City of Liverpool staffers awarded £100k over principal’s relative controversy

A college that unfairly dismissed two managers after they raised concerns about a relative of the principal being given special treatment has been ordered to pay over £100,000 in compensation.

City of Liverpool College was found to have forced Kerry Dowd and Stephanie Doyle to resign in early 2022 after they “fell out of favour” with principal Elaine Bowker.

In March, the tribunal ruled in favour of the two ex-staff members, who were employed as the head and deputy head of the college’s digital academy (DA) nearly four years ago.

The tribunal accepted the allegations that Bowker expected them to give “preferential treatment” and adhere to “bespoke requests” for her relative, who was enrolled on a course there.

In a remedy judgment published yesterday, the tribunal unanimously decided to award the two ex-staffers the total “maximum” compensation available.

Doyle was awarded a total £57,951 and Dowd won £47,383 after the judge made extra tax provisions, FE Week understands.

The documents show the college failed to comply with the ACAS code of practice “at all” as Dowd and Doyle’s suspension was for a “sham reason” so the judge awarded an up to 25 per cent uplift to the compensation.

Each was awarded the maximum statutory cap for unfair dismissal.

College statement to media ‘directly contradicted’ tribunal

The tribunal decision said that the college’s reasoning for Dowd and Doyle’s suspensions were “highly damaging” and had “fabricated” allegations that the two had breached safeguarding protocols.

The college’s statement to the press from March said that a “potential safeguarding issue regarding the falsification of an attendance register was identified, logged and subsequently, investigated”. 

It also said: “The falsification of this official documentation was deemed as a potential safeguarding issue and as such, the college’s HR processes and procedures were subsequently duly followed.”

Judge Barker said that the statement “directly contradicted ” his findings and considered whether it amounted to “something akin to contempt of court” as proceedings were ongoing.

“It is drafted as if the [college’s] version of events were matters of fact, even matters of fact found by the tribunal. They were not,” the document said.

It continued: “We found there was no identification of a safeguarding issue affecting either claimant; it was not investigated, and no process was followed. We found that they threatened the claimants with a possible safeguarding investigation without any proper reason for doing so, to make them resign, which they did. 

“We found that the respondent effectively knew that the claimants would do anything to avoid a safeguarding investigation, due to the damage that this would inflict on their careers.”

The college’s representative told the judge they did not write the statement.

City of Liverpool College chair, Tony Cobain, said: “The board remains entirely satisfied that its witnesses exercised their responsibilities appropriately throughout the process, acting with honesty, openness, and integrity.

“The board would like to thank the college’s dedicated staff for their continued efforts to ensure the college remains a pioneering place for students to learn and for staff to proudly work.”

‘It’s refreshing Labour isn’t thrusting random vision on sector’ – Francis

Government’s decision not to “thrust” a “random vision” for education upon the profession is “refreshing”, the chair of the curriculum and assessment review has said.

Professor Becky Francis believes education secretary Bridget Phillipson’s approach means her review will not “tip the sector over”.

Francis made the comments at the Festival of Education this morning in response to a question on whether Labour has a “strong vision” similar to that of the Conservatives in 2010.

The last curriculum review, undertaken by the coalition government in the early 2010s, resulted in a greater emphasis on knowledge, an approach promoted by the then education secretary Michael Gove and long-serving schools minister Nick Gibb.

“I think that while it’s completely legitimate to ask, whether the government have a sort of vision of education… it’s really refreshing that there isn’t some random vision being thrust upon us as a profession,” Francis said.

“Instead, [the review has been] invited to take an evidenced approach to improvement that capitalises on the work that’s been done over time.”

Francis, also the CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation, noted the “cautious approach” her review has been subsequently “welcomed”.

But it “does set out the determined guardrails around securing breadth and depth and entitlement and enriching the curriculum for all and best supporting people’s life chances”.

While it’s “not an environment of revolution”, there are “really important signals” in the review’s terms of reference “that we need to attend to social justice”.

“But I guess I’m also really grateful that I’m not needed to do a review where we tip the sector over because of the pressing challenges,” Francis added.

Ofqual scrutinising Edexcel’s A-level maths replacement paper

The exams regulator is “closely scrutinising” Edexcel’s approach to awarding A-level maths this year following complaints that it replaced a paper with a version that missed swathes of content pupils had expected to cover. 

About 2,000 students have signed a petition after sitting the pure maths “paper 2” issued by the board – part of the education giant Pearson – on June 12. They said the paper “lacked key topics … fundamental to the course”. They also reported overlaps with paper 1, sat on June 4. 

Pearson has since confirmed that the paper was a replacement for its original paper 2, but refused to say why it was forced to make the switch.  

The board insisted “all candidates received and sat the correct, intended paper for each exam”. 

The matter has now been referred to Ofqual, which told FE Week it was “aware of the concerns raised about this paper and will be closely scrutinising Pearson’s approach to awarding this qualification. 

“Our priority at this point in the exam season is the interests of students and ensuring students’ grades are a reliable indication of what they know, understand and can do.” 

The organisation also said that, once results were released and summer exams monitoring was complete, “we will determine whether there have been any issues which have arisen over the course of the series which constitute breaches of our rules”. 

In an update published by Pearson, the exam board confirmed it had replaced the original version of paper 2, which was taken by 99.8 per cent of candidates. The 0.2 per cent of the cohort needing modifications sat a different paper. 

“We always have multiple versions of each paper available for use in every series. This allows us to replace a paper at any stage if we need to.  

“Decisions to replace a paper are never made lightly and can happen for a number of reasons. When we do replace a paper, we consider carefully the student experience.” 

Pearson said two different papers, “whether an original and replacement, or papers sat in different series, will not always cover the same content.  

“We are confident that the content assessed in both versions of paper 2 is reasonable and appropriate for candidates to have accessed and effectively demonstrated their knowledge and understanding.” 

The board has tasked senior examiners with overseeing the marking of both versions of paper 2, and “to ensure fairness for all students, we will set grade boundaries separately for the two versions of paper 2.  

“This approach allows us to account for any minor differences in demand between the papers, so that students are fairly rewarded for their performance.” 

A Pearson spokesperson said both the standard and modified versions “were equally valid exam papers, written to meet the specification requirements and our own standards and quality checks.  

“We can reassure all students and teachers that they received and sat the correct intended paper and we have written to all schools and colleges that received modified versions to clarify and confirm this.” 

On the petition website change.org, pupils wrote of their dismay after sitting the paper. 

“We worked hard for two years and it seems like our efforts have gone to waste,” the organisers wrote, adding the paper “lacked key topics that are fundamental to the course”.  

“We were tested on the same topics multiple times. This oversight unfairly challenges our capacity to demonstrate the knowledge and skills we have painstakingly built.” 

They added that the lack of coverage of the topics “means that the grades we will receive on results day won’t be a true reflection of our understanding and ability in mathematics.  

“Usually, these core topics are covered extensively across examination papers, offering students a balanced opportunity to exhibit their proficiency.” 

They called on Edexcel to “consider implementing lower grade boundaries or compensatory measures for this year’s exam.  

“Students’ futures could be at stake, and it is only right that every effort is made to ensure an equitable assessment.” 

An account on X set up in the wake of the exam, – “Pearson Edexcel 2025 Maths A-Level Scandal” – said pupil performance in the qualification “cannot be fairly or validly assessed because the exam series did not test the entire pure mathematics curriculum as required by Ofqual”. 

College mulls judicial review after downgrade to ‘good’

A college is considering a judicial review after claiming its latest Ofsted inspection was “fundamentally flawed”, despite receiving five ‘outstanding’ grades.

Hampshire-based Farnborough College of Technology lost its long-held ‘outstanding’ overall rating following an inspection in March 2025. While Ofsted graded the college ‘outstanding’ in five out of eight headline areas, including for apprenticeships and high-needs provision, it rated quality of education, leadership and management and overall effectiveness as ‘good’.

College leaders believe the fall from ‘outstanding’ to ‘good’ for the education programmes for young people (EPYP) judgment was based on “misrepresenting” data and led to other key judgments being downgraded in a way that was “inconsistent” with other colleges.

Principal CEO Virginia Barrett told FE Week that the college is now consulting solicitors and is considering a judicial review after an internal complaint to Ofsted was unsuccessful.

“This is not about demanding to be ‘outstanding’,” she said. “But we fundamentally disagree with how the inspection was carried out – the disproportionate focus on A-levels, the data misinterpretation, and the lack of proper dialogue all raise serious concerns about the fairness of the process.”

The college, previously ‘outstanding’ since 2011, had 2,161 learners aged 16 to 19, 591 adult learners, 61 learners with high needs and 854 apprentices. It was one of a handful of colleges affected by the 2023 RAAC scandal, which Barrett said the college is still recovering from. 

The row centres on the college’s claim that there was a disproportionate focus on A-levels during the inspection. Barrett told FE Week: “We are a 95 per cent technical college, yet Ofsted bypassed that and spent four days looking at A-levels.”

Ofsted’s inspection report, published in late June, heaped praise on the college’s art and design, catering, and education and childcare T Level courses for young people.

But the watchdog said learners on AS-level courses “do not acquire the knowledge they need to pass their assessments and achieve their A-levels” and “the actions of leaders and managers have not ensured that learners studying education programmes for young people experience consistently high-quality education”.

The report also stated: “Too few learners on AS- and A-level courses achieve their qualifications”, and the college needed to “improve teaching and assessment of AS- and A-level courses.”

But Barrett disputes the inspection and report’s emphasis on A-levels. “A-levels account for just 5 per cent of our 16 to 18 provision,” she said. “We’re a 95 per cent technical college. Yet A-levels were observed almost exclusively. This skewed the judgment on our leadership, quality of education, and overall effectiveness.”

Barrett described the inspection as “four days of intense scrutiny, focused obsessively on a single programme area representing just 5 per cent of EPYP enrolments” and accused inspectors of dismissing college data showing that A-level results were actually 5 per cent above the national average.

She also raised concerns over how inspectors retrospectively justified the downgrade. 

“Only after we submitted a complaint did we hear for the first time about a supposed ‘25 per cent of level three provision’ being underperforming. That figure wasn’t discussed during inspection. I can’t understand how they can be allowed to rely on that,” Barrett said.

Barrett also said Ofsted had apologised for using comments from governors about “poor” English and maths outcomes as another justification.

“That is a misrepresentation of what governors said. They apologised for that.”

The college told FE Week that it will now escalate its complaint to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted (ICASO), but it is also consulting with lawyers. 

“We have engaged a solicitor because we think that actually there are a lot of issues here that we think may end up in a judicial review.”

Ofsted declined to comment.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 503

Carole Kitching

Chair of Governors, West London College

Start date: June 2025

Previous Job: Former Principal and CEO, New College Swindon

Interesting fact: Since leaving her full-time FE roles, Carole has been busy leading a strategic review of HE in Swindon and on projects to increase facilities for local neurodivergent HE learners and support their transition into careers

Paul Kett

Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive, LSBU Group

Start date: September 2025

Previous Job: Former Director General (Skills, FE and HE), Department for Education

Interesting fact: Paul used to play ultimate frisbee and competed in the World Club Championships in Australia. Today his exercise is primarily jogging in Brockwell Park or swimming in Brockwell Lido

Adrian Hutchinson

Assistant Principal Skills (Adults, Apprenticeships & HE), Bradford College

Start date: August 2025

Previous Job: Head of Adult Skills, Bradford College

Interesting fact: Adrian is a long time supporter of Morecambe Football Club and follows them all over the country. Last year he drove about 9,500 miles over the season which equated to 264 miles per point in a somewhat challenging season for the club!

Phillipson ‘shifts the goalposts’ on 6.5k teachers pledge

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has backtracked on a key element of her flagship pledge to recruit 6,500 “new” teachers – confirming that they won’t all be new.  

The target also omits any mention of recruiting teachers in “key subjects” and comes after confirmation that primary teachers will be left out too. 

Last spring, Labour made “recruit[ing] 6,500 new teachers in key subjects” one of its six “first steps for change”. 

Experts said this should be fulfilled by boosting recruitment – and retaining more teachers. Phillipson pledged in November last year they would all be “new teachers”. 

However, the government has now confirmed the target will look at how much the workforce has grown overall, rather than at just “new” recruits. It will only apply to secondary and college teachers. 

The number of teachers across both sectors in the 2023-24 academic year will be used as the baseline number, with the government aiming to hit the target by the end of parliament in 2029. 

Jack Worth, the school workforce lead at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), said framing the target so it included improvements in retention was “absolutely the right approach”.  

But Emma Hollis, the chief executive of the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT), said the change “fundamentally shifts the goalposts”. 

“It’s important to be clear and transparent about the distinction between keeping existing teachers and recruiting new ones. 

“Redefined targets…risk masking the scale” of the teacher supply challenge.

A DfE spokesperson said that supporting teachers to stay in the profession and thrive is essential to achieving the pledge “in a sustainable way. A successful recruitment strategy starts with a strong retention strategy.” 

Shortage subject promise dropped 

Labour’s June 2024 manifesto promised the 6,500 would be “expert teachers in key subjects”.  

The word “expert” was dropped from the December 2024 Plan for Change, with the pledge instead for “6,500 extra teachers, focusing on subjects with shortages”. 

Neil O’Brien, the shadow schools minister, accused the DfE of “refus[ing] to define what they mean”. 

A DfE spokesperson told FE Week “key” subjects were “the shortage subject areas that are most acute”. 

However, the 6,500 target includes all secondary subjects. The government would not say what proportion of new teachers would be in shortage subjects.  

It instead pointed to current retention incentives for maths, physics, chemistry and computing. 

Is it enough? 

Pepe Di’Iasio, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, urged ministers “not to fixate” on the 6,500 figure, and to “focus on meeting the actual need for teachers across the board”. 

He cited a recent National Audit Office report that highlighted FE colleges needing between 8,400 and 12,400 teachers by 2028-29 to meet rising demographic needs.  

The same report estimated 1,600 more secondary teachers needed between 2023 and 2027. 

In this context, Labour’s pledge “doesn’t seem to be anywhere near enough”.

He said the 6,500 target remained “very challenging”, which the government must “bring forward new policy measures” to meet. 

“There remains a risk the government hits the target, but misses the point.” 

Prevent referrals in FE drop by a quarter

The number of FE students referred to the government’s anti-terrorism programme dropped by over a quarter last year, as experts suggest learners are “self-censoring” to avoid being flagged.

FE institutions made a record high 215 referrals in 2022-23, but this figure dropped by 27 per cent to 157 in 2023-24.

The Home Office data, obtained by FE Week through the freedom of information act, showed that most FE radicalisation concerns were categorised as “conflicted” or “no ideology”.

College leaders have called for more clarity on how to deal with vulnerable students without a defined ideology after an 18-year-old male student was radicalised online to fight for Ukraine and ultimately died. A Prevent officer had cleared him of having an extreme ideology motivating his choice.

College experts and Prevent critics have suggested that the drop in referrals could stem from students’ increased awareness of college online monitoring software, which detects what learners are searching online.

Eddie Playfair, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said: “In recent years, there’s been a stronger requirement for schools and colleges to use filtering and monitoring software to screen online activity by students on college systems. 

“These have both an automatic and a human element and may have initially flagged more concerns than previously. It may also be that students’ online behaviours have changed as a result of their increased awareness of the monitoring.”

Jacob Smith, who authored a report in January by human rights charity Rights & Security International on the “policing” of children and young people on Prevent data collection, added that a drop in FE referrals “does not necessarily equate to decreased harm”.

“We know that the threat of referrals is a real issue, with people self-censoring due to a fear of being referred,” he added.

A previous report by digital rights campaigner Open Rights Group revealed Prevent referrals data can be stored on police databases for a minimum of six years and “could be justified for up to 100 years”, even when the referral is escalated to channel, which involves bespoke support through a de-radicalisation programme.  

Carlie Smith, safeguarding and behaviour manager at Kirklees College, told FE Week the college’s Smoothwall software flagged 18 alerts this academic year of “terrorism/extremism” and another 40 alerts of hateful rhetoric, causing staff to intervene in person to spot any concerns.

“As most radicalisation of young people happens online, we feel this may be a reason for fewer referrals,” she added.

However, she added the college has seen a three-year upward trend in students’ understanding of extremism, radicalisation and British Values.

“We do feel that in some part, the education piece is having some effect,” she said.

Clarity on extremism categories

Most of the 2022-23 FE referrals which categorised as “vulnerability present but no ideology or counterterrorism risk” (38 per cent). In 2023/24, out of a total 157 FE referrals, 32 per cent had this label.

The second highest concern was the “conflicted” category, making up 22 per cent of all 157 FE referrals in 2023/24, a record high proportion since the data was made available.

Carlie Smith said her college raised concerns with the local Prevent team on the “lack of clarity” around the categories, particularly what consists of an “incel” referral.

Incel referrals are low in FE, the data shows. Cases doubled from two to four last year and only one was accepted into channel.

Kirklees College experienced eight incidents of extremism and two of radicalisation in 2023-24, three of which were referred to Prevent. Carlie Smith said two didn’t meet the threshold, and one student who was referred did not consent to the voluntary scheme.

One case that didn’t meet the threshold was an 18-year-old male who was radicalised online to fight for Ukraine in the Ukraine/Russia war, where they died. 

She said he met with a Prevent officer, who determined he had “no extreme ideology” motivating his choice, though he acknowledged a “very real and imminent threat” of him travelling to fight. 

Islamist concerns rise

Though the numbers are few in FE, FE Week analysis found a 46 per cent rise in referrals with Islamist extremism concerns.

A total of 16 Islamist referrals were made in 2023-24, up from 11 in 2022-23. The highest figure was in 2018-19, as far back as Home Office data was provided, where 17 referrals were made.

Layla Aitlhadj, who runs Prevent Watch, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that supports people who have been referred, said she was “deeply sceptical” about the statistics as they “often obscure more than they reveal”.

Aitlhadj suspected the increase could be down to the 2023 Prevent review from William Shawcross that recommended an increased focus on Islamist extremism.

She also hypothesised that data of referrals logged after October 2023 should account for increased student activism around Palestine since Israel’s offensive in Gaza following the Hamas attacks in Israel on October 7.

“I believe that this is most likely due to the well-known tendency to securitise Muslim students’ legitimate political engagement, in this case those expressing solidarity with Palestinians or critiquing UK foreign policy,” she said.

Campaign groups such as CAGE International raised concerns in 2021 about school pupils being referred to Prevent over Palestinian solidarity and even brought a legal challenge in 2022 against DfE guidance for “political impartiality in schools”.

The Home Office said there was “little difference” in the comparative monthly data of all Prevent referrals from October, November and December 2023 compared to the same periods the prior two years. However, it did not specify the types of concerns or the source of referrals.

Just one of the 16 Islamist referrals made it to channel. In 2022-23, zero cases made the channel threshold.

Ofqual considering ‘action’ amid AI coursework concerns

Ofqual is considering whether “any action is needed” amid concerns the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) could undermine confidence in coursework. 

Sir Ian Bauckham, chief of the exams regulator, has also revealed he has a crack team examining the tech’s risks, benefits and the way it’s “evolving”. 

The senior official made the comments during an event at the Festival of Education on Thursday, as he predicted AI “probably will be” used to support marking. 

Responding to a question on how its emergence could impact confidence in A-levels with assessments not under exam conditions, he said: “There are a couple of A-levels that do have written [assessments] – I think they’re history, English language and literature.

“The risk that you are flagging is a risk that we’re aware of, and we’re looking hard at that and considering whether or not any action is needed.”

Ofqual’s ‘specialist’ unit

Bauckham branded as “lazy thinking” the notion that because of the tech, assessment “that accurately reports what [students] actually know is either not needed or can be outsourced” to AI. 

But the tech could have a “positive impact on the work of ensuring that exams are accurately marked and that papers don’t go missing”. 

Sir Ian Backham

He said it “probably will be” used to “support the quality assurance” of grading.

“We have our own relatively small but very specialist unit inside Ofqual that specialises in AI, exploring risks, benefits and the way in which AI is evolving,” he added. 

“[This is so] we can really approach this subject… from an informed and up-to-date perspective.”

Bauckham also confirmed Ofqual and the Department for Education have carried out “detailed work to investigate the opportunities, benefits, challenges and risks of onscreen assessments”. The work will be published later this year. 

How apprenticeship coaches can bridge the NEET gap

With recent NEET (not in education, employment or training) data highlighting persistently high numbers of young people out of work, it has never been more important to ensure young people have inspiring role models who provide a real, relatable path to success.

Since the pandemic alone the number of males aged 16 to 24 who are NEET has increased by a staggering 40 per cent, compared with just seven per cent for females, according to the Centre for Social Justice’s Lost Boys report. It also highlights the devastating impact of a lack of role models – and how easily “negative” influences can take their place. Teachers do a huge amount for young people, but are often viewed as authority figures rather than people to emulate. That’s where apprenticeship coaches can be different.

Apprenticeships act as a bridge from education to the world of work, and the coach plays a key role in making this a successful journey. Seeing someone who looks like them, shares their background and has overcome similar challenges, for example, through an apprenticeship makes the pathway feel possible.

How my own journey shaped the coach I became

I grew up in a rough part of west Newcastle with two older siblings. That upbringing gave me independence and resilience, but also showed me how easy it is to go down the wrong path without the right guidance. I saw firsthand the difference it makes when someone believes in you.

At university, I started volunteering with a small charity called Hat-Trick. It was there I met my first real mentor, Dwayne. He saw something in me I didn’t see in myself, and the belief he showed gave me the confidence to keep going. That experience changed the direction of my life and inspired me to become a coach, opening my eyes to the power of mentorship.

How I help apprentices build confidence

One moment that stands out is working with an apprentice who was terrified of speaking in front of groups. They would second-guess themselves and avoid participation during education days. I started with small changes – encouraging them to speak just once in a group discussion, then gradually building it up to short presentations in front of peers. With regular positive reinforcement, they eventually stood up and delivered their end point assessment confidently. The key is creating low-pressure opportunities for growth and celebrating small wins.

Relationships are at the heart of everything I do. Early on, I make a point of having open, honest conversations about each apprentice’s interests, goals, and the kind of journey they want over the next 16 to 18 months. This helps tailor my support and often uncovers shared interests that build trust.

Apprentices know they can come to me even after their programme ends. I’m proud to be a continuing mentor and sounding board – someone they know won’t disappear once the certificate is signed.

Developing communication skills

Communication is more than talking. It’s about tone, body language, clarity and empathy. An effective way I develop these skills is having apprentices run sports sessions with each other. This builds confidence in giving instructions, adapting their message and reading group dynamics.

We also work in small groups during face-to-face sessions, which encourages active listening and teamwork. I support learners through practice sessions and peer feedback ahead of their end point assessment presentations, helping them find their voice and feel proud to use it.

What doesn’t work

One thing that doesn’t work when supporting young people is expecting them to take full responsibility for something when they haven’t been given the right support or guidance to begin with. It’s unrealistic and often discouraging, making them less likely to take initiative in the future.

What does work is creating a safe space where apprentices feel they can ask questions, make mistakes and grow. Once they feel supported, particularly by someone who they feel has their back, they’re far more likely to take ownership and pride in their own progress.

At a time when young people are understandably anxious about their futures and face real challenges entering the workforce, apprenticeship coaches can make all the difference. With empathy, honesty, and a bit of lived experience, we help turn uncertainty into confidence — and apprentices into future role models.