Ofsted inspectors.

The letter adds: “This would be an unprecedented step for ASCL and NAHT and underlines the strength of feeling about the proposed reforms. We very much hope this is not an action we have to take.”

The unions want new report cards delayed until September 2026, and said they would accept a “three-plus” grading model. This would consist of three grades for each evaluation area – ‘causing concern’, ‘attention needed’ and ‘secure’ – with exemplary practice in any area optionally included as a narrative description.

Plans have ‘got worse’

Association of School and College Leaders general secretary Pepe Di’Iasio said despite “voicing concerns repeatedly” the “timetable for implementation has actually got worse rather than better, and there has been no indication so far of likely movement on the five-point grading scale”.

“It feels as though we have exhausted the potential for compromise through discussion, and that we have little option other than to consider this more direct form of action.”

Paul Whiteman, general secretary at school leaders’ union NAHT, added their proposed changes would “create the breathing space needed to ensure these flawed proposals are fundamentally reshaped in collaboration with the profession, as well as preventing a rushed rehash of the plans being dumped upon schools at unacceptably short notice, piling intolerable pressure upon schools and inspectors”.

The Headteachers’ Roundtable group launched a #PauseOfsted campaign in 2020 calling for leaders to step down as inspectors over concerns about the impact of inspections on schools.

This was backed by the National Education Union, but ASCL said at the time it was “not oue role to give unsolicited advice over professional decisions, and because we are not convinced that this action is the best way forward to create a better system”.

Ofsted said at the time the campaign led to few inspectors quitting.

Read the full letter:

Dear Bridget and Martyn,

Yesterday, we wrote jointly with the NASUWT and NEU expressing our collective concern about the decision to press ahead with Ofsted inspections under the new framework in November regardless of the delayed consultation response.

This decision will leave school and college leaders with an unfeasibly narrow window of time in which to prepare for a completely new, and radically different inspection framework.

We were already concerned about the timeframe when Ofsted was due to publish its response this term.

Given that we now won’t have a response until the autumn term, Ofsted and the DfE’s determination to start inspecting later that term is entirely unacceptable. 

It will significantly add to workload pressures, negatively affect leaders’ and teachers’ wellbeing and mental health, and further undermine trust in the proposed framework.

We have also previously set out, on several occasions, our significant concerns about the proposed five-point grading scale. 

We do not believe it will be possible for inspectors to make so many finely balanced judgements during the course of a single inspection in a way that is reliable and consistent.

Telling schools and colleges that ‘secure’ is not good enough and they must strive for ‘strong’ and ‘exemplary’ will add to the considerable workload and pressures they already face and will further impact recruitment and retention.

As we’ve previously discussed, our preferred approach is a binary model based on whether schools and colleges have or have not met statutory standards. However, we have also said we would be comfortable with a ‘three+’ grading model.

This approach would consist of three grades for each evaluation area – ‘causing concern’, ‘attention needed’ and ‘secure’ – with exemplary practice in any area optionally included as a narrative description.

We are writing to you further to our joint letter with NASUWT and NEU to inform you ASCL Council recently determined that unless there are changes to both the timeframe of implementation and to the five-point grading scale, then ASCL will consider encouraging its members to withdraw their service from Ofsted as OIs in the autumn term. 

At its meeting of 20 June the NAHT resolved to do the same.

This would be an unprecedented step for ASCL and NAHT and underlines the strength of feeling about the proposed reforms. 

We very much hope this is not an action we have to take. In the interest of transparency, we have shared these concerns with Dame Christine Gilbert, who we are pleased has been appointed as Chair of Ofsted’s Board from September. We are also sharing this letter with our members.

Questions remain over industrial strategy skills pledge

This week the government has published its long-awaited industrial strategy, setting out its ten year plan to promote business investment growth. Hailed by the Chancellor and Prime Minister as a new economic approach to backing the UK’s strengths, could it also represent the most significant policy shift for the FE sector in a generation?

While those working in FE may not yet have had time to fully digest the 160-page policy paper and accompanying five sector plans (566 pages in total!), the sector already understands that the success of the modern industrial strategy depends on the ability of industry to access skills and talents, and on the ability of individuals to access the training and support to move into the labour market and unlock high quality jobs. As the strategy rightly recognises, skills are critical to UK competitiveness and growth – indeed the word ‘skills’ appears 140 times in the document. Skills improve productivity, stimulate innovation and support tech adoption. Up and down the country, our colleges and training providers are already powering regional growth, supporting social mobility and contributing to our global competitiveness. The announcement of further investment in apprenticeships and technical training should turbocharge these efforts.

At Skills Federation – the voice of employer-led sector skills bodies – we welcome the sector-focused approach to the strategy. It provides an important mechanism for creating tailored and effective solutions to meet employer needs across our high growth sectors. And the additional £275 million investment, including sector packages for digital skills and AI, for engineering and for defence, is a positive step towards strengthening workforce capabilities in key growth sectors.

However, spread over four years – and in the context of a challenging financial context for FE overall – this funding remains relatively modest, and will need to be deployed strategically to deliver maximum impact. We would encourage government to work closely with sector skills bodies to identify priority areas where this investment can most effectively support the UK’s ambitions for sustainable economic growth.

The next few days and weeks will bring further analysis of the industrial strategy and its likely impact. On first reading, three things have stood out to me:

Firstly, while there is clearly a need for a targeted long-term plan to support our highest growth sectors, we must not forget that most businesses sit outside of these sectors and most people work elsewhere in the economy. The forthcoming post-16 skills strategy will need a dual focus on meeting the skills needs of both high-volume sectors in the everyday economy, as well as in high-growth sectors.

Secondly, alongside its sectoral focus, the strategy doubles down on the government’s commitment to place, setting out a key role for mayoral strategic authorities (MSAs) and reinforcing its commitment to further devolution. What is less clear is how the focus on sector and place will be brought together within a coherent national framework. This will be a key challenge for the local growth plans being developed by mayors; one which will benefit from effective collaboration with sector bodies. It will be vital too for colleges and training providers to work closely with MSAs to help shape regional approaches to meeting skills needs.

Thirdly, the commitment for Skills England to work with devolved governments to create a more coherent and accessible skills system across the UK is extremely welcome; we hear far too often that the complexity of the current system is holding too many employers back from engaging and investing in skills development. A critical first step in taking this forward should be to develop a UK-wide approach to competency standards, from which devolved policies and programmes can then be developed.

The centrality of skills to the government’s industrial strategy is to be celebrated. It sets out a critical role and a clear mandate for FE to transform the UK economy and deliver opportunities for its workers. But perhaps what is most clear is that the government’s decision to anchor our economic fortunes in high-growth sectors is likely to shape opportunities available for learners, communities and employers for at least the next decade.

Our role now is to ensure that this industrial strategy moves beyond aspiration to create lasting change. For the sake of our people, our places and our economy, we can’t afford to miss this opportunity.

Banter, firework emails and power ‘grab’ defended by ex-SFA chief in Marples trial

The former boss of the Skills Funding Agency took an “extraordinary interest” in the proposed sale of apprenticeship giant 3aaa – and “grabbed” a power he did not have, the High Court has heard.

Sir Peter Lauener was accused of “making it as hard as possible” for the training provider to advance an application for its government contracts to be taken over by Trilantic Capital Partners (TLP).

It was put to Sir Peter, which he strongly denied, that he “just did not care about the correct legal process” as he defended “banter” emails with colleagues.

Apprenticeships tycoon Peter Marples and his family are suing the Department for Education for “negligence and misfeasance in public office” over the refusal in December 2016, claiming the DfE’s Skills Funding Agency (SFA) “breached their duties” by “exercising a non-existent power to refuse a change of control”.

Witnesses for the claimants completed their evidence in the trial last week. This week, the court is hearing from witnesses from the defence.

Sir Peter, who was SFA chief executive at the time, gave evidence in the High Court on Monday and Tuesday. 

Buyer’s plan posed ‘threat’

He said he felt the business plan proposed by TLP was “unachievable” in light of an imminent change in the apprenticeship levy, due to come into effect from April 2017.

“I thought the business plan that was set out was completely unfeasible, I thought there was more protection in calling that out at this point and saying this gave us grave concerns and we would have to consider terminating the contract”, Sir Peter explained.

Due to TLP’s expectations around growth in non-levy apprenticeship funding, the business plan “was a red flag, posing a credible threat to the future stability of the business, and hence to the performance by 3aaa of its contract, potentially leaving the SFA to pick up the pieces”.

The court previously heard that the idea of seeking “approval” in a training provider sale served as a “shorthand for the process by which notice was given in order to seek an assurance that the SFA did not intend to exercise its right of termination”.

Sir Peter reiterated how this “loose language” was used.

‘Retrospective’ change of control power

Adam Solomon KC, for the claimants, raised that the SFA has never denied a change of control for a training provider before or after the 3aaa refusal. 

He told the court that the agency had even agreed to retrospective applications for change of ownership in two cases after the providers were sold – one for QA Ltd and another for GP Strategies.

Sir Peter said he was not personally involved in those retrospective changes of control and replied: “I would argue that [retrospective applications] was very bad form and something I would not expect to happen”.

Solomon showed the court an email from FE Week’s former editor, Nick Linford, to Sir Peter in September 2016, which informed the SFA of a potential sale of 3aaa. It said: “Just hearing these guys will buy 3aaa. Over £100 million. Guessing you’ll novate their £30 million contract…gutted”.

This was months after KPMG had investigated 3aaa. While KPMG did not find “any evidence of deliberate circumvention of funding rules”, they had raised “quite significant errors in the data, that left a shadow of doubt in my mind”, according to Sir Peter. The SFA clawed back £300,000 from 3aaa following KPMG’s report.

Solomon identified Linford as the person who also triggered the KPMG investigation, claiming he had “animus” for 3aaa. 

Marples’ KC then showed the court an email from Sir Peter which followed a conversation with 3aaa chair Derek Mapp about the potential sale and said: “He [Mapp] absolutely understood that they would need our agreement to going ahead with anything”.

Solomon said: “The truth is that you personally, and the SFA, have repeatedly told 3aaa they require your agreement in advance of the TLP deal”.

He asked: “Am I right that there is no example in which SFA ever said they will not consider retrospective application for change of control?”

Sir Peter said the answer is “no, as far as I’m aware”.

Solomon replied: “At this point, the contract could permit retrospective applications, as had happened with others?”

Sir Peter said: “I wanted that to be put into the contracts.”

Solomon hit back: “Even though you knew full well that your current contract had no such point, to demand no retrospective application and that you wanted this changed for the future, you wanted to grab that power now, that you did not have and apply it to 3aaa. You just did not care about what the correct legal process was, and you were making it as hard as possible.”

Sir Peter said that was “absolutely not” what he was trying to do.

Sir Peter told the court: “I am confident that I was fully aware at the time that the question I needed to address, under the contract, was whether, in my absolute discretion, I considered that the change in ownership would prejudice the provider’s ability to deliver the services. And it was on that basis that I decided to exercise what I had understood the SFA’s rights to be.

“I acted, at my discretion, in order to avert the threat posed by the prospective takeover of a major training provider by an investor who appeared to have unreasonable expectations as to the future performance of the business in which he intended to invest”.

Solomon showed Sir Peter evidence that his deputy director Sharon Forton had originally thought the 3aaa change of control should be accepted in the early days of discussion.

The KC asked Sir Peter whether, other than on this occasion, “had you ever previously countermanded a recommendation from the team dealing with change of control?”

Sir Peter replied: “No I hadn’t, in fact I had seen very few of them, most were entirely routine. I felt this [3aaa’s change of control] raised accounting officer issues because of a recent visit, the KPMG audit and precious value for money exercises”.

Unprecedented involvement

Solomon said Sir Peter had begun taking an “extraordinary interest”, “unprecedented involvement” and had begun “making demands of your colleagues which you had not made on any other change of control application”.

He showed emails where Sir Peter asked: “What do our rules say about this type of transaction.”

Solomon said this was a “curious question to ask” and suggested Sir Peter had “no idea” what the rules said about the transaction, contrary to the evidence he gave.

Sir Peter said he “couldn’t quite understand why” he asked this question at the time but assured the court he fully understood the rules.

Solomon put to him: “I am right, aren’t I, that the detail of your questions and the fact of your involvement was unprecedented for the SFA when dealing with a change of control application?”

Sir Peter said: “It was unprecedented in respect of change of control but the degree of contact I already had with 3aaa was unprecedented compared to any other provider apart from Learndirect. 

“This case raised completely unprecedented issues about the extent to which the future of the business would be impacted by the important changes to the levy. There were lots of unprecedented things.”

Banter

Solomon also pressed Sir Peter on an email from Mike Keoghan, who was the then deputy CEO of the Institute for Apprenticeships, that was first told to the court last week.

The email had the subject “how’s yer [sic] blood pressure?” and informed him of cash worth half a million pounds which Peter Marples and other co-founder Di McEvoy-Robinson each took out of 3aaa, other profit they and the business made, and that 3aaa described itself as “highly cash generative” in the same year the company nearly went into administration which forced Sir Peter into accelerating millions to the company.

Sir Peter replied: “My blood pressure is much higher now. Trilantic have renewed their interest in 3aaa. Not surprising when it is so cash generative.”

“Can you explain to the judge why the information he provided had indeed made your blood pressure higher?” Solomon asked. 

Sir Peter said: “I was responding with a bit of banter. It was probably a mistake to do so. A point I do recall is when I saw that I was associating it with the results of the KPMG audit. We had concerns about financial insolvency after we suspended payments and what this email suggested was cash had been taken out of the business just before we got to that point when we expedited payment.”

Fireworks email and pre-empting lawsuit

After the refusal letter was sent, Sir Peter wrote in a covering email: “Then we stand back and wait for the fireworks […] my private expectation is that Trilantic will ditch 3aaa at this point because they will feel they have been misled by them.”

Solomon said: “You knew full well that you would cause the deal to explode.”

Sir Peter said he “does not see it like that”. He told the court he did expect there would be a “stormy” reaction but he “genuinely left the door open” by saying to TLP he would reconsider change of control if he received an updated business plan that alleviated his non-levy concerns. 

He did think “we would get an adverse reaction from 3aaa”, potentially including a complaint to ministers and “maybe even legal action taken to challenge the decision there and then”.

“I expected it would be controversial so I thought there might be, as I described it ‘fireworks’. It was probably a more emotive term than I should have used but I did expect an adverse reaction,” he added.

Solomon claimed the “truth is that you knew full well that the deal was done. Your letter would cause Trilantic to ditch 3aaa. You wanted to stand back and watch the fireworks because that would give you pleasure”.

Sir Peter refuted this. “That is absolutely not the case. In hindsight it was a bad phrase to use but what I was saying was ‘let’s make sure we’re ready as there may be complaints, there may be legal action’”.

‘I did not resent the existence of private providers’

Solomon put to Sir Peter that he had been heard making “adverse comments about profit levels in the private training provider sector”.

Sir Peter denied having adverse views about profit being made, but added: “If I thought it was excessive, I would generally regard it as a failure of governance.”

Sir Peter told the court: “I have absolutely nothing against profits in the private training provider sector. I have worked for private training provider sector for 30 years. 

“I have for many years been supportive of private training providers. I know great private training providers and I know great colleges. I was a big supporter of the diversity of the whole further education and skills sector, both in the way providers worked and also in the case of learners the whole sector was serving.

“I actually spent more of my career working with private training providers”, Sir Peter said and praised the “flexibility, adaptability and innovation” of those providers.

Sir Peter said he had been awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, adding: “I don’t think they would have done that if they thought I resented the existence of private training providers”.

The trial continues.

Industrial strategy: growth and skills levy courses start next year

New courses will be funded through the growth and skills levy from early next year, according to the government’s industrial strategy.

‘The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy’, published today, promised to take a more “muscular” approach to government by taking “punts” on priority sectors over the next ten years “in pursuit of growth and productivity”.

The reform of the apprenticeship levy into the growth and skills levy will be rolled out from April next year, the strategy has now confirmed.

New ‘defence technical excellence colleges’ will also be launched, with further details in a sector-specific industrial strategy that is yet to be published.

The strategy pledged to create a “strong pipeline” of trained workers for eight priority sectors: advanced manufacturing, creative industries, clean energy, digital and technologies, business and professional services, life sciences, financial services and defence.

A more detailed ‘sector plan’ for the first five of these has been published alongside the main industrial strategy, including initiatives, public investment and details of which government departments and senior servants will be accountable for delivering them.

The new levy

Non-apprenticeships courses in the growth and skills levy will cover skills such as digital, artificial intelligence and engineering, for the creative industries and advanced manufacturing sectors.

The strategy says: “We will work with Skills England to determine the courses which will be prioritised in the first wave of rollout and subsequent waves, and how those sit alongside apprenticeships and other training routes”.

The strength of the UK’s skills pipeline will be “critical” for attracting global investment and ensuring the country’s high-growth sectors remain competitive, the strategy says.

It adds: “Ensuring the UK has a healthy population whose skills meet the needs of employers will bring people into the labour market and unlock opportunities for high-quality jobs. Skills increase productivity, increase innovation, and support tech adoption”.

Other initiatives

Other new initiatives include a three-year, £100 million engineering skills package, “workforce strategies” for industries facing talent shortages and “AI adoption hubs”.

Designated government departments will lead on workforce strategies – pledged during the general election – will “move the dial and support good jobs” by agreeing measures with trade unions, local leaders and “wider stakeholders”.

The Office for Clean Jobs has been asked to publish the first of these strategies by 2025, supported by an array of quangos including the Labour Market Evidence Group, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, the Migration Advisory Committee and Skills England.

A list of occupations that are exempt from the planned increase to the threshold for skilled worker visas because they align with industrial priorities will also be “published shortly”.

Tech-industry supported ‘AI adoption hubs’ aim to train 7.5 million UK workers in essential AI skills by 2030 have been launched “separately”.

Recently announced and existing skills-related initiatives re-announced in the paper included the £187 million TechFirst technology skills package, the four-year £600 million construction skills package, and the repeatedly delayed lifelong learning entitlement due to launch in January 2027.

Not just skills

Alongside skills the government also promises to improve issues such as energy costs, economic security, access to finance and regulatory burdens in its “drive for growth”.

The strategy also says it will target sector-specific investments in city regions and industrial clusters where industries already concentrate and offer the “highest-potential opportunities”.

£6.3m available for T Level placement incentive fund for employers

The government has made £6.3 million available to incentivise employers to provide construction and health T Level industry placements. 

The Department for Education (DfE) today announced allocations for a “targeted” employer support fund (ESF) to support small and large employers offer placements for health and construction T Level students. 

The revived fund will make £1.8 million available, and ringfenced, for all-sized employers delivering the construction T Level industry placements, funded through the government’s March announcement of £600 million for construction training.

The remaining ringfenced £4.5 million will be available for employers of all sizes to set up industry placements for learners on health T Levels.

It will also go towards upfront costs for small employers offering placements for all other T Levels. 

DfE announced in April that it would offer the fund again for health T Levels for the financial year 2025/26 after it trialled the ESF in 2023/24 and reviewed the pilot findings. 

DfE previously said the funding reflects feedback from older pilots about “specific” upfront costs for employers and should be used where placements “could otherwise not be offered”.

But the cash incentive has previously had low take up from employers. 

An FE Week investigation in March found £3.9 million of the £8.5 million dished out through the one-year T Level Employer Support Fund available from April 2023 to March 2024.

How it works

In an ESF guidance page, updated today, DfE said it would hand out payments for essential costs for T Level placements starting on or between 23 April 2025 and 31 March 2026.

T Levels include a mandatory industry placement of 315 hours, or 45 days, that must be completed over the two-year course in order for students to pass.

The government relaxed the rules in December that allowed 20 per cent of almost all placements to be completed remotely in a bid to boost student numbers. 

Colleges delivering T Levels will be eligible to claim the funding and will be provided a funding allocation based on an estimate of the number of students and the assumed proportion of employers needing support.

Arms-length bodies offering health placements, such as NHS Blood and Transplant, are eligible to claim from the fund, but all other government departments, agencies and public bodies are banned.

Although there is no maximum limit to claims that any one employer can make, the DfE has clarified that the per-student claim should not exceed £800.

DfE will pay providers every two months in arrears once it processes claims through a new online claims tool, the guidance for which has not yet been published.

It said the department’s expectation will support “as many students as possible” and support the scaling-up and expansion of placements, and for sustained use of equipment.

Employers must submit declaration forms outlining their claim costs, which providers are responsible for ensuring are legitimate.

“Providers will need to take strategic value-for-money decisions to maximise the impact of the fund, balancing the needs of various employers. They should consider this when deciding how to allocate their funding,” the guidance said.

If an industry placement ends unexpectedly, DfE said employers are not automatically subject to a clawback of the funding. 

Instead, it said that providers and employers should “discuss the situation” and agree on the appropriate action. 

“In some cases, when an employer stops offering a placement but has already claimed funding, the provider may choose to approach the employer for a refund,” the guidance said.

Ofqual’s apprenticeship assessment reforms: A bold shift with big implications

The launch of Ofqual’s consultation last week on their proposed approach to regulating apprenticeship assessment confirms a significant shift for Enland’s apprenticeships. In many ways it is a positive that we now have greater clarity on what to expect from reformed apprenticeship assessment. But the scale of the changes though should not be underestimated – they will impact employers and providers as well as assessment organisations.

On the whole, we are supportive of the aims of this change and the industry should be positive about the direction of travel. The scope for assessment organisations to take greater responsibility for the design and development of apprenticeship assessment is a good move that utilises assessment organisations’ expertise, and provides plenty of opportunity.  More flexibility, innovation, and responsive, tailored assessment solutions that meet the needs of learners are likely to follow.

It is also positive to see that a degree of independence is protected through Ofqual’s proposals. A key pillar of the Richard Review, independent assessment has contributed to improved standards and we know that this is valued by both employers and learners. Maintaining this within a system that provides greater flexibility is positive. Equally, the commitment to ensuring that synoptic assessment continues to be integral will go a long way to support quality, although this must be carefully monitored.

While there is much to be positive about, clearly there is still a long way to go to implementation and many areas that will require further thought. Chiefly, maintaining consistency and comparability. This is not insurmountable, but requires a culture shift from a system that set out a singular approach to assessment for each standard to understanding comparability in the context of the more flexible approach.

Secondly, the new approach frontloads cost. Assessment organisations will need to invest in order to develop their approach to assessment for each standard. If delivering assessments, providers will also need to invest in assessor and internal quality assurance capacity.

During development, assessment organisations will also be required to engage with employers. This is an important safeguard for quality, and is familiar to those awarding organisations delivering qualifications. However, when compared to the current approach (a centrally organised trailblazer group designing the assessment plan), it could be seen as requiring a duplication of effort for employers, particularly where a standard is delivered by multiple assessment organisations.

At this stage it is far from certain that the changes will achieve an overall cost saving, which raises the question – how we will judge the reforms to have been a success? Particularly as achievement rates were rising already, and there were other levers available to reduce overall cost.

Thirdly is the issue of transition. This consultation is only the first step in Ofqual setting out their policy for regulating apprenticeship assessment, with a further consultation expected on the framework itself. We can therefore both expect some reformed assessment to take place under the existing conditions, particularly in the case of foundation apprenticeships, and assessment organisations will need to operate under a dual system of regulation for some time (as the revised framework will not apply to end point assessment (EPA). While overall a pragmatic approach, this increases complexity and adds to the regulatory burden. A carefully planned transition is vital for assessment organisations and others to adapt.

Finally, while the changes are significant for all, for those assessment organisations that have operated solely in the EPA market, many requirements (such as assessment strategies to centre quality assurance) are likely to be entirely novel. These EPAOs are often specialists in their sectors and bring a wealth of occupational expertise, which must be retained. Support with the transition is particularly crucial here.

We should be under no illusions about the size of the change here – it is considerable and will impact all those working within the apprenticeship system. And while there is still a lot of water to flow under the bridge and a number of challenges to work through, the assessment and awarding sector should be positive about the future.

Skills excellence is the missing ingredient in the UK’s industrial strategy

The UK’s modern industrial strategy recognises that skills increase productivity, increase innovation and support technology adoption. There’s just one wording missing from that sentence: excellence. WorldSkills UK has learnt through successive international skills Olympics over the last ten years that competence in skills is good but excellence in skills is game-changing.

Skills excellence is essential for international competitiveness and a magnet for global investment, key pillars on which the industrial strategy is built.  The FE sector, some would argue long overlooked in discussions of economic growth, is now on the front line of delivering these ambitious national growth plans.

Colleges, independent training providers and universities are essential in embedding world-class, international standards at the heart of how we train, develop, and empower the next generation. They also serve as anchors of regional growth, ensuring investment reaches every corner of the country.

What do we mean by skills excellence?    

Skills excellence is the development of world-class technical and professional standards.  At its pinnacle it encompasses high-level expertise, precision and innovation – for example milling to a 1mm tolerance, working under time pressure to meet changing deadlines and having the confidence to bring forward new ideas. But it can start off with simple steps, such as encouraging learners to go outside their comfort zone and understanding, and through clear assessment frameworks how to keep improving. These are all qualities essential for driving productivity and sharpening the UKs competitive advantage, which is why they should be built into the government’s new skills packages for the digital, engineering and defence sectors.

Aligning with the skills that employers need

Bringing employers and the skills system closer together is a critical part of embedding skills excellence.  Employers are involved in setting the standards that we use at international and national level competitions, making sure they are focused on the latest industry practices and technology. Our competition model includes practical and project-based assessments which mirror the application of skills that employers need, with many involved in the setting and judging of competition tasks. WorldSkills UK is helping ensure that global industry standards are built into UK occupational standards and curricula through our network of international skills experts. 

Investing in educators

The ten-year timeframe set out by the Prime Minister in the industrial strategy gives the UK time to invest in its technical education workforce so we can shift from teaching for competence to teaching for excellence.  We know the appetite is out there. Our centre of excellence programme, in partnership with NCFE, has shown enormous demand for a pedagogical approach that focuses on skills excellence. We’ve already worked with 14,000 educators and nearly 230,000 learners have already benefited from their adoption of a world-class teacher methodology.

This drive towards high-quality skills development is further reinforced by DfE’s criteria for becoming a college of technical excellence in construction, which recognises institutions that demonstrate a commitment to quality through initiatives like our national competitions and the centre of excellence.

International insights

The UK needs to understand how other countries are developing skills excellence. The WorldSkills movement, now in its eighth decade, is a perfect way to do this and has been giving us the opportunity to bring global standards of excellence back to the UK and benchmark UK technical education against the best in the world. With an industrial strategy focused on making the UK the best place to invest and improving competitiveness of our home-grown industries, these international insights will be critical.   

Mainstreaming skills excellence isn’t about focusing on an elite few. It’s about setting high aspirations for every learner, at every level. The UK’s modern industrial strategy, with its promise of additional funding and the political recognition that skills is an enabler of growth should give us the opportunity to make skills excellence a reality for all young learners and build a high-skilled economy.

It’s wrong that nobody knows if the adult skills fund actually works

“It is very nice of you to tell Aidan that you will tell him about things. We are the scrutiny body here, and we are saying to you loud and clear that we would like to know more about these things.”

This pointed rebuke from a London Assembly member to Greater London Authority (GLA) officials still resonates with me six months after I addressed the assembly on the mayor’s adult skills fund (ASF).

At that December session, I raised concerns about how little we know about the delivery and impact of the capital’s £345 million programme. Those concerns are not unique to London. Across England, both devolved and non-devolved ASF allocations suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability amidst evidence of substantial budget underspends.

Unlike apprenticeships, where comprehensive data is available from national to individual provider level, we know remarkably little about the outcomes of ASF-funded provision. There is ample data on learner participation. But scant information exists on job outcomes or progression. In London, the GLA’s Learner Survey attempts to fill the gap. However, small-scale survey extrapolations are a poor substitute for robust performance data.

This opacity matters. Sector leaders frequently point to the overall decline in the adult education budget since 2010, but when the Treasury looks for evidence to justify more investment, it finds little to support the case. Without hard outcomes, officials are left unconvinced.

Caretakers of decline

Even before the local elections attention in government had turned again to the ASF, with senior cabinet members demanding that all departmental programmes demonstrate value for money as part of the so-called “Plan for Change”. Labour’s Growth Group of MPs has since accused ministers of being “caretakers of decline”, while another Labour MP warned that “we cannot afford to let stale institutions, cautious regulators, pressure groups or vested interests stand in the way” of reform.

Adult skills funding may not have been the immediate target of those criticisms, but it absolutely should be part of the conversation. Skills policy was central to the prime minister’s recent proposals to reduce immigration. Yet the ASF remains poorly understood and weakly monitored.

Calls for reform are nothing new. The Leitch Review in 2006 set out a clear direction for demand-led funding. But resistance, including from civil servants, has kept much of the system unchanged. Today, it is hard to defend a multi-million-pound programme, delivered almost entirely through grants, with so little public accountability.

The London Assembly agrees. Members have rightly demanded access to provider funding agreements, which might show whether large college groups are held to the same job outcome targets as independent training providers on the GLA’s framework and we should know what the outcomes are. Politicians in other regions should make similar demands and not accept spurious references to commercial confidentiality as an excuse.

Demand-led advantages

The case for making the ASF more demand-led has long been established. In a recent FE Week profile, Isle of Wight College principal Ros Parker noted that after advertising courses in carpentry and welding, the college received 500 applications overnight. It had to close applications early due to overwhelming demand. More provision is now planned for the autumn. But a genuinely demand-led, roll-on-roll-off system could have allowed the college to respond faster.

ASF funding agreements should align more closely and transparently with the sector priorities set out in Local Skills Improvement Plans, especially now that mayors co-own those plans. The mayors’ offices should be thoroughly scrutinising the work of the combined authority officials in this regard.

The current grant allocation system for post-19 provision should be phased out and Lord Blunkett’s call to revive individual learning accounts deserves serious attention. The Department for Education has confirmed that mayors could use ASF to pilot such schemes. Proven models already exist internationally and the technology to deliver them is readily available.

In February, Sir Sadiq Khan announced that he would “start to change the way London commissions adult education” to make it more employer-led. We await the details, but there is hope that long-overdue reform may finally be on its way.