Give stakeholders a voice in end-point assessment reforms

Since its inception in 2017 end-point assessment has helped reengineer and strengthen the apprenticeship brand. 

The employers and providers that work alongside TQUK and SIAS strongly agree that end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) have introduced critical independence, credibility and rigour. 

Employers have welcomed this confirmation of occupational competency, and we see this acutely in our work supporting critical sectors like care services and early years development and highly technical and hazardous STEM environments.  

Deep dive needed

However, almost eight years on and with the market continuing to mature, it’s time to take stock – not just of EPA, but the entire apprenticeship programme! A deep dive reflection will allow the industry to acknowledge what’s worked well, learn from challenges overcome, and explore those that still need resolving. We have a highly successful foundation – now’s the time to evolve it!  

DfE’s new principles-based approach represents an opportunity to do that. At its core, the model can help increase flexibility, diminish complexity and promote proportionate assessments and costs. These are goals the entire sector can get behind. If delivered correctly, it can enable assessment plan development that makes sense for individual occupations.  

But to provide credibility for any truly fit-for-purpose apprenticeship offer, there must also be a non-negotiable commitment to independence, rigour and quality, and a collaborative and measured process that avoids destabilising the sector and creating long-lasting damage.  

The change shouldn’t be embraced without question. There are already signs that the rush to reform is coming at the cost of careful consideration, felt most clearly in the announcements themselves. Communications lacked context, detail and clarity, allowing snippets to become headlines and speculation to become an unfavoured reality.  

Whilst there is a desire to delve into questions about practical application, we need to go back a step and ask again: what’s the extent of the problem and what does success look like?  

Questions needing answers

If we break this down and consider that cost, complexity, consistency, capacity and completion are key drivers we’d arrive at questions such as: 

How do we reduce costs, rather than simply moving cost around the system or worse increasing costs? 

How do we fully immerse EPAO expertise in assessment design, with assessment plans driving affordability and increasing deliverability rather than restrictive policy-led assessment methods? 

How do we make best use of assessment evidence, including that generated on-programme, to aid access to timely assessment that sufficiently tests competency whilst maintaining independent sign-off of occupational readiness? 

How do we find best value through flexibilities and better use of technology to creatively explore competency assessment? 

How do we achieve our goals at a supportive pace without creating the chaos and distraction that goes hand-in-hand with poorly-considered timeframes? 

How do we ensure the drivers for change are centred around sustainability and quality, and not just short-term goals to drive up completion rates? 

Sector-by-sector approach

Transparency about intended outcomes can help answer these questions, but there must also be genuine consultation involving all stakeholders and the provision of sufficient collaboration time to create a sustainable model that’s replicable across the 700-plus standards in existence – and future standards.  

This should begin with stakeholders selecting and piloting the reforms on a small group of hand-picked standards. Doing so would help produce worked examples that could help dispel myths, combat fear and show clearly how high-level principles could work in practice – and how some principles won’t fit all standards.  

Indeed, we’d welcome a sector-by-sector approach based on agreed priority factors and underpinned by a clear road map that minimises disruption by assessing impact to apprentices, employers, providers and EPAOs, whilst being considerate of wider reform. 

Ultimately, this collaborative approach would provide a proof of concept to inform a clearer principles-driven framework that offers flexibility, but also the much-needed guardrails to protect independence, rigour and quality, and truly achievable success measures.  

This is a major moment for apprenticeships and represents the best-ever opportunity for EPAOs to bring their expertise together to create meaningful change. Let’s work together to provide the space for innovation and opportunity for return on investment that these reforms are designed to achieve. 

Why BCoT made classrooms phone-free by default

At Basingstoke College of Technology (BCoT), we’ve always believed in harnessing technology for good. We were among the first colleges to give every student access to AI tools like Gemini, and over 1,000 learners have completed our AI @ BCoT module, earning their ‘driver’s licence’ for AI literacy. But over the decade I’ve led on digital, our approach has become increasingly sceptical, deliberate and intentional. Technology should enhance learning, not fragment attention.

So, from September 2024, we made mobile phones ‘no by default’ in classrooms.

Unless their use is part of a planned learning activity, they stay out of reach.

Why We Made This Change

The documentary The Social Dilemma (2020) was pivotal. I’d spent years embracing digital tools, integrating Snapchat into lessons and live-streaming debates with students in the US. But the documentary forced me to confront the reality: these platforms are engineered to extract attention, not nurture deep engagement.

In 2021, we conducted research into our students’ phone habits. They spent on average 5.7 hours a day on their phones—equivalent to 13.8 years of their life. The cognitive cost of distraction was evident in lesson observations. US research showed us that students unlock their phones for non-classroom use 11.7 times per lesson, and that it takes 23 minutes to regain focus after each distraction. In a single lesson, we ourselves observed students could be spending more time recovering from interruptions than actively engaging in learning.

Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation (2024) further cemented our concerns. His research on young people shows us how constant digital stimulation contributes to anxiety, attention fragmentation, and a decline in real-world social skills. What we often call disengagement is, in many cases, technology-driven hyperstimulation.

Our students weren’t just distracted—they were becoming dependent. One learner confided that he spent hours every day on explicit sites and video games, struggling to disengage. His story, along with the overwhelming research, made it clear: we needed decisive action.

‘No by default’

We implemented a simple but firm policy that mobiles can only be used if a teacher has deliberately planned their use – for example for capturing photos of work, recording audio and transcripts, or video evidence of an activity.

Lockers were installed in every classroom to store phones securely, removing the temptation to check notifications mid-lesson.

Staff are susceptible to the constant temptations and distractions devices create too, and lead by example by placing their phones in lockers or out of sight.

Our principal, Anthony Bravo, personally addressed every student to ensure clarity in the first week.

The Impact: A Culture Shift

The transition wasn’t easy. Suspensions spiked in the first two weeks as students adjusted. But over time, the impact has been interesting:

✅ Improved focus and engagement – Without constant notifications, students report feeling more present in lessons.

✅ Fewer behavioural issues – A marked drop in classroom disruptions and disciplinary actions.

✅ A more intentional relationship with technology – Phones are now a tool for learning directed by teachers, not a default distraction.

Interestingly, some students admitted feeling relieved. “It’s actually quite nice,” one said. “I don’t have to keep up with messages and streaks all the time.”

Lessons for other colleges considering a similar approach:

  • Frame the change as intentional, not punitive – This isn’t about banning tech; it’s about balance.
  • Communicate with clarity and consistency – Management, staff and students need to understand why this matters. Remind students every lesson – we have it on their computers when they log on.
  • Expect resistance—but stay the course through the first term. Long-term benefits outweigh the initial pushback.

The challenges we all face in the attention economy are not just about setting guardrails for our students, but about trying to model healthy habits.

The truth is I really struggle to manage the overwhelming and profound distraction every day, so I am now a 42-year-old man on an information diet.

Even though I’m lucky enough to love my job, I still need boundaries to maintain a healthy relationship with technology – without them I slip. It’s a constant battle. And when I see drivers at junctions glancing at their phones and parents in restaurants with their eyes glued to screens, I know I’m not the only one struggling to stay present.

We can’t change the attention economy overnight, but we can start by reclaiming our classrooms as spaces for deep focus, meaningful engagement, intentional use of technology, and real human connection.

SWAPs is for keeps despite questions over its success

More cash will be poured into a scheme for the unemployed despite doubts about its effectiveness at getting people into work.

Run by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Sector-based Work Academy Programme (SWAPs) aims to get people off benefits by combining training and work experience with an employer, followed by a job interview.

A new impact assessment estimates the SWAP scheme raises the chance of someone entering employment by 12.5 per cent.

It is the first time in five years the DWP has published a financial evaluation of the impact of the scheme, first launched in the 2010s and ramped up in 2020.

The internal DWP evaluation calculated that after taking part, participants earned £1,400 more than if they had remained on universal credit, working 90 days more and saving the taxpayer about £360.

SWAPs appeared to have the largest impact on older people and those on benefits for 13 to 24 months.

A cost-benefit analysis concluded the programme makes a return of £1.83 for every pound spent after two years, and that for society it makes a return of £5.66 on every pound spent.

Experts say the scheme is a necessary attempt at raising employment and lowering inactivity rates, but questioned whether the data suggests the scheme is a success.

‘An incomplete picture’

Imran Tahir, an economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, commended the DWP for publishing evidence on SWAP’s impact that “allows us to make more informed policy decisions.”

However, he said that while the research finds a positive impact on employment it also has “important limitations,” such as finding out what kind of jobs people are moving into.

Tahir added: “The jobs may be insecure and low-paid – this isn’t taken into account in the evaluation.

“In this sense, the report is an incomplete picture of the impact of SWAPs on employment outcomes.”

Between April 2021 and December 2024, about 350,000 people started SWAPs, with DWP statistics suggesting about two-thirds of starters completed their course.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said SWAPs is a “successful programme” as the courses “increase the time people are in work and make a positive contribution to both the exchequer and society.”

Expanded scheme

The Labour government has decided to expand its targets for participation on the scheme from 80,000 people a year to 100,000, employment minister Alison McGovern announced last week.

This will include the rollout of a UKHospitality-led SWAP to “offer new opportunities in some of the country’s most deprived communities,” including 26 new areas and 13 coastal towns.

McGovern said: “The evidence is clear – SWAPs boost your earnings and keep you in your job for longer.

“That is why we are promising to deliver more of them than ever, as we Get Britain Working as part of our Plan for Change.”

The clear evidence?

The DWP’s evaluation methodology, known as “propensity-score matching,” compared people who did a SWAP with a larger group on universal credit with similar characteristics such as age, gender, household type, employment history and disabilities.

This allowed researchers to “estimate the counterfactual” of what would have happened if participants did not take part.

But this approach, the evaluation admits, does not take account of “unobservable” factors such as whether participants already wanted to move into work.

Despite this, Tahir said the positive impacts of SWAPs are encouraging, given the difficulty governments have in moving people on benefits into long-term employment.

‘Hardly a success’

Professor Alan Smithers, of the Centre for Education and Employment Research, said: “SWAP has certainly been something worth attempting to increase the unemployed’s chances of work.”

“But it can hardly be claimed to be a success when the Government’s evaluation shows it makes little difference to 87 per cent of those taking part.”

“The fundamental problem this government faces, as did those that went before, is how to better integrate education, training and employment, so that so many don’t fall by the wayside.”

A qualitative analysis of 93 interviews and focus group sessions in late 2022 found that while many participants tended to be “positive” about the programme, many doubted whether it was “useful.”

The research suggested that some participants were disappointed about a lack of work placements or job interviews and most were surprised to find the programme took “two weeks or less.”

The recent evaluation estimates that SWAPs in 2021-22 cost an average of £752 per person, with funding split between the DWP which leads on the scheme and the DfE, which funds the pre-employment training element from adult education budgets.

At this rate, 350,000 starts could have cost both departments up to £263 million.

Apprenticeships reform could weaken social mobility impact

Apprenticeships are frequently cited as being good for social mobility, but it’s not clear what this really means. If it’s relative social mobility, which compares the chances of people from different social backgrounds reaching a specific outcome (such as getting a degree or securing a ‘professional’ or ‘managerial’ job), it’s difficult to tell. 

The Social Mobility Commission argues that absolute mobility carries greater importance. This refers to the proportion of people who have experienced social mobility in some form (e.g. being in a higher occupation level than their parents).  This is enabled by change in the occupational structure – a greater number of higher skilled jobs means more people can “move up”.  And if measured by income, it means living standards increasing from one generation to another. 

There’s still an absence of systematic evidence but it seems that apprenticeships have a significant role in improving this kind of social mobility. It’s not so much about comparing who (from which socio-economic background), gets onto what programmes but about the way apprenticeships support growth to bring wider benefits in terms of improved jobs and higher pay. In this way apprenticeships can help create a rising tide, which lifts all boats.

Our apprenticeship strategy, however, appears to have persistent difficulties, with ambitious targets being repeatedly missed. A three million apprenticeships target, set between 2015 and 2020, fell short by almost 1 million. With drop-out rates much higher than those in the education sector, there’s an ongoing debate over standards and the definition of an apprenticeship.

The apprenticeship levy is criticised for underspending and not serving the needs of SMEs, while employers leading in the current system spend their levy allocations in ways that make policy commentators wince. Degree apprenticeships, upskilling their existing (older) workforce, has often taken priority over younger people starting their careers, especially those with lower qualifications and more deprived social backgrounds.

Some solutions appear to help, but may hinder social mobility. The government is looking to defund level seven apprenticeship programmes to reallocate resources to disadvantaged young people much earlier on in their careers, which may appear to support social mobility. But it could impact growth, which would undermine social mobility in other ways.  Similarly, the commitment to expand the volume of apprenticeships by 10,000 has to be welcomed because it will bring a greater number of skilled opportunities, but the decision to shorten the length of the apprenticeship is less welcome because it re-opens issues around quality and brand integrity.

The decision to relax the requirement for English and maths for adult apprentices could be seen as opening opportunity (why make them compulsory if they can be occupationally competent without them), or closing it (not having English and maths prevents them from progressing later on) – but it could have unforeseen implications. What if 16 -18 year olds realise that they can avoid English and maths if they wait until 19 to start their apprenticeship?  And of even greater concern, are the wider social and economic implications.

As the Learning and Work Institute chief executive Stephen Evans explained, this is not a good time to reduce the English and maths requirements of any educational programmes because of our national problem with low literacy and numeracy. The OECD shows that while there has been some improvement for young people, the situation for adults has deteriorated across some measures.  From this perspective the new policy is a retrograde step. From a social mobility perspective, it’s a terrible mistake. Those adults are not just training for work but for life, and parents with low literacy and numeracy are highly likely to produce children with similar challenges.

When we questioned our college’s 2025 intake on social mobility issues, the data showed strong correlations between family circumstances, areas of residence, parental qualifications and levels at which students are studying. This accords with wider evidence about the inter-generational dimension of low qualifications, low literacy and low numeracy.

The Social Mobility Commission is calling for policy to refocus on the “truly disadvantaged”. In an economy driven by knowledge, and a society where status is closely associated with educational attainment, literacy and numeracy have to be priorities for investment. For a government committed to extending opportunity for all, the commitment should be for more English and maths in post-16 learning, properly resourced and funded and taught by experts paid accordingly.

FE failing to keep pace with teen mental health implosion

Colleges are on the frontline of a growing youth mental health emergency. Recent NHS data reveals record numbers of children and young people across England needing specialist treatment for severe mental health crises, but this escalating need is outpacing the painfully slow rollout of mental health support in both schools and colleges.  

NHS data analysed by YoungMinds shows a concerning 10 per cent rise in emergency, very urgent and urgent referrals for under-18s, with the total increasing to 34,793 between April and October 2024. This is up from 31,749 in the same period the previous year.

The national rollout of Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs) in schools and colleges, which began in 2018, had only reached 44 per cent of learners as of May 2024.

The rollout has been especially slow for FE colleges. Shockingly, just 35 per cent of students in post-16 settings (equating to just 23 per cent of colleges) had access to an MHST, compared to 59 per cent of secondary school students and 39 per cent of primary pupils.

Funding fears

While the government has a target to reach 50 per cent of school and college learners by March 2025, no spending has been allocated to guarantee the rollout will continue beyond that.

Labour pledged to provide access to mental health professionals in every school in its manifesto, but disappointingly we’ve seen no concrete details on how or when this will be achieved.

But we know the quality of support is just as crucial as reach. Schools and colleges must have access to professionals who are equipped with the skills and knowledge to support the young people who need them most.

FE remains the lowest sector to take up a £1,200 grant to fund the training of a senior mental health lead. Sixty per cent of colleges completed their grant application as of March 31 2024, compared to 81 per cent in schools.

Even where MHSTs are in place, they are only trained to support young people with “mild-to moderate” mental health issues. An early evaluation of the programme found that schools desperately needed more support than MHSTs could offer, especially for young people with more complex needs.

The next stage of the rollout must ensure that no young person falls through the gap between school and college-based support and the high thresholds for accessing NHS services.

But tackling this crisis will require deeper reforms to address the root causes of poor mental health.

Growing up today is incredibly tough, with young people experiencing multiple pressures, including poverty, inequality, climate emergency and around the clock social media. Having lived through the COVID-19 lockdowns and now confronting an uncertain future, it’s no wonder so many are struggling.

Adding to these challenges, young people face intense academic pressure, with 69 per cent always or often feeling worried about getting good enough grades. This reflects over a decade of education reforms geared towards high-stakes examinations and traditional subjects.

The emphasis on meeting rigid attainment targets has made it increasingly difficult for schools and colleges to prioritise wellbeing.

Deeper reforms needed

Young people tell us they want to re-imagine the education system to move beyond a narrow focus on academic achievement. They want an education shaped by their own voices, one that prioritizes care, support and community. They feel that the endless hours of revising for high stakes, closed-book exams does little to equip them with the skills needed to excel in their future careers and adult life.

FE colleges already play a crucial role in opening different pathways to meet young people’s ambitions. But reforms are still needed to ensure young people can begin developing vocational and creative skills at an earlier age.

With the independent curriculum and assessment review underway, we have a real opportunity to make wellbeing a priority, and ensure young people feel fully prepared for life beyond college. YoungMinds will be working closely with young people, school and college professionals and the wider sector to make this vision a reality.

Former apprenticeship boss avoids director ban

A former apprenticeship training provider boss has avoided a second director disqualification after arguing almost £1 million in erroneous funding claims were submitted without his knowledge.

Carl Roderick, who was banned and jailed in 2012 due to fraudulent mobile phone insurance trading, faced another case brought by the Insolvency Service after Insight Development and Consultancy, which traded as Levytate or Levytate Skills, went bust in October 2019.

In a High Court ruling last month, a judge dismissed the Insolvency Service’s bid to disqualify Roderick, who was the former managing director and co-owner of the apprenticeship provider.

The Insolvency Service, backed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), alleged Roderick was “unfit” to direct a company after Levytate submitted “inaccurate and unsupported” apprenticeship funding claims totalling £956,946 between April 2018 and May 2019.

An insolvency and companies court judge dismissed the case after finding that “primary responsibility” for submitting claims was “delegated” to his delivery manager, Christine Barton.

Barton has since claimed she was not approached to give evidence by the Insolvency Service ahead of the hearing and alleged the ruling contains “inaccuracies” about her role.

‘Not a details man’

In his evidence, Roderick – who was disqualified from being a director for three years in 2012 – said he was “not a details man” and suffered from “medical difficulties” including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which made it hard to manage operations.

Judge Mark Mullen concluded that while there were “undoubtedly errors” in claims that resulted in a net loss of £447,934 to the ESFA, he could not “infer” misconduct by Roderick on the evidence before him.

He added the Insolvency Service’s arguments that Roderick should have “liaised further” with staff to prevent errors came “nowhere near” convincing him.

Concluding his judgment, the judge said the claimants “failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, either misconduct on the part of Mr Roderick or, in any event, that he is unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.”

Judge Mullen added that the Insolvency Service’s investigation “inadequately” considered how responsibilities were divided between managers and “whether there were deficiencies in the supervision of Ms Barton and her team.”

What happened?

In February 2019, an ESFA funding review of apprenticeship claims Levytate made for 2017-18 and 2018-19 alleged a lack of evidence of apprentices’ start or end dates, issues with learning evidence, incorrectly calculated hours, and individual learner records “inconsistencies.”

Combined with audits later that year, the ESFA arrived at £956,946 in over-claimed funding, with £447,934 remaining owed.

It terminated Insight’s funding agreement in August 2019, resulting in the company entering liquidation that October.

The Insolvency Service didn’t file it’s director disqualification claim against Roderick until October 2022, alleging his conduct at Insight made him “unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.”

It tried to argue Roderick “cannot escape personal responsibility” for funding claims as the ESFA account was linked to his email address and payments were made into an account controlled by Debann Limited, a company he had sole control over.

The service also claimed Insight’s insolvency “could have been avoided” with “appropriate controls,” and there had been “significant harm to public finances” due to the irrecoverable £447,934.

Those arguments failed to convince the judge, who concluded that operations director Barton held “principal responsibility” for ensuring the accuracy of funding claims, not Roderick.

Barton’s denial

Barton adamantly denied having any role in claims made by Levytate when contacted for comment by FE Week.

She said: “I categorically refute the inaccuracies contained within the court papers.”

“Neither I nor any other individuals named in the documents, except for Mr Roderick, held operational responsibility for the day-to-day running of the business.”

“Any suggestion to the contrary is entirely false and misrepresentative of the facts.”

Her junior, “director of performance” Gemma Beech, also called the judge’s understanding of events “factually untrue” and denied ever working on ESFA claims.

Both Barton and Beech claimed the Insolvency Service failed to contact them for a statement ahead of the disqualification trial.

A spokesperson for the Insolvency Service refused to confirm whether or not Barton or Beech were contacted to give evidence about Roderick, claiming that this could impact future proceedings such as an appeal.

The ESFA, which investigated Levytate’s claims and provided the Insolvency Service with evidence, said: “We do not comment on individual cases.”

Roderick declined to comment.

Who is Carl Roderick?

Roderick, 50, has run a series of businesses over the last decade, including in education and e-sports – with several entering liquidation.

He first hit the headlines in 2012 after he was jailed for 33 months alongside his two brothers and banned from being a company director for three years for selling fraudulent insurance policies, according to a Birmingham Live article which was confirmed by Roderick.

The businessman resigned as a director of training provider AMS Nationwide, where Barton was also a director, a year before it shut its doors after having its ESFA funding terminated in 2018.

In early 2018, Roderick purchased Levytate.

A year later, the ESFA said it “had no record” of a change of ownership of the company, which is required by the apprenticeship funding rules.

After Levytate collapsed due to the ESFA’s investigation and contract termination in 2019, he founded e-sports company Adamo Gaming in 2021, which reportedly employed more than 30 people through the government-funded Kickstarter scheme.

When Levytate went bust, Roderick continued to own the holding company of Levytate, called Insight Development (Holdings) Ltd, and another e-sports company now known as Tenstar, which entered insolvency last August.

Cutting demand is inept solution to not meeting functional skills tutor supply

Seeing ministers use the fanfare of National Apprenticeship Week to announce the removal of the English and maths exit requirement for adult apprentices, I could only assume DfE officials had advised that the move would be universally applauded. Given the thousands of functional skills tutors with suddenly uncertain careers, plus those working for awarding bodies with qualifications that are now unviable – and not forgetting the apprentices now denied vital qualifications – the reality was in fact brutal.

I have talked before about education policy being driven by non-teacher lobbyists whispering to non-teacher civil servants and the accuracy of it couldn’t be more perfectly illustrated than in the CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers winkingly acknowledging the DfE officials “you know who you are” dancing on strings for him.

Meanwhile, front-line educators urged empathy for staff, mourned the lowering of standards, and began to report redundancies.

Optimistically, we might hope there is a strategy to redeploy the thousands of apprenticeship functional skills tutors this affects, to support with the growing 16-19 resit population.

Actually, that would be wildly optimistic. FE workforce planning doesn’t seem to happen. But there is an opportunity here for DfE to learn from past mistakes.

Lockdown learning

In the first week of Covid lockdown, I got calls and messages from college resits teachers around the country. Whole teams were being opportunistically let go. Although in fairness to DfE they later increased the funding stream linked to English and maths precisely to avoid mass lay-offs, its unshakeable habit of putting leaders ahead of learners meant no ringfencing so mass English and maths lay-offs happened anyway. Even a rabid anti-resit lobbyist confided that they realised these redundancies had been “shortsighted” when the rising demographics of 2023 came around.

The 16-19 tuition fund ended last year without government having done any thinking ahead about retaining and retraining staff. All while, the same demographic climb was causing a recruitment nightmare for FE English and maths. Based on the £80 million a year tuition fund spend, there must have been well over a thousand FTE English and maths tutors delivering it nationally. How many staff, experienced and interested in delivering essential skills to learners, did we lose from the sector? It was DfE’s responsibility to make the case for the tuition fund. As the Education Endowment Foundation is confident of the evidence that both small-group and one-to-one tuition “are particularly likely to benefit” lower attainers, it shouldn’t have been an especially hard case to make.

When they failed anyway, DfE had a responsibility to colleges and those on the frontline to have some support in place. It failed them twice. You know who you are.

Hanlon’s razor

            The shock immediacy of the woeful policy decision on apprenticeships at least did show that the civil service is able to move uncharacteristically rapidly on occasion – but perhaps only when the race is to the bottom. The same urgency should have been put to delivering a workforce solution for affected English and maths tutors. For those needing to polish up their teaching qualifications, an accelerated version of the new teaching apprenticeship could have been coordinated, ready to transition staff into 16-19 classrooms. There would then have been a more natural synergy in announcing eight-month apprenticeships in the same breath as binning jobs.

It’s possible that there actually is a grand strategy at work here. Labour inherited a shortage of maths teachers and has since legitimised off-rolling poor and black students from resits, and cut the additional funded hour of maths in 16-19, the Multiply adult maths programme, adult education budgets and the advanced maths support programme which was meant to increase level three maths numbers. Now, rather than simply converting the apprenticeship exit requirement to a study requirement, they’ve ditched it altogether. If you can’t meet supply of maths teachers, cut demand, right?

I need to remind myself of Hanlon’s Razor: Don’t assume conspiracy as an explanation when ineptitude will suffice.

Teacher ‘forced out’ after racism rumours spread

A former college lecturer is seeking nearly half a million pounds after winning a disability discrimination tribunal case which ruled she was harassed by colleagues and suffered false racism claims.

A judgment published last week sided with Dr Sharon Turton, who was a psychology teacher at MidKent College before taking voluntary redundancy in 2022.

The tribunal agreed that counts of harassment related to disability and direct disability discrimination were well founded, as well as her complaint of a failure to make reasonable adjustments for her disability.

Turton’s legal representative told FE Week £450,000 in compensation will be sought at a remedy hearing later this year.

John Horan, an anti-discrimination lawyer representing Turton, said the ruling was an “extraordinary result”.

He added: “After all the discrimination had gone on, the only way out for her was to take voluntary redundancy.”

‘False racist remarks’ led to investigation

Turton was a specialist psychology lecturer at the college from August 2014 until August 2022.

The report noted she has Asperger’s syndrome, severe complex post-traumatic stress disorder and ADHD, which she was open about with her students and staff.

Her complaint of disability discrimination began in September 2021, when she experienced a number of “difficult social interactions” with a new lecturer hired to cope with rising student numbers.

In early 2022, the lecturer made several critical references about Turton to students and mocked her disabilities by tapping her head to indicate that she had “mental problems”, causing students themselves to report the incident to the college’s curriculum manager.

Meanwhile, a formal investigation was launched into Turton after a student complained they were told by the same lecturer that Turton deleted her work and disliked them “because of your family background and that all Gypsies should not be allowed to have an education”.

The judge concluded Turton’s colleague spread “fabricated” information of “false racist remarks” which led to rumours and the investigation into Turton.

“It was an attack on Turton’s reputation and could, and indeed did, turn students against her,” the tribunal concluded.

Soon after, Turton was signed off work with “stress-related illness”.

She returned to work in March 2022, working mostly from home, which she had requested to avoid the lecturer and another colleague she did not get on with.

When Turton was working in the Medway campus, she encountered the two teachers in the staffroom, who shouted at her to “force her” to communicate. Witnesses said this was “very confrontational”.

“We considered that the actions were done to humiliate Turton,” the court ruled. It found this encounter amounted to harassment related to disability.

Turton later took sick leave after being diagnosed with a heart condition.

‘No option but to take redundancy’

Before the end of the academic year, Turton and the two other lecturers were informed they were at risk of redundancy “due to a reduction in student numbers”, which Turton disputed.

She was invited to a redundancy selection interview whilst she was signed off sick. HR offered to delay the interview and conduct the meeting online or accept answers via email if she was not well enough to attend.

Instead, Turton accepted voluntary redundancy due to her health.

She told the HR department: “This whole year has been utterly traumatising for me and I can no longer cope with everything work-related. I will be taking early retirement from teaching because of it.”

The judge heard in evidence that she was “having a breakdown” and could not go through the redundancy selection process at all.

“She felt that she had no option but to take redundancy saying she believed if she stayed she would have died,” the report said.

The tribunal found “considerable evidence” that decision makers considered Turton to be difficult and internal HR emails suggest that they may have seen redundancy as an “opportunity” to dismiss her.

Simon Cook, principal and chief executive of MidKent College, said the college takes the findings “extremely seriously”.

He added: “Throughout this time, the college has continued to learn and grow, strengthening its policies and practices to foster a more inclusive workplace.

“We are reviewing our internal processes to ensure that all concerns raised by staff are appropriately addressed and that our commitments to equality, diversity and inclusion are upheld in all aspects of college life.”

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 489

Naomi Clayton

Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Employment Studies

Previous Job: Director of Policy and Research, Learning and Work Institute

Interesting fact: Naomi discovered Jobs Plus, an employment support programme for public housing residents, during her 2014 Churchill Fellowship. Now in its second year, the UK pilot she leads seeks to replicate its success in US communities.

Karl Bentley

Director of Funding Assurance (Education and Skills), Validera

Start date: February 2025

Previous Job: Associate Director, RSM UK

Interesting fact: Karl has appeared in BBC and PBS documentaries on the D-Day landings. For BBC, Karl can be seen in D-Day: The Lost Heroes, for PBS, D-Day 360. For both programmes Karl can be seen in the role of a 29th Infantry Division soldier landing on Omaha Beach.

Rien Sach

Chief Executive Officer, Aptem

Start date: February 2025

Previous Job: Deputy CEO and Chief Technology Officer, Aptem

Interesting fact: Outside of work, Rien has a terrible/lovely Pomchi dog called Pablo and enjoys staying active. He is currently training for the London Marathon in April and the Berlin Marathon in September.