Skip to content
1 August 2026

Latest news from FE Week

DfE gets softer on English and maths resit entries but tougher on results

Colleges face lighter sanctions and greater freedom over when students resit English and maths, but risk tougher penalties if results slip.

Fresh accountability plans, published as part of a consultation today, follow commitments made in last year’s post-16 education and skills white paper to better recognise the progress students make towards achieving level 2 in English and maths.

Around 40 per cent of students begin post-16 study without a GCSE grade 4 in English and/or maths. The current condition of funding policy forces 16 to 19-year-olds without a grade 4 in English and maths to continue studying the subjects. It is often criticised by colleges for driving endless resits.

Ministers accept that progress towards level 2 in the core subjects happens in a “complex environment” and is not always captured by blunt exam outcomes. The government is now proposing changes designed to make greater “fair representation” of student progress while “reinforcing high standards” to sharpen accountability.

Here’s what you need to know.

Relief on exam entry penalties

The most immediately welcomed proposal is likely to be a softening of the penalty applied when students are not entered for English or maths exams.

Currently, any resit student who is not entered into an exam for an approved qualification contributes a score of -1 to a provider’s progress measure – regardless of how long they have been enrolled, even if it is one year. This has been criticised for incentivising premature resit exam entry.

The Department for Education said it wants to “recognise there may be valid reasons to enter a student for an exam after only one year but want to ensure providers who delay entry in a student’s best interests are not penalised in the progress measures for doing so”.

Under the proposal, that penalty would only apply after a student has spent at least two consecutive years at a provider. Those who leave or complete a one-year programme without sitting an exam would no longer count against performance scores.

Officials said they envisage this change will support providers to enter students into exams “when they are ready to make progress” and do not anticipate the change will drive behaviours around off-rolling or restricting entry to exams.

But this flexibility is paired with a tougher shift elsewhere. The consultation proposes lowering the floor on negative progress scores from -1 to -2.

Tougher scoring for declining performance

At present, students who achieve a lower grade post-16 than they did at GCSE are capped at contributing -1 to a provider’s score, even if their performance drops by more than one grade. Under the proposed system, that cap would move to -2 where a student achieves two grades lower.

The DfE argues this will “more accurately reflect” student progress and discourage inappropriate exam entry. In tandem, the penalty for not entering a student for an exam if they have been at a provider for two or more consecutive years would also be set at -2.

Winners and losers

Officials plan to make these methodological changes to the English and maths progress measures published for students completing 16-to-19 study in the 2027-28 academic year, which is the data due to be published at provider level in spring 2029.

Government modelling suggests around a quarter of providers would have seen an overall improvement in their progress scores if the new methodology had been applied previously, because “for some providers” the removal of penalties for one-year students outweighs the stricter grading cap.

Prior attainment fairness

A third proposal aims to offer fairer representation of the progress students make based on their prior attainment.

Alongside headline progress scores, the DfE plans to publish additional breakdowns by prior attainment – specifically for students entering with GCSE grade 3, and those with grade 2 or below. Data on exam entry rates and the proportion improving their grade would also be included.

This will provide a “more rounded and transparent picture” of provider performance, the DfE argued, particularly for lower-attaining students who are often hardest to support.

Questioning qualification achievement rates

Alongside progress measures, ministers are also mulling changes to English and maths qualification achievement rates (QARs).

The measure currently credits providers for achievement even when students repeat a qualification and secure the same or lower grade.

The consultation seeks views on whether QARs should better reflect genuine progress, particularly in light of concerns about the negative impact of repeated resits on student morale, highlighted in Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review.

Latest available data shows that 16.1 per cent of young people did not achieve level 2 English by age 19, rising to 20.3 per cent for maths in 2023-24.

Of those who had not achieved by age 16, 74.7 per cent of students did not reach level 2 in English between ages 17 and 19 and 83.5 per cent did not reach level 2 in maths.

The consultation asks providers how they think QARs could be made clearer to show when a student achieves a higher grade than they did previously, as well as how the current English and maths measures “influence provider decisions about qualification pathways, curriculum planning, and exam entry for students subject to the maths and English condition of funding”.

The consultation closes on 21 July.

16-19 performance measure shake up: What you need to know

Ministers have announced plans to bolster 16-19 performance measures after admitting public accountability data misses the outcomes of nearly one third of young people.

A Department for Education consultation, published this afternoon, said its current headline accountability measures for schools and colleges’ 16-19 provision only cover around 68 per cent of students because many vocational and technical qualifications are excluded.

This means the data is “not equally useful” for all providers, “in particular further education colleges where much of the 16-19 activity that is not captured in performance measures takes place,” the consultation said.

New performance measures are set to be created for V Levels that are “broadly” in line with reporting requirements for A Levels and T Levels.

And the two new level 2 pathways, alongside level 1 and below provision for the first time, would also be brought in scope for “consistent” performance reporting, with attainment, progress, retention and destinations proposed as the baseline minimum measures.

Colleges face lighter sanctions and greater freedom over when students resit English and maths, but risk tougher penalties if results slip. Click here for a separate story on the English and maths accountability proposals.

DfE also wants to scrap two of the three current student retention measures, making ‘retained and assessed’ the sole headline retention metric on new school and college profiles from this autumn.

Here’s what you need to know.

Why change? 

Information about school and college performance on 16-19 education doesn’t give students and parents a full picture, DfE argued.

Courses currently in scope include A Levels, some other academic qualifications, applied generals, tech levels and level 2 technical certificates.

But many vocational and technical qualifications are left out because they do not meet old performance table criteria or because of a moratorium on new qualification approvals being in place since 2018.

DfE said this has left the tables too narrow, especially for further education colleges.

The department now wants headline performance measures that are more consistently applied across 16-19 provision at each level. Having one single set of measures covering all 16-19 learners has been ruled out as this would not capture the “nuance” of different levels and qualification types.

Instead, the government wants comparable measures within each level, which is particularly pressing as new mainstream qualifications, like V Levels and new level 2 foundation and occupational certificates, enter the game.

V Level performance

V Levels are due to be rolled out gradually from 2027 and will eventually replace many existing level 3 vocational and technical qualifications. The government’s aim is for students to choose A, V or T Levels, or a mix.

DfE wants V Level outcomes to be reported alongside A Levels and T Levels and said the measures should be “broadly consistent” across the three routes. They propose this should include attainment, progress, and retention, along with destinations and English and maths progress where relevant.

The earliest provider-level V Level performance measures could be published is spring 2030.

DfE is asking the sector how V Level performance can be reported alongside A Levels and T Levels, recognising that some students will combine A Levels and V Levels in their study programme.

Level 2 pathways will be measured

As set out in the post-16 education and skills white paper, the government’s aim is for the foundation certificates and occupational certificates to become the mainstream level 2 pathways for school leavers.

At the moment, level 2 performance measures are only reported for technical certificates approved before 2018.

DfE wants level 2 measures to be broadly consistent with level 3 where possible, using similar measures such as attainment and progress. But as the foundation certificate will be designed for students to progress to level 3, DfE is consulting on whether an extra progression measure should be included for those courses.

Like V Levels, the foundation and occupational certificates will be first taught in 2027 and rolled out gradually.

The first foundation certificate results will be out in 2028 so will first appear in provider-level performance tables in spring 2031 following a two-year level 3 course.

For occupational certificates, the first results are due in 2029 so will appear in provider-level performance measures for the first time in spring 2030.

Level 1 and entry-level courses

DfE is also proposing to create new performance measures for level 1 and entry-level learners

Currently, these learners are included in destination measures, and relevant English and maths qualifications can count towards English and maths progress measures. But their wider qualification outcomes do not count towards headline attainment, progress or retention measures.

Around 6 per cent of 16-19 year olds in education studies at level 1 or below in 2023-24.

Just over a third of level 1 learners are recorded as having SEND or an EHCP. For entry-level learners, that figure was 57 per cent.

DfE said it was not proposing to copy the level 2 and level 3 model for this cohort because “we recognise that students may have quite different end goals from their peers at level 2 and above — whether that is progressing into further study, moving into employment, or developing essential life and work skills.”

The consultation doesn’t specify a set of measures for level 1 and below, and instead asks for views on what they should be.

Headline retention measure replaced from this autumn

DfE wants to scrap the current headline retention measure and make a bolstered version of the ‘retained and assessed’ the sole metric published on schools and college performance profiles.

At present, the headline retention measure shows the percentage of students retained to the end of their core aim.

DfE also publishes a ‘retained and assessed’ measure, which shows whether students stayed to the end of their course and were assessed.

A further ‘retained and returned for a second year’ measure is still published in underlying data, although it has already been removed from the public-facing digital service.

DfE wants this to become the only headline retention measure on new school and college profiles from autumn 2026.

Importantly, DfE will, from 2026-27, take the ‘assessed’ element from ‘retained and assessed’ from awarding body data, rather than from schools and colleges. They said this was to prevent data errors that have in the past distorted retention scores.

Another methodological change will mean students on a level 2 core aim that are assessed at level 3 will count as retained and assessed.

In the longer term, DfE is seeking views on whether students who leave a level 2 or level 3 course to start an apprenticeship should be counted as ‘out of scope’, rather than negatively, in the ‘retained and assessed’ measure.

The consultation closes on 21 July 2026.

FE teacher training probe widened after ‘café placements’ scandal

A review into an FE teacher training course has been escalated after investigations found certificates were withheld and some students did placements at restaurants.

The Office for Students (OfS) announced it will examine the outcomes and associated student loan tuition fee funding paid to higher education institutions delivering the level 5 diploma in education and training (DET).

The regulator’s probe will span the final three academic years the course was delivered: 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

In 2024, the Department for Education replaced the course with the diploma in teaching (further education and skills) to “better align teacher training with contemporary educational needs and standards”.

The DfE and OfS have cracked down on initial teacher training in the FE sector in recent years after finding “persistent” poor-quality provision.

This appears to be the first ever review of outcomes and payments for an individual HE course by the OfS.

Teaching placements in clothes shops

The sector-wide DET review follows alarming findings at the Applied Business Academy (ABA), which taught the course to around 2,000 students at campuses in Luton and Canary Wharf.

A key required element of the course was 100 hours on a teaching placement.

Investigators found only 6 per cent of placements for ABA’s students “appeared capable of satisfying the requirements” of the course, with trainees logging placement hours in non-educational settings including cafés, clothes shops, freight firms and building companies.

ABA went into liquidation in October 2024 while being probed by the OfS, avoiding potential “significant penalties”. None of the provider’s DET students received certification at the time of closure.

Concerns deepened following a separate OfS investigation into London-based Brit College, which enrolled a total of 1,174 students on the DET across five cohorts between September 2022 and September 2023, receiving over £5 million in tuition fees over the period.

None of those students were awarded the qualification, an OfS report published last November revealed.

Investigators found similar placement issues to ABA at the Brit College, with trainees listed with “inactive” organisations and other firms with no clear link to education, such as small restaurants.

During the investigation, Brit College stopped offering student loan-funded higher education and left the OfS register of providers. It became insolvent in February.

Show me the money

It is not clear how many affected students at both ABA and Brit College, now saddled with student loan debt, have been able to complete their courses at alternative providers.

The DET course at both institutions was awarded by City & Guilds.

Based on the findings of the ABA and Brit College regulatory reports, the OfS said it is “now launching a review into outcomes for students and the associated amount of student loan tuition fee monies paid to institutions delivering the DET course”.

A spokesperson said: “The report is expected to include the amount of Student Loans Company tuition fee funding paid to institutions for the delivery of this course, the number of students registered to study this course at individual institutions and subsequently formally enrolled with relevant awarding organisations, completion rates, and the final number of certificates awarded at each institution.”

Without providing specific figures, the OfS told FE Week that providers in scope of the investigation were chosen based on numbers of students enrolled on the course during the three years. Providers with a “small number” of students on the DET course were excluded from the review.

Awarding bodies will not be in scope of the review as they are regulated by Ofqual.

The OfS has not yet set out a timeline for the review’s conclusions.

DWP names first jobs guarantee delivery partners

Some of the country’s biggest employment support providers have been chosen to deliver the first phase of the government’s flagship youth unemployment scheme.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has today appointed six organisations as lead delivery partners to run the “jobs guarantee” in six areas ahead of a national rollout.

They will be responsible for matching unemployed young people to suitable jobs, reimbursing employers for wage and onboarding costs and providing wraparound support before and during placements.

The jobs guarantee is one of the government’s key initiatives to tackle stubbornly high youth unemployment. Eligible young people will have access to a fully subsidised six-month paid job through the scheme. They must be aged 18 to 21 and have been on universal credit and looking for work for 18 months.

Catch 22 will deliver the scheme in Birmingham and Solihull, Ingeus in the East Midlands, The Growth Company in Greater Manchester, Reed in Partnership in Hertfordshire and Essex, The King’s Trust in central and east Scotland and Itec Training Solutions in south west and south east Wales.

The scheme is part of the government’s wider youth guarantee, backed by £820 million, to ensure young people can access work, training or education.

Table titled 'Job guarantee delivery partners - phase one' with columns Area, Delivery partner, Number of referrals; rows show Birmingham and Solihull (Catch 22) 275, East Midlands (Ingeus) 200, Greater Manchester (The Growth Company) 275, Hertfordshire and Essex (Reed In) 150, Central and East Scotland (King's Trust) 150, South west and South east Wales (Itec Training Solutions) 150; Source: Department for Work and Pensions; FE WEEK logo.

First phase before rollout

DWP expects 1,200 referrals in phase one, although the guidance said referral numbers could increase if capacity allows.

Delivery organisations have until October 2026 to assess and place eligible young people, and job placements in this phase must be completed by April 2027.

Covering the six-month job placement, the government will fund 100 per cent of wage costs at the minimum wage for up to 25 hours per week, plus employer national insurance and minimum pension contributions.

In addition, delivery organisations can claim up to £2,250 per participant for wraparound support and training, £400 for administration and up to £250 for employer onboarding costs.

DWP’s guidance said the scheme will roll out across England, Scotland and Wales “later” this year. Ministers have said the scheme will provide 55,000 job placements over the next three years.

The six areas chosen for phase one were selected because they were identified as having the “highest need”.

FE Week has asked DWP for the value of the funding agreement for each delivery organisation.

Meaningful jobs

Guidance published today stated jobs funded through the scheme must provide “meaningful work”.

This means the job “must not involve significant classroom or online training” and “must be equivalent to a job not funded by the jobs guarantee”.

Delivery organisations also have to assess the capacity of the employer and ensure job placements can cater for young people with complex needs.

“It is expected that young people will be placed with reputable employers within the local area,” according to DWP guidance.

It also suggests some flexibility on eligible participants, such as accepting young people who have “minimal work history” over 18 months and 22 to 24 year olds if there is “spare capacity”.

The jobs guarantee is part of a wider package of initiatives aimed at reducing the estimated one million young NEETs (not in education, employment, or training).

The wider youth guarantee is backed by £820 million over the spending review period, which ministers say will reach almost 900,000 young people, create around 300,000 more work experience and training opportunities, expand youth hubs and fund guaranteed six-month jobs for 55,000 18 to 21-year-olds.

A government-commissioned investigation into young NEETs, led by former Labour minister and social mobility commissioner Alan Milburn, is due to report in September.

DWP question time April 2026: Live blog

Welcome to FE Week‘s live blog covering DWP questions in the House of Commons on 27 April 2026. The session will begin at shortly after 2.30pm.

This is a new function we are testing following our decision to stop posting on the social media website X.

Instead of live reporting key events via our social channels, we will host these blogs on our website, making it easier for our readers to see all updates in one place.

If you have feedback, please email news@feweek.co.uk

 

Cheap means nasty for apprenticeship units, say providers

Labour’s flagship apprenticeship “units” risk stalling before they begin as training providers warn the courses are so underfunded they may refuse to run them.

Ministers this week published long-awaited funding rates for the first tranche of 10 units – short courses that will, for the first time, allow employers to spend levy money on non-apprenticeship training.

But training organisations said the rates, ranging from £22.80 to £27.10 an hour, fall well short of covering the real cost of delivery, fuelling claims the programme has been set up to fail.

One leader of a large apprenticeship firm described the rollout as a “spectacular mess”, warning that some of the courses were “not fit for purpose” and so poorly designed “it’s as if it’s been designed so that no one enrols on it”.

‘A compromise we will not make’

Seven of the units are in manufacturing and construction with delivery hours ranging from 35 to 140, while three are AI leadership courses of just 30 hours.

The units are for employees aged 19 and older who are looking to upskill. Starts can begin from Tuesday (April 28).

The Department for Work and Pensions said Skills England recommended funding rates using a “best estimate of costs”, with initial rates for units reflecting delivery expenses plus set-up and fixed learner costs such as onboarding and administration.

Table of apprenticeship units showing level, funding rate, minimum delivery hours and rate per hour; examples include permanent modular building assembly and welding (mechanised). Source: Skills England.

Ben Newbould, managing director of specialist tech provider Velocity Academy, said the proposed £750 funding rate for the level 5 AI units, which works out at just £25 per hour, is “wholly misaligned” with reality.

His own analysis, based on the AI strategy and opportunity unit, found 69 per cent of the content is lifted from the existing level 4 AI and automation apprenticeship standard, funded at £18,000 with a delivery rate of £42.86 per hour.

Applying a proper weighted model across the four standards used to build this new qualification, he said, puts the true cost of the unit closer to £39 or £40 per hour.

Velocity Academy is now “seriously considering not delivering these units”.

The only way to make them viable, Newbould warned, would be to cram learners into oversized classes, pushing the learner-to-trainer ratio beyond what is acceptable for high-quality teaching – “a compromise we will not make”.

Benjamin Silverstone, associate professor and head of skills policy and strategy at the University of Warwick’s WMG Skills Centre, was planning to deliver the AI units but said to be financially viable, the courses would require a “bigger cohort size than you are realistically going to fit into a room”.

He told FE Week it was “disappointing that there seems to be a lack of understanding of how much education actually costs” and added he felt providers were “not really consulted in terms of how much they would require financially to do this stuff”.

Jemma Perks, managing director of S&A Academy, said providers like hers support the “increased flexibility” apprenticeship units are supposed to bring. But she was also concerned the funding for AI leadership modules was “lower than we anticipated”, making it “challenging” to design and deliver programmes that meet the expected quality standards, especially given the need for specialist expertise and technical competence.

Without better alignment between funding and costs, she warned, provider uptake risks being “limited”, ultimately impacting employer access and development of technological skills.

Providers also raised that the design of the AI units does not match real workforce needs, which is hands-on AI capability, not leadership-only or policy-heavy provision.

Set up to fail

Apprenticeship units are a centrepiece of Labour’s rebranded “growth and skills levy”, promised by leader Keir Starmer in opposition to give businesses the “flexibility they need to train their workforce”.

Yet nearly two years after taking office, ministers are preparing to launch just 10 short courses that can be funded through apprenticeship levy contributions.

Since gaining power, ministers have found it difficult to flex the levy after realising England’s apprenticeship budget distributed by the Treasury is fully spent each year.

Despite now increasing the national annual budget to £3.3 billion, ministers have had to find savings, including by defunding level 7 apprenticeships for people aged over 21 and axing a range of popular management apprenticeships, to steer funding back to young people while also introducing their promised short course offer.

Silverstone said Labour’s promised short course growth and skills levy policy had “narrowed down massively” since inception.

He said ministers had made it so the policy “is technically doable, so you can’t accuse anyone of saying that opportunity has been taken away”, but the offer is “that unattractive” that it drives low take-up.

Another element of apprenticeship units that the sector fears will drive low interest is the payment model, whereby 70 per cent of the funding is withheld until the learner has completed all hours and passed a skills test.

The government has said it will keep the “affordability” of apprenticeship units “under review” and could withdraw a unit with just four weeks’ notice. Providers fear this “big stick” model leaves them exposed.

Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said there was a “fundamental question” over whether the government actually wants the units to succeed.

If they do prove popular, he warned, “the system won’t be able to afford them”.

“Funding does not match the real-world cost of delivery, and the rules are too inflexible for providers and employers to make them viable. Taken together, the sum of the parts just doesn’t stack up,” Rowland added.

Saqib Bhatti, the Conservatives’ shadow education minister, said the reports were “immensely concerning” and reflected a broader pattern in which government rhetoric failed to meet reality. The units’ proposals, he argued, were “ill-thought-through and totally undeliverable”.

Risk worth taking?

Sam Callear, chief executive of GTA England, a network of not-for-profit training organisations, said his members support the concept of apprenticeship units and have ambitions to deliver them, but the planned system makes investment “a risky” decision.

He also highlighted that the mechanised welding unit, which requires expensive equipment, small classes and significant face-to-face teaching, is funded at a lower hourly rate than AI courses.

The manufacturing sector shares those concerns. Robert Halfon, former skills minister and now executive director of external affairs at Make UK, said funding levels were “lower than is comfortable for many providers” and warned the payment structure could make the units “unsustainable”.

Colleges are also proceeding cautiously. Blackpool and the Fylde College welcomed “any move” towards flexible, unit-based modules funded through the levy but said the rates were “less than we expected”, given the high costs of specialist staffing, facilities, consumables and compliance.

Yiannis Koursis, chief executive of The Bedford College Group, warned that low funding combined with delayed payments “raises concerns about the overall viability of delivering these units at scale”.

Not all providers are put off, however. Emma Barrett-Peel, chief executive of Train’d Up, said her organisation had received “lots of interest already” from their engineering and manufacturing employers who were “excited about widening their training offer to staff who were not suited to full apprenticeship programmes”.

“At this stage we believe we can design something high-quality. However, through the process over the coming weeks and months we will definitely keep the cost to deliver in our minds to make sure before we launch we are confident that the training is as good as our apprenticeship training,” she added.

Rowland pointed out that the government had described this as a “test and learn” phase for apprenticeship units. He said if ministers want to give the short courses a “genuine chance of success”, they must “find a way to control budgets without suppressing funding rates to the point where delivery becomes unworkable – otherwise, there is a real risk a good idea never proves its value”.

A DWP spokesperson said: “This government is committed to addressing skills gaps identified in the jobs market, which is why apprenticeship units have been introduced for priority sectors.

“The funding rates for the apprenticeship units are based on the expected cost of delivery.”

NOCN lays foundations for ‘skills passport’ fight

Two major construction training organisations are locked in a trade mark dispute over rival “skills passports”.

Awarding organisation NOCN has accused the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) Ltd of infringing its registered trade mark through the use of the term for its digital carding system.

A cease and desist letter sent on behalf of NOCN, seen by FE Week, argues that CSCS’s use of “skills passport” is identical or highly similar to its own registered trade mark, and is being used for “identical or similar” services, creating a “likelihood of confusion”.

NOCN confirmed it had also launched opposition proceedings against CSCS’s own trade mark application with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).

However, CSCS has rejected the claims and considers NOCN’s allegations to be “entirely without merit”.

A spokesperson added the term “skills passport” was a “generic, descriptive phrase and we do not accept that it is appropriate for any single organisation to claim exclusive rights over its use”.

Escalating dispute

NOCN has held a registered trade mark for “NOCN skills passports” since August 2024, which covers digital platforms for storing and managing skills and qualifications information.

The organisation said it registered the trade mark following several years of development of digital competency records linked to construction certification schemes.

It added that discussions with CSCS about a potential joint approach to a digital scheme had taken place but “fallen away”, with CSCS subsequently launching its own product using the term.

NOCN said it believed legal action was necessary to “avoid confusion for operatives about providers and protect their interests”.

NOCN Skills Passport logo: gray circular badge with darker center and 'Skills Passport' text beneath.
NOCN’s registered “skills passport” trade mark (left) alongside CSCS’s app branding (centre and right)

Its lawyers have called on CSCS to cease using the term or face further legal action, such as an injunction or litigation for damages.

In a statement, NOCN said: “Regrettably, we have been given no choice but to serve a cease and desist letter as a first step in a legal process against CSCS. We confirm that we have also commenced opposition proceedings against CSCS at the UKIPO.

“We believe this action to be necessary so as to avoid confusion for operatives about providers and protect their interests, given both NOCN Group and CSCS operate within the construction sector.”

NOCN also requested FE Week remove a related opinion article. The publication declined.

Digital services that collate and display learners’ qualifications are increasingly used across the skills sector. Proponents believe such systems improve verification and reduce fraud, particularly in safety-critical industries.

CSCS pointed to multiple examples of similar services already available, including initiatives from awarding bodies, employers and regulators.

The government recently signalled its intent to “explore the development of skills passports” to support unemployed people into work in its post-16 education and skills white paper.

But NOCN believes CSCS’s version amounts to a trade mark infringement due to alleged branding similarities and use of the phrase “skills passport”, which its lawyers said is “aurally identical” to its registered mark.

 

Regulator probes collapse of engineering trainer

The Charity Commission is assessing “governance and financial concerns” at a 60-year-old engineering training charity that closed abruptly last year.

Oldham Training Centre (OTC), which has been running since 1966, dismissed staff without notice or pay in November.

Formally known as Oldham Engineering Group Training Association, the charity told employees it was about to enter creditors’ voluntary liquidation because it was “unable to make all payments”.

But five months later it is yet to formally enter liquidation, and former employees, who said they had not received wages, fear they are running out of time to claim redundancy pay within a six-month time limit.

Some staff are understood to be owed redundancy payments covering more than 15 years of employment at the charity.

Asset questions

Employees and a former trustee told FE Week they are concerned about what happened to profits from an auction of the charity’s 21,000 sq-ft training centre in Oldham, Greater Manchester.

The building was sold in July with an advertised guide price of £750,000.

Its specialist equipment, including pillar drills and lathes, were also sold online last year by a neighbour of OTC’s director of business operations Martin Peter Sherry.

Sherry, who ran the organisation, was appointed as a director of the charity’s business in July 2024. He also appears to have been a trustee for a short period.

He had previously run apprenticeship companies including Cranage Ltd, Obscurant Limited and Tatton Solutions.

OTC director Martin Peter Sherry

Ten days ago ownership of the charity’s subsidiary health and safety training business, OTC Consulting, which brought in an income of £105,000 in 2023-24, was transferred to Sherry and fellow director and current trustee James Kelly.

A Charity Commission spokesperson said: “We are assessing governance and financial concerns raised with us about Oldham Engineering Group Training Association Limited to determine any next steps.

“We can confirm that, in line with our guidance, the charity has reported this matter to us.”

The commission added that it has made no findings and drawn no conclusions at this stage.

When contacted for comment, Sherry claimed he was unavailable because he was about to start an online meeting. He now appears to have blocked our calls.

Staff ‘completely aggrieved’

Former employees told FE Week they had received limited direct contact from trustees and directors since receiving dismissal letters from Sherry on November 26. Staff were told to contact insolvency practitioner Chris Knott, of insolvency firm Leonard Curtis, with queries about redundancy payments.

However, Knott told them he could offer no help as he had not been formally appointed as liquidator.

Electrical instructor Paul Brown, who worked at OTC for 10 years and believes he is owed more than £12,000, said he felt “completely aggrieved”.

He added that staff all put “a lot of effort” into helping the centre gain a ‘good’ Ofsted grade in 2024, after a previous ‘requires improvement’ grade.

Former tutor Eric Shaw, who estimates he is owed £2,500, said he was “disgusted” staff had not been paid.

Both Brown and Shaw called for an investigation into what had happened at the charity, including the sale of its building.

OTC’s training centre was auctioned last July. (Source: https://propertyauctions.io/)

When questioned about the delay, Marie Ann Shenton, accountant for OTC, told FE Week that insolvency paperwork had now been completed, adding: “These things don’t happen overnight.”

She said assets were sold after “independent valuation” and claimed transferring the subsidiary company OTC Consulting into Kelly and Sherry’s personal ownership made the liquidation process “easier to do formally”.

She added: “It was just for ease of transaction, really. And there’s no value in the company, so it’s not as if we’ve shifted value from the holding company to shareholders.”

Falling headcount

Income and apprentice numbers at OTC appear to have declined in recent years.

It specialised in apprenticeship standards including maintenance and operations engineering technician, metal fabricator, engineering fitting and design and draughting.

Its 2021-22 accounts show a surplus of £90,000 on a turnover of £664,000, with reserves of almost £1 million.

But in 2023-24 it made a loss of about £360,000, reserves fell to £407,000, and Companies House records show it took out two loans of undisclosed amounts in late 2024, with all of its assets offered as security.

When Ofsted gave the ‘requires improvement’ grade in 2022 there were about 130 apprentices. By the time it returned to ‘good’ in 2024 there were only 75.

When contacted for comment, Kelly, also CEO of the British Metals Recycling Association, shared what he claimed was a collective statement “on behalf of the trustees”.

It said that liquidators were currently only working in an “advisory” capacity, with a formal decision on their appointment “imminent”.

It added: “The trustees have at all times sought to act in accordance with their duties and responsibilities, taking appropriate advice where required and working to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the organisation and its stakeholders, including learners, staff, employers and funding bodies.

“The circumstances leading to the current position are complex and have developed over time.

“As is standard in situations of this nature, several of the matters raised are now subject to formal review and will be considered through the appropriate statutory and regulatory processes.”

The statement said trustees were “fully committed” to working with bodies including the Charity Commission, and that “decisions have not been made lightly”.

However, the statement claimed it would be inappropriate to provide “detailed commentary on specific points”.

In a separate statement, trustee John Robinson, a director at Innovative Technology Ltd, distanced himself from Kelly’s statement.

He said: “Given the circumstances and my responsibilities, I’m not in a position to comment in detail at this stage.

“I have, however, taken appropriate steps through the relevant channels to ensure that matters are being addressed in line with my duties as a trustee.

“I have sought at all times to act in the best interests of the charity and its staff.”

GTA model in decline

Group training associations (GTAs) are long-running charities, often originating in the 1960s, that offer shared specialised apprenticeship training to local employers.

Employers typically access GTA training through an annual membership and sometimes oversee its management by becoming trustees.

OTC is the second GTA to close in Greater Manchester in recent years, following the liquidation of Salford and Trafford Engineering GTA (STEGTA) in 2024.

Only Stockport Engineering Training Association remains in the region. There are understood to be about 29 GTAs across England.

FE exit numbers still ‘stubbornly high’ but improving

The rate of teachers quitting the FE sector has hit its lowest level in four years, data reveals.

Analysis of the 2023-24 teaching workforce found 14.7 per cent left further education the following year.

This was 1.9 percentage points lower than the previous year and the lowest “attrition rate” since 2019-20 when 14.5 per cent quit.

Exit rates in FE had declined since a 2014-15 peak of 20.8 per cent until four years ago, when numbers began to trend upwards again.

Michael Scott, senior economist at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), said the data suggests “some progress has been made in improving retention across the sector”.

However, he added exit “rates remain stubbornly high, and it is clear much more needs to be done”. He called for more funding to improve salaries and action to reduce teacher workload.

Just 8.7 per cent of those who left FE in 2024-25 were found to be working elsewhere in the education sector. This is a decrease of 2 percentage points on the previous cohort.

Younger teachers, aged 29 and under, consistently make up the majority of FE leavers. In 2023-24 they accounted for 42 per cent of teachers exiting the sector.

Pay goes up

The data, collected through the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, shows the overall FE teacher headcount rose 2 per cent in 2024-25 year on year, reaching around 57,000.

In 2024-25, the median full-time equivalent salary of a general FE college teacher was £38,813.

This represented a 3.8 per cent pay rise on the previous year and a 10 per cent rise from 2022-23, when the median pay was £35,271.

However, teachers at sixth form colleges still out-earn their FE college counterparts, reaching a median salary of £48,783 in 2024-25.

The near £10,000 pay gap is the widest since this data was first recorded in 2002.

Seven findings from DfE’s third FE workforce data release

Newbies stay put

Last year, the majority (88 per cent) of 7,500 teachers joining FE for the first time were recruited from outside the education sector.

The data also found three quarters (75.5 per cent) of new teachers who joined in 2023-24 remained in their roles one year later.

This is the highest one-year retention rate in 18 years since 2005-06 when the rate was 82.7 per cent.

Regarding pay, new teachers at general FE colleges earned a median of £33,197 in 2024-25, while sixth form college teachers earned £42,964.

This represents a 3.6 per cent increase for new general FE college teachers from the year prior, and a 14 per cent jump for sixth form teachers.