Historic adult education centre considers merger amid financial intervention

An historic adult learning centre has been told to consider a merger after “inadequate” financial oversight led to a surprise funding shortfall and a government bailout.

London’s Mary Ward Settlement, now known as the Mary Ward Centre, received a £500,000 emergency loan from the government after realising its cash reserves were “significantly lower than expected” in January this year.

The centre, which teaches more than 2,500 adult learners each year, was placed under financial intervention in April and has now been told to evaluate whether it is “sustainable” as a standalone institution.

It comes two years after the centre moved its adult education centre from central London’s Bloomsbury – where it had been based for more than a century – to a purpose-built centre in Stratford, in east London, at a cost of at least £14 million.

According to an FE Commissioner report, Mary Ward Centre was surprised by low cash levels due to “poor budgeting and inadequate financial oversight”.

In July 2024, the centre forecasted a ‘good’ financial health rating for the 12 months ahead, but a month later ended the academic year with a deficit on an overall adult education income of £3.9 million.

Its most recent accounts show that immediately available cash reserves fell to £214,000 in 2023-24, down from £3.5 million in 2018-19, with “higher than expected” costs of repaying commercial debt from the move to east London.

‘Unrealistic forecasts’

The FE Commissioner assessment, led by FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave, found the centre’s budget included “unrealistic income and expenditure forecasts” that were not based on a “comprehensive curriculum plan”.

The centre’s move to east London was impacted by “planning and funding delays” to converting a three-storey office block into a five-storey learning centre during the pandemic – although it is unclear how far the project went overbudget.

The emergency government loan is to be drawn down in two payments between April and October this year, and is repayable by October 2026, “subject to an affordability review”.

The adult learning centre is a so-called specialist designated institution and part of a charity, the Mary Ward Settlement, which was founded in 1892 with the aim of promoting social justice and equality.

At a combined cost of about £2 million, Mary Ward Settlement also separately manages a free legal advice service and the Blackfriars Settlement, a community service for the elderly and people with mental health issues.

According to an Ofsted inspection in January this year, which rated the centre ‘good’ in overall effectiveness, it offers courses up to level 2 courses in visual and performing arts, English, maths, and English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) and outreach courses for new learners.

‘Inadequate’ budget oversight

A key contributor to the Mary Ward Centre’s financial difficulties was a “lack of robust management information” about student numbers and finances, which were compiled “largely manual” processes, the FE Commissioner found.

Her report added: “Despite the significant financial and cashflow challenges, management accounts are only produced on a quarterly basis; this is inadequate and has contributed to financial difficulties.”

The commissioner’s team found that trustees had expertise to challenge senior leaders, some “did not fully appreciate” the urgency of the centre’s financial problems.

Board minutes did not “clearly” record whether accounts were scrutinised on a quarterly basis or how they were tracking and monitoring agreed actions.

There were also sometimes “blurred” boundaries between trustees and executives.

A difficult move

Alongside the cost of relocating, the centre has also been “challenged to connect with its new demographic audience” in east London, who are more likely to need ESOL training and less willing or able to pay fees, the FE Commissioner said.

The report added: “It is taking time to adapt the offer for the new location, and this has meant that learner numbers, commercial and tuition fee income have been lower than expected contributing to the financial difficulties”

Mary Ward’s accounts suggest at least £14 million was spent on the building project and relocation, funded by £5.7 million in grants from the Mayor of London’s Skills for Londoners Capital Fund and commercial loans of about £3.5 million.

It bought the east London site for £7.1 million in 2018.

Orders to improve

The FE Commissioner’s report, completed in April, made seven recommendations including that the centre should take “swift action” to develop a business and financial recovery plan that will show whether there is “scope” to reach a “sustainable operating position” by 2026-27.

A structure and prospects appraisal and single improvement plan are also due to be completed by the commissioner this month, that will “consider the various strategic options” open to the college – including merging with another institution.

The FE Commissioner report said: “There is an urgent need to develop a robust business plan to confirm whether MWS may be sustainable in future as a standalone institution.”

The centre should also ensure it has “adequate and appropriate” leadership capacity, a “fully costed curriculum plan” and should start producing monthly management accounts that include cashflow forecasts and KPI monitoring.

A spokesperson for Mary Ward Settlement said they are “grateful” for the Department for Education’s support and “confident” that the charity will return to a good financial footing.

They added: “Mary Ward Settlement is already some way through implementing its strategic recovery plan and continues to act upon and complete recommendations within the commissioner’s report that will also allow us to build firm foundations in our new home.

“This includes reviewing our financial management through monitoring expenditures and renegotiating contracts whilst retiring legacy systems and implementing a new management information and finance system which will create efficiencies and provide the accurate information that we need.”

Level 7 apprenticeship cuts are death blow for HE and social mobility

When the government announced the near-total defunding of Level 7 apprenticeships (L7As) in May, it framed the move as “refocusing investments towards young people”. For Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), it felt less like a policy correction and more like the final turn of a knife. Universities aren’t just “impacted” by this decision—they’re being pushed another step toward collapse after years of systematic bleeding.

The perfect storm

HEIs entered 2024 already reeling. That year saw over 10,000 university jobs axed and £200 million spent on severance pay alone, a desperate bid to stay solvent amid frozen tuition fees, inflation, and plummeting international student numbers. For many institutions, Level 7 apprenticeships weren’t a luxury; they were a lifeline in such a turbulent HE era. These courses generated sustainable revenue while fulfilling a core mission: aligning advanced skills with industry needs. L7As were never merely courses; they were vital bridges between academia and employers that took multiple years to build through painstaking collaboration. Now, these bridges face collapse.

The domino effect

The 23,860 L7A starts recorded in 2023/24, and nearly 11,000 in early 2024/25, represent hard-won progress. L7A cuts will trigger immediate carnage across universities. Vital programmes like Advanced Clinical Practice (the NHS’s pipeline for senior radiographers) and Chartered Manager degrees face extinction. Academic redundancies will follow, targeting tutors specialising in higher-level apprenticeships, many recruited directly from industry for their real-world expertise. Severing these industry ties won’t just harm universities; it will create lasting “skills deserts” in communities already left behind.

Ministers casually suggest universities “switch focus” to Level 4–6 apprenticeships, a notion disconnected from financial and operational reality. Replacing L7A income would require tripling lower-level enrolments, a challenging feat amid falling demand. Worse, scrapping Level 7 wastes millions in sunk investments, while forcing new spending on low-level provisions. The bitter reality is this: apprenticeships are already demanding to run and rarely break even, making the forced pivot to Levels 4–6 financially suicidal for some institutions. Scrapping Level 7, the sole apprenticeship tier with sustainable economics, ignores that mature learners require far less resource-intensive support (literacy bridging, attendance policing) than younger, lower-level cohorts.

The social mobility betrayal

The government’s sole concession reveals a jarring detachment from reality. Just 11 per cent of current starters fall within this narrow age bracket, rendering the “lifeline” meaningless for the vast majority. By excluding over-21s, the policy delivers a double betrayal. First, it penalises non-traditional learners—precisely those the “levelling up” agenda promised to support. Stark data shows 60 per cent of senior leadership apprentices come from the 50 per cent of the UK’s most deprived areas. For them, L7As represented a rare debt-free pathway to skilled careers.

Second, it ignores employers’ operational needs. Businesses rely on these apprenticeships to upskill existing staff: a 45-year-old NHS radiographer cannot become a consultant through a Level 4 course, nor can a factory supervisor transition to operations director without advanced training.

The path ahead: No time for last rites

Higher Education Institutions don’t deny the need for levy reform. But torching the entire Level 7 system to excise a handful of exploitative executive MBAs isn’t surgery. An “equitable”, not “equal”, approach is needed. 

First, defunding should surgically target specific misused standards rather than demolishing whole levels. Second, priority sectors like NHS clinical pathways, net-zero technology, and digital leadership must be exempted, exactly as the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and healthcare bodies begged ministers. 

A policy of carnage

A “saving” of £240 million annually will be made through these cuts, a hollow victory that ignores the catastrophic human and economic toll. For universities, this triggers more job losses, fewer courses, and a death spiral for regional institutions already fighting for survival. Meanwhile, employers face severed talent pipelines in sectors drowning in skills shortages, from advanced engineering to NHS diagnostics. Most devastatingly, communities bear the brunt: reduced social mobility, gutted economic resilience and the extinction of debt-free pathways to skilled careers.

This decision isn’t fiscal prudence – it’s institutional vandalism. As NHS professionals warn, defunding Level 7 apprenticeships is “setting the NHS up to fail”. If ministers refuse to reverse course, they owe Britain an explanation: how does sacrificing the nurses, engineers, and leaders who sustain our public services and economy align with “growth”?

Reversing this decision is the only way for the government to honour its promises to “continue to support the aspiration of every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university” and “work with universities to deliver for students and our economy”.

Dozens of apprenticeships granted ‘transitional’ off-the-job hours

The government will temporarily slash minimum off-the-job training (OTJ) hours for dozens of apprenticeship standards following concerns that the timing to implement new rules was too short.

Last month, the Department for Education agreed cuts to OTJ hours for 39 standards “of concern”.

In version 2 of the 2025-26 apprenticeship funding rules published today, the DfE has added 34 more to the list of standards included in a “transitional period” for off-the-job training, bringing the total to 73 (see full list below).

However, only 60 of the 73 listed show more lenient OTJ hours during the transition period. It appears the other 13 standards have also been listed because the overall OTJ hour baseline has been reduced since the original version.

For example, the level 6 aerospace engineer had a minimum requirement of 1344 hours in May’s announcement but this figure has been lowered to 1205 hours from August onwards.

FE Week is seeking clarity from DfE but did not receive a response at the time of going to press.

In May, DfE said it would introduce minimum off-the-job training (OTJ) hours for each apprenticeship standard for the first time.

It means that training providers no longer have to calculate how much minimum OTJ training each apprentice requires depending on the length of their apprenticeship – which must be at least 20 per cent of their working hours.

But providers complained that there was not enough time to talk to employers on the change nor to tweak their specific delivery models and curriculum.

As a compromise, the minimum OTJ training hours for new starts between August and December this year have now been lowered for all providers wanting to deliver 73 apprenticeship standards.

The move aims to allow training providers “headroom” to engage with employers and change delivery models.

The changes are effective from August this year, in accordance with the 2025-26 funding rules.

Three standards published in last month’s list are no longer in the revised list due to no change in the set minimum hours. These are the level 3 funeral director, fundraiser and team leader standards.

DfE has reduced the minimum hours for new starts from January for fifteen standards in its version two of the rules.

For example, the level 3 early years educator standard, which has a temporary 326 OTJ hours set, will increase to 370 hours from January as opposed to the original 396 hours.

The rest will shift back to the original hours required from January.

Providers risk DfE clawback if they do not meet the minimum requirement of OTJ training.

Minimum hours for the first seven foundation apprenticeships have also been published today. They are all set at 187 hours each.

RPL changes

DfE also clarified its stance on recognition of prior learning policy (RPL).

Providers must use their own planned OTJ hours as a starting point for calculating RPL, “provided their planned hours are equal to or more than the published OTJT minimum requirement for the standard”.

“This figure can only be reduced if there is evidence of relevant prior learning,” the rules said.

The guidance added that no apprenticeship programme must fall below 187 hours of delivery or 8 months in duration.

Full list of 73 apprenticeships with OTJ ‘transition’ period

Click here for high-res version

How FE leaders could help rescue university governance 

It is not surprising that colleges and college groups have focused on the constitution of their governance arrangements and have sought executive search to support them in finding the best board members around, as NCG has done.  This approach can build a more diverse board model that challenges the sector to consider what great governance can look like.

Increasingly, FE boards demonstrate a rich professional diversity, with connections to place, and a varied strategic outlook suffused with community engagement and commitment.  However, board culture arguably is even more important than individuals. And the role of governance lead and chair working together is all important. 

University boards may have a number of alumni who make it look and sound the same, and there can be a bias towards investment/finance experience.  With university boards focused on the finances and estate development, the connection with and awareness of the education or student experience can be limited to a student representative or a student voice report on the agenda. 

As can be seen currently, there has been a lack of awareness of policy development and external risks which can impact on universities. With greater regulation and compliance demanded by the Office for Students, the emphasis has to be shared more evenly. This can only be done if there are Board members who understand this, because of their own background and professional experience. 

There is a view held that vice chancellors like to keep their boards at a distance and seek to ‘manage’ them, rather than truly embracing the intent of governance and the purpose of the board.  University executive teams are losing out when they fail to draw on the talents of their boards. As universities struggle to cope, some have argued that it has been a failure of governance that has led to this situation, as opposed to considering whether it is the approach to governance that has enabled crises to develop. 

Given the record number of colleges that have achieved good and outstanding judgements in recent inspections, it should be recognised that evidence of good governance always plays a key role in these successes.

Moves from within the FE sector itself to create better governance structures show how some colleges recognise and welcome the impact of good governance. Again, the sector has slowly started to appreciate that the role of the director of governance is crucial in ensuring both the executive and non-executive are connected and working effectively and that the board culture is one that supports high performance.  However, there is often a lack of innovation in governance. And sometimes colleges might be missing a trick in how they use advisory groups/key individuals to help challenge and shape strategy. 

We see a much greater understanding of place, community, business and stakeholder management in FE, than many universities – who have to work on their ‘civic university charter’ rather than simply being the ‘community asset’ that defines FE Colleges. FE has historically also done well at finding efficiencies and pragmatically engaging in mergers. 

One way for universities to enhance their governance is to appoint FE leaders to their board. Serving college principals and CEOs (or recently retired) bring huge value around coping with increased regulation/inspection, finding efficiencies, especially with teaching and learning and curriculum design, and collaboration/mergers/restructures. 

‘There’s been a wave of college principals and CEOs retiring lately‘

AQ has recently supported universities with some success in placing FE leaders onto boards.  There has been a recognition from universities that we’ve worked with that FE leaders can strengthen relationships between the sectors. They provide challenge to the university’s relationship with place and business, enhance the relationship between board and executive, improve the management of increased regulation and funding challenges, working more closely with government, and more.  

There has been a wave of college principals and CEOs retiring over the past few months, and we know that many would be keen to join a university board. 

The impact that working in the FE sector has on senior leaders quickly translates into board ‘value-add’.  Given the immense challenges that universities are now facing that input could be transformative, bringing purpose and success to university governance. 

Why HTQs have a strong foundation to build on 

In March 2025, the Department for Education (DfE) published the latest reports of the Technical Education Learner Surveys, administered by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and the National Foundation for Educational research (NFER). One follow-up survey focused on learners undertaking pre-reform level 4/5 courses, which are qualifications combining theoretical and practical experience. They were offered before the implementation of the new higher technical qualifications (HTQs). HTQs include higher national diplomas (HND), higher national certificates (HNC), certificates/diplomas of higher education and foundation degrees. The findings provide a benchmark for comparing learner perspectives of the new HTQs. What standard have they set and what are the implications for HTQs?                                                                                                    

HTQs explained 

Level 4/5 learners surveyed studied at FE institutions in 2020-21 or 2021-22. They were surveyed in summer 2024, approximately two years after course completion. The survey explored their current activities, plans and reflections on their course.  

HTQs were introduced in 2022-23 to address low and declining participation in level 4/5 study and to boost the profile of these qualifications. HTQs serve as a unified ‘quality badge’ for level 4/5 qualifications, applying to new or existing level 4/5 programmes approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), whose role has been subsumed within Skills England. Employers have been involved in their design to help align courses with employer needs and create clearer progression pathways into work and study. As of September 2024, HTQs were available in seven occupational sectors, with over 170 qualifications approved.  

Learners surveyed studied a range of subjects, with many aligning with the HTQ subjects available in the first two years of delivery and T Level routes. This included courses in digital, health and science, and construction, alongside other technical subjects (e.g. engineering and manufacturing technologies) and non-technical subjects (e.g. business, administration and law).   

Key findings  

The vast majority of level 4/5 learners on pre-reform courses had good progression outcomes matching their expectations. Ninety-four per cent were in employment, study or both and 73 per cent had remained within the same field as their course. Of these, 61 per cent were in work only; 23 per cent were studying only; and 10 per cent were studying and working. Three-quarters reported that their course helped them reach their desired next step.  

Most learners felt their course prepared them well for their next step, particularly those moving onto further study. Around three-quarters (73 per cent) reported their course prepared them for their future career, with 81 per cent and 68 per cent respectively feeling it prepared them well for further study and the workplace. Learners cited technical knowledge and practical skills as best preparing them for their current study or work.  

Level 4/5 courses have helped learners progress at work. Of those working before their course, 72 per cent agreed it had helped them do their current job better or secure a new job. This rose to 82 per cent among those who secured new employment after starting their course.  

Skills developed by the course were utilised most by learners studying or working in the same general field. Two-thirds (67 per cent) were using skills developed on their course ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a bit’ in their current studies, compared to 58 per cent of those in work. However, among those working in the same general field of their course, this increased to 69 per cent.  

Most level 4/5 learners were fulfilled by their current situation and would recommend their course. Over seven in ten (71 per cent) were fulfilled by their current situation, with a quarter (26 per cent) being very fulfilled. Additionally, three-quarters (76 per cent) were ‘very likely’ or ‘quite likely’ to recommend their course. 

Overall, learners aged 26 and above were more positive than younger learners. This could be because older learners are more established in their field and choosing a level 4/5 course has helped them progress or get a new job.  

Implications and future research  

Despite government concerns, learner feedback on pre-reform courses was very positive. HTQs are building from a strong foundation, with pre-reform courses providing high-quality experiences and outcomes. These findings reaffirm that taking HTQs should be seriously considered, particularly given their stronger alignment to employers’ requirements. This will help Skills England to address the ‘missing middle’ and satisfy acute employer demand for higher technical skills.  

Looking ahead, future research should explore whether HTQ learners are similarly or more positive about their courses once they are bedded in – particularly regarding preparation for employment and acquiring skills aligned to workplace requirements. 

Ofsted to introduce report cards on reduced inspection timetable

Only the most senior Ofsted inspectors will carry out inspections when they return in November, meaning fewer will take place than usual.

However the watchdog was unable to say how many fewer inspections this would mean for education providers. 

The move is the latest from Ofsted as it attempts to assure the sector over its plans to introduce new report card inspections this autumn.

Critics say the reforms are “far too rushed”, with providers having just weeks between seeing the final plans and being inspected. Ofsted previously pledged education institutions would have a term’s notice to get used to the new framework, but later reneged on this, sparking backlash from the sector. 

Many also still have huge concerns over the proposals for a new five-point grading system an potentially 20 inspection areas.

But in a bid to further “reassure” the sector, Ofsted today announced an “enhanced quality assurance process” that it says will help ensure “a steady and assured start” in November.

Inspections will be led and carried out only by “the most senior and experienced” HMIs to begin with, the watchdog announced.

Fewer autumn inspections

HMIs are civil servants who often work for Ofsted full-time, whereas Ofsted inspectors (OIs) work for the watchdog on a freelance basis and usually hold other positions in the sector. 

OIs will be phased into inspections following training, but Ofsted does not yet know when this will be.

This means there will be fewer inspections than usual in November and December. There will also be no education inspections in the final week before the Christmas holiday, “to allow for further inspector training”.

Ofsted could not say how many inspections there are likely to be in November and December, or how this compares to usual numbers.

Pilot Ofsted inspections to be scrutinised

In early autumn, senior inspectors will also take part in pilot visits to volunteer settings.

Ofsted said its national director for education and its principal inspector, Lee Owston, will personally quality assure the work of most senior inspectors following these visits. Inspectors will also carry out a “comprehensive” training programme before being deployed on a live inspection.

During autumn inspections, a random sample of providers will be invited to take part in “exit interviews” with Owston and senior Ofsted officials, to give feedback on their inspection experience and the reforms.

All providers will be invited to carry out a post-inspection survey.

Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver will also invite sector representatives to a series of roundtable meetings “to share their thoughts on the renewed framework”.

Julie McCulloch, director of strategy and policy at leaders’ union ASCL, today welcomed Ofsted’s efforts to provide assurance to schools and colleges, but said “the fact remains that the timeline is far too rushed and the five-point grading system proposed is fundamentally flawed”.

“The assurance that the sector needs is for Ofsted and the government to rethink the current proposals and then introduce the new inspection system in a less frantic manner giving schools and colleges time to absorb and prepare for what are very significant changes.

“A headlong rush towards a poorly constructed inspection system benefits nobody.”

But Oliver said he is “confident” the inspectorate’s reforms “will deliver an improved system of education inspection”.

“But we’re also serious about giving providers the support they need to engage confidently and fairly with the changes, and ensuring a steady and assured start to inspections under the renewed framework,” he added.

“I want to reassure everyone that we’re taking every possible measure to provide a consistent and high-quality inspection experience for all, right from the off.”

Ofsted also confirmed leaders’ all requests for an inspection deferral will be reviewed directly by its deputy chief inspector, “to make sure each case is treated with utmost sensitivity and consideration”.

For the first few months of inspections Ofsted will continually update an online FAQ document and produce blogs to “share reflections” and “counter any emerging myths”.

Ofsted is expected to provide more information in September, when it publishes its delayed response to its consultation.

Compulsory to 18? Too many still drop out at 16

Ten years have passed since it became compulsory to stay in education, apprenticeships or other work-based training until age 18. However, for most of this time only around 90 per cent of young people actually did so. We wouldn’t expect this rate to be 100 per cent as despite being a requirement, there are no repercussions for those that turn away from education, with increasing numbers becoming NEETs (not in education, employment or training) after they complete their GCSEs.

For most of the last decade this picture has been fairly static. However, new evidence suggests it’s time for policymakers to sit up and pay more attention to post-16 participation. Firstly, the Education Policy Institute’s annual report shows that the proportion of young people opting out of post-16 education entirely has been on the rise since the pandemic.

Secondly, it is young people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who are becoming particularly more likely to disengage.

There will of course be cases where students dropping out of education after their GCSEs does not harm their long-term prospects. Some will find good employment or begin endeavours that lead to fulfilling careers. But this won’t be true for the majority.

DfE’s own statistics show that only a minority of those that weren’t in post-16 education or training secured sustained employment, and there’s a plethora of research showing how qualifications achieved in the 16-19 phase improve employment prospects.

Disadvantage gap

Our report sets out just how stark the situation is. Of those disadvantaged young people who took their GCSEs in 2022, more than one in five did not begin studying towards any substantial post-16 qualifications, or alternatives such as apprenticeships or traineeships. This compares to less than one in ten of their non-disadvantaged peers. And the gap between the two groups has widened by two percentage points in just the last two years, equating to thousands more disadvantaged young people leaving education at age 16.

The focus of our report for 16-19 education is usually to provide an update on the disadvantage attainment gap. On this we find that disadvantaged students were 3.3 grades behind other students across their best three qualifications in 2024. This is marginally worse than in 2023 and reflects zero progress since we started the time series in 2017. However, the overall attainment gap for all 16-19 year olds may be even worse than our analysis indicates, as

it does not take account of those not in education post-16. It is likely to be the lower attaining disadvantaged students who struggle the most in this crucial transition point between school and college.

Given our findings, calls for increased disadvantage funding in the form of a student premium payment are more pertinent than ever. Increased disadvantage funding for 16-19 providers by itself, however, would not be sufficient. Disadvantaged young people must be in education before they can benefit from any additional support, so further work must be undertaken to understand exactly what is happening on the ground, and the government must engage with this worsening problem urgently.

Increasing disengagement

Research cannot yet tell us exactly what is driving this trend. One likely explanation is the increasing disengagement from the education system that has led to an absence epidemic in pre-16 education is now affecting participation post-16. The rate of persistent and severe absenteeism at school has doubled since the pandemic, and it is likely the very same young people are then disengaging from education entirely at the end of year 11. The fact that if not done properly, post-16 education for lower attainers can feel like a cycle of failure will also not help. What’s more, this problem is only likely to be exacerbated by the population bulge that is now working its way through the 16-19 phase. With more students vying for places in some areas, the most vulnerable young people may find it even harder to secure a place on a suitable post-16 course without greater support.

While research continues to demonstrate that compulsory education to age 18 is beneficial, to reap this benefit, the government must ensure that there is a suitable, accessible and appealing post-16 education offer for all young people, and better support mechanisms must be put in place to ensure the most vulnerable are not allowed to fall through the gaps.

Online learning flattens barriers in the age of devolution

Devolution in post-16 education isn’t a passing policy trend – it’s the direction of travel, whatever your political stripes. Whether you’re enthusiastic or cautious, the reality is that localism is here, and it’s expanding.

Thanks to technology, we live in an era of extraordinary accessibility. Entertainment, information and services are at our fingertips streaming into our homes. Sometimes, it sparks unlikely comebacks. Kate Bush’s resurgence through Stranger Things wasn’t just a pop culture moment – it reminded us that timing and access can bring long-standing talent back into the spotlight.

We should treat online learning the same way. It’s not new, but it’s never been more powerful. As we embrace devolution and build more responsive systems, we must not overlook the transformational potential of online education.

Local leaders understand their communities – the challenges, employers and opportunities. From tackling youth unemployment to green skills pathways, a local approach enables decisions closer to where they matter most.

Devolution gives colleges, training providers and community organisations the platform to shape provision that reflects local ambitions. But delivery models must not unintentionally narrow access. While “local” speaks to geography, skills challenges don’t respect borders, and neither do learners.

Flexibility: The other local solution

I spend a lot of time on the road, putting miles on my beloved motorbike visiting colleges, combined authorities and more. No two places are the same but the barriers learners face often are.

And while I have the freedom to choose my route, many don’t have access to transport or the flexibility to fit learning into their lives.

Not everyone can reach a training centre. Geography, travel costs, caring duties or health concerns can all make attendance a challenge.

That’s where online learning becomes essential. It opens doors for:

  • Rural and coastal learners
  • Parents and carers
  • Individuals with health needs
  • Shift workers
  • Adults returning to education

The list goes on. Online learning isn’t an add-on, it’s a core enabler of inclusion. At recent conferences, the message was clear: if we want inclusion, we need flexibility.

Like many Kate Bush tracks, online learning has stood the test of time in adapting and expanding and is now more relevant than ever.

Aligning with national strategy

The industrial strategy, Building a Britain Fit for the Future, makes clear that skills are key to growth. One pillar, ‘people,’ calls for a world-class technical education system.

Online learning supports that vision. It connects people to opportunity enabling reskilling, career shifts and wider participation.

Some of the best ideas aren’t new, they just need the right moment. Like Running Up That Hill, online learning is being recognised for what it’s always been: effective, accessible and essential.

Connecting the dots

If devolution is about local need, we need systems, not silos.

No one provider can do it all. Strong systems connect colleges, training providers, community learning, employers and local authorities working together.

That’s the power of devolution: connecting the dots. Or as Bush might say: less Cloudbusting, more clarity.

Don’t keep learners on the hill

In 2023, I wrote a Bon Jovi inspired article and said, “devolution is not incompatible with learner demand, but it is a barrier.” That still stands. When systems favour what’s nearby over what’s accessible, learners are left running up that hill.

Online learning flattens that hill. It meets people where they are. Like Bush’s chart return, it shows trusted solutions still create transformative results.

Let’s not let geography decide futures

Devolution holds promise. Local leaders can build bold, inclusive systems. But that means going beyond what’s on the doorstep.

Let’s stay true to the spirit of localism meeting learners where they are, in classrooms or online. As Kate Bush might say, stop wuthering and build systems that help every learner fly, not fall.

JCB Academy breaks ground with Ofsted grade 1

An independent training provider specialising in construction and engineering apprenticeships has been upgraded by Ofsted to ‘outstanding’.

JCB Academy, headquartered in Staffordshire, was praised for its work with “world-leading organisations” to develop curriculums and “exceptional” teaching to help hundreds of engineering and construction apprentices.

In a glowing grade 1 report published this morning, Ofsted found that apprentices thrive in their studies and go onto supervisory and leadership roles after completing their apprenticeships at JCB Academy.

At the time of its June 3 to 6 inspection, the ITP had 250 apprentices in learning, 135 of which were on the engineering technician apprenticeship, its most popular standard.

The provider was last inspected in 2019, where it was awarded a ‘good’ rating.

Inspectors were impressed that apprentices develop “mastery” in very sought-after skills in the engineering and construction sectors.

Though most apprentices start with little or no prior knowledge, the report said they quickly learn skills that make a “swift and lasting positive contribution in the workplace”.

They noted that most apprentices achieve their qualification and go onto long-term employment, with many “securing promotions to supervisory and leadership roles”.

JCB Academy principal Jim Bailey said the firm was “pleased” that its apprenticeship programme has been recognised as ‘outstanding’ in every category. 

He said: “This achievement reflects the exceptional commitment of our staff, the dedication of our apprentices, and the valuable partnerships we maintain with dedicated and passionate employer partners.

“At The JCB Academy, we remain committed to providing an industry-focused education that prepares learners with the skills, character, and confidence necessary for success in their chosen careers.”

Apprentices were found to have high attendance to lessons, a good understanding of extremism, and often exceeded their expected progress. Ofsted pointed out that sometimes, apprentices have instructed more experienced colleagues on how to operate unfamiliar equipment in the workplace.

The watchdog’s report added: “Level 3 engineering technician apprentices learn to use industry-standard software for their computer-aided design drawings rapidly and skilfully.” 

The inspectorate also complimented tutors for “skilfully supporting” apprentices to build confidence and character and providing comprehensive career advice.

Apprentices also gain a “deep understanding” of diverse career pathways and receive tailored support to help them achieve their ambitious goals.

“Exceptional teaching helps apprentices thrive in their studies,” inspectors said.

JCB Academy subcontracts construction apprenticeship provision to Accxel Limited to 47 apprentices, half of which were aged under 18 when enrolling. 

Inspectors said leaders have input “rigorous assurance processes” to understand the quality of education, including within its subcontracted provision.

“They undertake frequent learning walks, annual lesson observations and apprentice and employer surveys. Leaders take precise and well-considered actions where necessary to improve the provision’s quality continuously,” the report said.

Governance at JCB Academy was found to be “highly effective”. Senio leaders provide governors with detailed information on performance of apprentices and course, which they use their expertise to hold leaders to account.