Ofsted reveals how it will inspect providers’ AI use

Ofsted will not assess FE providers’ use of AI “as a stand-alone part” of inspections – but the tech’s impact on outcomes for learners will be looked at. 

Guidance published by the watchdog this morning reveals how it will evaluate FE providers’ use of such tools during inspections.

The inspectorate has also released new research into so-called AI “early adopter” school and FE colleges – which revealed that some are developing their own chatbots. 

Ofsted chief Sir Martyn Oliver said: “As the use of AI in education increases, we need to better understand how schools and colleges are using this technology to take advantage of its potential, as well as manage the risks it poses for pupils, learners and staff.”

AI not standalone part of Ofsted checks

The new guidance states inspectors will not look at providers’ use of the technology “as a stand-alone part” of their assessments and won’t “directly evaluate” its use.

Part of the reason for this is Ofsted does not “not have the evidence we would need to define good use of AI for the purposes of inspection or regulation”. 

But Oliver stressed the watchdog “can consider the impact a provider’s use has on the outcomes and experiences of children and learners”.

Any evaluation “of the use of AI will ask whether the provider has made sensible decisions”. 

As part of this, inspectors could ask how leaders ensure any use “supports the best interests of children and learners”. 

Assessing AI’s risks

When any AI is used by learners at an FE provider, inspectors will assess if this is being done in their “best interests”. 

If learners are deemed to be using it “inappropriately, inspectors may evaluate how the provider has responded and addressed the impact of this”. 

The guidance says that while the risks associated with the tech “will not be evaluated separately in our inspections, they will be addressed when they have implications for areas that are already considered”. 

This can include data protection, safeguarding and bias and discrimination. 

“Any evaluation that Ofsted makes is about the provider’s decision-making, what they have considered, and the impacts on children and learners, not about the tool itself,” the guidance says.

“Inspectors only need to consider AI when it is relevant to something specific in their evaluations.”

‘Early adopter’ research

The guidance was informed by research, also released this morning, into how 21 “early adopter” schools, colleges and MATs are integrating AI into teaching, learning and admin.

Research suggested that FE colleges were “more likely” to permit learners to use AI unsupervised due to their age.

In total, four senior college staff spoke to researchers earlier this year – they had all started their “AI journey” in 2022 and 2023 

Most settings had an “AI champion” charged with getting staff to “embrace” the tech. They typically created a “buzz” and “played a vital role in demystifying” it to address “anxieties and build confidence”. 

In larger settings champions would bring “together their data management teams, IT systems managers and curriculum leads” as AI “requires skills and knowledge across more than one department”.

One champion, an FE college’s director of digital transformation, said a demonstration session was a “turning point” that convinced staff of ChatGPT’s significance in terms of both teacher workload and learning.

He told Ofsted: ““One of the first things the principal said was, ‘This is an employability skill I need students to have.’”

A critical lesson for staff was effective use of prompts. They added: “If you put junk in, you’ll get junk out.”

AI’s use was usually divided between those wanting to cut workload and those who wanted it to “directly” support learning. But the researchers found this “often shifted with time”. 

A few of the leaders were already developing and testing “their own AI chatbot, while others were in the process of doing so”. 

Some also highlighted how tools “allowed teachers to personalise and adapt resources, activities and teaching for different groups of pupils”, including young carers and refugees. 

A ‘wild west’

However, most were “at the early stages of developing a longer-term strategy” on how to integrate AI into their curriculums as they had not yet considered how to combine it with pedagogy. 

One of the reasons for this is there are “not many… tools tailored to individual school or college contexts”. Some bosses also had not thought “strategically about what success with AI looked like or how to evaluate its impact”.

One college deputy principal said it was difficult to envision a wider strategy as they were also learning “day by day”.

A principal said: “It’s the Wild West and all we are at the minute is the sheriff. What comes in and what goes out of the town is what we’re managing to deal with at the minute.”

Safe use

Leaders were said to be “clear about the risks of AI around bias, personal data, misinformation and safety”. 

Some had a separate AI policy, while others added it to “relevant existing policies including those for safeguarding, data protection, staff conduct, and teaching and learning”. 

But “the pace of change meant that many leaders were updating their AI policies as often as monthly”. 

Earlier this month, the government published toolkits and guidance on how colleges should plan to use AI.

Finding Governors for Schools… and now FE too

Governors for Schools has been handed a two-year £879,000 contract to deliver FE’s governor recruitment service.

The Department for Education contract win marks a return by the charity to the delivery of free FE recruitment services after it lost a similar contract in 2016 under its old name of School Governors’ One-Stop Shop.

The service helps colleges with difficult-to-fill governor vacancies and provides bespoke help for those in intervention.

Peridot Partners, an education recruitment firm, had delivered the scheme since 2020.

Governors for Schools already offers a free governor recruitment service to schools and academy trusts, and a paid “enhanced recruitment service” for all education providers, including colleges.

Its chief executive Hannah Stolton told FE Week it bid for the contract so the charity could deliver a free service for colleges.

“We have historically been able to offer it free to colleges, but we are having to charge now, so that was a key driver,” she said. “And we want to be able to offer it to all colleges, not just those that can afford to pay.

“We’re in the position now where we absolutely need to be sustainable going forward, like many charities so this contract came at the right time for us.”

Stolton said the organisation currently fills around 20 FE governor vacancies a year and has “quite a number” of vacancies on its books from colleges seeking the charity’s paid service.

The DfE service is only available to FE corporations, sixth-form college corporations and designated institutions that are referred to the scheme by DfE officials.

Colleges in intervention, receiving FE commissioner help, or that are located in remote areas will get a fast-track referral to the service.

Nominations for the referral can be made by the FE commissioner team, the DfE’s place-based teams, national leaders of further education or national leaders of governance.

Stolton said: “When we spoke to the DfE on Tuesday, they said, ‘some of these colleges are ones that we have put through the process before,’ so obviously, they are ones that have struggled historically.”

Governor recruitment targets

The contract, signed this week, will run for two years with the possibility of a one-year extension.

Stolton said the DfE has imposed a target of placing 20 per cent of roles with ethnic minority applicants and 50 per cent with women. Last year, Governors for Schools filled vacancies with 40 per cent of people from ethnic minorities.

“The service is designed to strengthen governance in colleges by supporting the recruitment of a diverse range of appropriately skilled and knowledgeable governors to key roles on governing boards,” the 2025 tender notice said.

The previous contract delivered by Peridot Partners was worth £458,000 and demanded the delivery of a minimum of 137 “well-matched, diverse and lasting” governor appointments across three financial years. 

A pre-procurement notice, published in December, revealed the DfE was aiming “subject to budget availability” for the renewed service to recruit 210 governors over the contract term.

The official tender specified that the target was a minimum of 140 “appropriately skilled and diverse” governors across two years, with a minimum of 60 appointments in the first year.

Should the contract be extended for one year, Governors for Schools will have to place a minimum of 210 governors spread across the three years.

Stolton said she was “confident” they would meet the minimum targets as it placed 2,000 governors across the education sector last year and it has a team with FE college recruitment experience.This service replaced an earlier version called the inspiring FE governance matching service, launched by the Education and Training Foundation in 2017. The DfE had funded the scheme until 2021-22.

Foundation apprenticeship success could ‘add risk’

The introduction of foundation apprenticeships could place this year’s record apprenticeships budget under strain, a senior official has suggested.

Speaking on day two of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) annual conference in London this week, the Department for Education’s apprenticeships director warned of potential “savings” and “trade offs” if the new scheme, launching this August, became too popular. 

Kate Ridley-Pepper highlighted that the DfE’s apprenticeships budget was “99 per cent fully spent” in recent years. 

She told delegates: “As we look to the future, it is worth reflecting on the fiscal context. In 2023-24, 99 per cent of our £2.5 billion apprenticeship budget was spent, and that picture is likely to be very similar for 2024-25.

“And while thankfully not all large employers utilise all of their levy funds, which enables us to give 30 per cent of our budget and invest that in SMEs, the position is not sustainable in the long run”.

Ridley-Pepper cited rising demand for higher-level apprenticeships, which attract higher levels of funding than lower-level programmes, as the reason for “tough decisions” about how to fund the government’s new growth and skills offers, including new short courses in specific subjects from April.

Foundation apprenticeships, new eight-month programmes designed for young people, come online this August. Skills minister Jacqui Smith told MPs this week she hopes for 30,000 young foundation apprentices. 

Other pressures on the budget could come from reduced duration apprenticeships and the removal of English and maths rules earlier this year, which the government believes could generate 10,000 new starts. 

Then there is the widely anticipated rush to start level 7 apprenticeships before January when funding is removed for new entrants aged 22 and over. 

Asked by AELP chief executive Ben Rowland about how one could convince the Treasury that spending on “loads of” youth foundation apprenticeships could help reduce rising NEET levels, Ridley-Pepper said she needed “compelling cost-benefit arguments”.

She added: “As I say, we’ve spent 99 per cent of our budget in the last couple of years. So there is a slight, not risk exactly, but if [foundation apprenticeships] were popular, that might cause pressures that mean we have to look elsewhere to make other savings and trade offs, unless we can provide that case for additional funding.

“But there isn’t a lot of additional funding in the system”.

The DfE’s apprenticeship budget has risen to £3.075 billion this year.

Assessment reforms ‘just a correction’, says Bauckham

Apprentices should expect simpler and “streamlined” assessments under Ofqual’s proposed reforms, the chief regulator has said. 

Sir Ian Bauckham gave a keynote address at AELP’s annual conference on Monday, days after the assessment watchdog published consultation proposals to scrap end point assessment requirements and allow providers to do some assessments in-house. 

He claimed his reforms were “about adjusting and improving the system, making it more streamlined” and “increasing simplicity”.

End point assessments have brought “lots of benefits in terms of reliability, trustworthiness, rigor and esteem,” Bauckham said. 

Ofqual publishes ‘flexible’ apprenticeship assessment rules

“But it’s also brought some problems, and those problems include complexity, levels of duplication, repetition and in some cases, too much burden and delays on getting assessments.

“All of that has accumulated to cause some levels of frustration among both apprentices and training providers.”

The regulator was keen to stress that reforms didn’t necessarily mean wholesale upheaval for apprentices, particularly on programmes where assessment is already working well.

Charlotte Bosworth, group chief executive of Lifetime Training and until recently managing director of assessment organisation Innovate Awarding, told the conference: “If the learner experience is where it needs to be, if the quality is right, if you believe the time, cost and effort that is being spent and if the assessment is absolutely right, don’t change it”.

Bauckham replied: “What these reforms are intended to do is put in a correction that brings things back to the middle and address some of those concerns, but absolutely not throwing the baby out with the bath water”. 

Ofqual’s consultation closes August 27, 2025.

It follows the government’s revised assessment principles for apprenticeships announced earlier this year. 

One of those new principles was allowing training providers to do some of the assessment of their apprentices themselves. Currently, all assessments must be done by awarding organisations (AOs) and must take place at the end of the apprenticeship programme. New assessments will be able to take place during, rather than at the end, of an apprenticeship.

The current system of end point assessments has come under criticism in recent years. Training providers have complained about high costs and bureaucracy. And crippling assessor shortages in some sectors have left apprentices waiting months longer than planned to complete their apprenticeship, leading to dropouts and low achievement rate scores for training providers.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 502

Sharon Ryan

Assistant Principal – Students, Bradford College

Start date: June 2025

Previous job: Head of Disability Services, Bradford College

Interesting fact: Sharon has worked in FE for over 20 years and has taken part in a lot of interesting events, but her claim to fame is that she once shared a stage with both the Dalai Lama and Clare Balding

Mark Burrows

Group Principal – Adult and Higher Education, Capital City College Group

Start date: August 2025

Previous Job: Deputy Chief Executive, Southport Education Group

Mark enjoys pushing his limits through endurance challenges. Last year, he successfully completed five triathlons over the course of just one weekend.

Oliver: Postponing Ofsted inspections too risky

Ofsted chief inspector has criticised calls to postpone the launch of new-style inspections, saying any delay would be “dangerous” and “seriously worrying”.

From November, inspections across early years, schools and further education will follow Ofsted’s new reformed inspection model; replacing inspection reports with report cards and a new five-point scale of grades.

But it was revealed this month that confirmed plans for reformed inspections won’t be released until September, leaving colleges and training providers just weeks to prepare for November inspections. This is because Ofsted needed more time to analyse consultation responses.

Full inspections will not take place in September or October so inspectors can be trained. Monitoring visits and new provider monitoring visits can still go ahead.

The pace of Ofsted’s inspection reforms, and the short timescale between announcing details in September and launching inspections in November, has angered unions. 

Two leaders’ unions, the Association of Schools and College Leaders (ASCL) and the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), are considering asking their members to quit as Ofsted inspectors.

On Monday, the leaders of four education unions wrote to education secretary Bridget Phillipson requesting a pause on the new inspection regime from November to the start of the 2026/27 academic year.

The letter, signed by the general secretaries of ASCL, NAHT, NEU and NASUWT, warned: “If the responses to the consultation exercise indicate that significant revisions to Ofsted’s original proposals are required, then it is not clear how they could be made in the very short period of time that would be available”.

That same day, Ofsted chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver was a keynote speaker at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) annual conference. AELP itself suggested new-style inspections shouldn’t be introduced until January. 

Responding to a question from FE Week, Sir Martyn said his advice to the secretary of state on how to respond to the unions’ demands would be “private”, before then listing off reasons why delaying inspections was “seriously worrying”.

“I would worry, seriously worry, about not inspecting for the whole of September, October, November and December,” he said.

“Whilst everyone in here [training providers], 88 per cent of you get ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, there are some 12 per cent where it’s not good enough for learners and apprentices. I would worry what’s happening in those sectors.”

He concluded: “The question is, do we want the pause of inspection, or do we want to continue on with the education inspection framework? But I think no inspection is a dangerous and bad thing”.

Elsewhere in his speech, the chief inspector praised the training sector for increasing apprenticeship achievement rates last year, and congratulated the 88 per cent of the 161 apprenticeship inspections this year that scored ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ results. 

Sir Martyn said he was “really sorry” to have delayed publishing his final inspection proposals. 

He added: “We fully intend to read every bit of feedback before we publish any improvements to what we proposed in February.

“Our consultation has provided us with a great deal of information to consider. We had over 6,500 responses from parents, providers and representative bodies. We’ve been testing inspection methodology and gathering feedback from providers who took part in well over 200 test visits.”

PAC: T Levels could remain ‘minority pursuit’ without serious campaign

T Levels could remain a “minority pursuit” if ministers fail to achieve a “critical mass” of student enrolments by clarifying career pathways and improving employer engagement, MPs have warned.

Parliament’s public accounts committee (PAC) recommended the Department for Education enter “campaign mode” and set out “publicly” how its flagship qualification fits with other qualifications and career routes.

In a report released today following its inquiry into T Levels, the PAC urged the DfE not to “lose focus” and detail a plan to improve employer awareness through local skills plans after finding only a third of businesses knew about the qualification.

The probe followed a National Audit Office report in March that highlighted doubts about the scalability of the technical education route for 16 to 19-year-olds after finding student number forecasts were missed in three-quarters of subjects.

PAC chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: “T Levels have the potential to be a significant force for good in equipping young people with everything they need for their burgeoning careers.

“But without the wider awareness in industry and critical mass of student enrolments, T Levels may remain very much a minority pursuit, when they could become a natural and enriching step in many students’ lives”.

A DfE spokesperson said it would consider the PAC recommendations “carefully” and respond in due course.

Understanding college costs

The PAC made six recommendations, including speeding up updates to teaching content to “meet evolving skills gaps”, and gaining a better understanding of how awarding organisation fees and costs impact the T Level-related funding pressures faced by colleges.

The report concluded T Levels have a “risky” all-or-nothing assessment approach – a point raised by City & Guilds – where failing one part of the course leads to an overall fail, which deters enrolments.

The PAC also recommended the introduction of a workforce strategy to support colleges recruiting and retaining T Level teachers “especially given that T Levels themselves are addressing areas of skills shortages”.

Benefits of T Levels uncertain

Education civil servants told MPs in April that T Levels needed 60,000 to 70,000 students to enrol each year to be viable.

The NAO report said the DfE feared T Levels would be a major value-for-money risk if they failed to offer more benefits than other level 3 qualifications.

While the DfE’s best judgment is T Levels are 25 per cent more valuable than other level 3 qualifications and bring £23,000 more lifetime benefits to students who achieve them, the committee found this was “very uncertain”.

With permanent secretary Susan Acland-Hood’s estimation of 66,000 enrolments by 2029, the DfE expects T Levels to reap £8.10 of benefits for every £1 spent.

PAC members pointed out the DfE did not track two of the four benefits associated with T Levels: student earnings data and employer confidence.

It recommended the department refine its benefit tracking, update the estimated economic benefit for T level students, and define clear milestones to better understand whether progress, for example on pass rates, aligns with expectations.

“For these benefits to be realised, the department needs to ensure students enrol, complete and pass T Levels,” the report said.

Clifton-Brown added: “As well as providing true clarity on what T Levels can offer interested students and employers, government must allow far more flexibility for the qualification for it to be a tool that can swiftly meet needs where they arise.”

The PAC said of the DfE: “It expects pass rates to increase over time, as T Levels mature, but the proportion of students passing has fallen from 97 per cent in summer 2022 to 89 per cent in summer 2024. It does not have a target”.

One of the PAC’s main recommendations was the development of a “campaign approach” to raising student awareness of T Levels within six months.

It also recommended an examination of how curriculums could be tailored to appeal to a “diverse student group” including women, after it was revealed women were underrepresented on engineering T Level courses.

Industry placement pressure 

The report also raised the risk of colleges not being able to secure enough industry placements. T Level placements are a mandatory 315 hours, or 45 days, and must be completed over the two-year course.

While the PAC noted recent changes, such as allowing 20 per cent of placements to be done remotely, and this week’s boost to employer financial incentives, it said colleges would need to find “significantly more” placements if student numbers increased in line with forecasts.

We must build to deliver our city’s big reconstruction goals

Big changes are on the horizon for Bradford. After decades out of the limelight, our city is finally in the spotlight for all the right reasons. 
 
As we celebrate the rollout of Bradford 2025 City of Culture, other exciting initiatives grow closer. The Bradford City Village development promises to create 1,000 new houses, and the just-announced Southern Gateway Scheme would double our city centre and make it one of the largest regeneration sites in the UK.  

With talk of £4.5 billion transport upgrades and substantial economic and social benefits, this period of renewal will transform Bradford. However, add in the government’s target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament, and we start to see a separation between national agendas and local skills gaps. 

Just before her Spring Statement, the chancellor announced £600 million worth of investment to train up to 60,000 more skilled construction workers. Given the scale of impending capital and infrastructure work in our city alone, this funding is both timely and urgently needed. 

Bradford College is well oversubscribed for construction courses. We receive four applications for every place available. The sector-wide difficulty of recruiting experienced lecturers (caused by FE’s inability to keep pace with construction salaries) is problematic, but for Bradford College, the real issue is capacity.  
 
As one of the region’s largest FE providers, which has invested over £40 million of funding into new facilities over the last three years, we are ready to scale our impact even further. With the right capital investment, our ambition is to create a flagship technical excellence college in construction.  
 
Our proposal will be a catalyst for regeneration and produce the skills desperately needed to deliver the government’s social mobility agenda, the transition to net zero, and infrastructure-led economic recovery. More than this, a new technical excellence college in construction will solve another Bradford challenge – large scale under-employment.Sadly, geography and poverty still dictate life chances and social mobility in the UK. This point was underscored by the recent Sutton Trust opportunities index report. Take Bradford South – the constituency of deputy speaker Judith Cummins MP.  This area is classified as one of the most disadvantaged in England but is also where we recruit about a third of our 16 to 18-year-old cohort. 
 
Despite extensive partnership work, 37 per cent of Bradford South’s young people are on free school meals, and only 14.1 per cent of those achieve English and maths passes. Around 12.6 per cent complete a degree by 22, and only 7.4 per cent have moved to a different region by age 28. 
 
Likewise, although NEET (not in education, employment or training) numbers here are lower than the national average, we also see a huge amount of economic inactivity as soon as young people reach 18. Bradford has the largest cohort of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming universal credit in the UK (11 per cent). These young people are massively behind national achievement rates: nearly -11 per cent at level 2 and -12 per cent at level 3.  

Construction is a West Yorkshire local skills improvement plan priority sector and acute skills shortage area. Establishing Bradford College as a technical excellence college would promote high-quality training pathways through to level 3 and support the jobs plan, green skills manifesto and regional growth championed by West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin. 

In the last year, Bradford College has opened £3.5 million vocational T Level facilities and a higher education STEM facility called Garden Mills after a £6.9 million refurbishment project. Our £17 million Junction Mills building under construction is also set to become the home of our modern automotive curricula in 2026 – specialising in electric and hybrid vehicles. 

Capital investment in a new technical excellence college in construction would bolster these world-leading facilities and anchor Bradford’s ‘knowledge quarter’, driving a more diverse, future-ready workforce. With our construction results already surpassing national averages by 9 per cent, we’re ready to act at pace and help shape the city’s next chapter. 

Marples trial: Witnesses end with 3aaa ‘fraud’ scrutiny

Civil servants investigating 3aaa “had it in” for some providers, “jumped to conclusions” about data manipulation and took a “guilty until proven innocent” approach, internal government emails shown to the High Court suggest.

Allegations of “fraud” that led to the apprenticeship provider collapsing in 2018 have played a part in the Marples’ family lawsuit against the Department for Education, even though it was two years after the change in control issue at the heart of the case.

The DfE has relied on this as a key part of its defence, referencing multiple other cases of alleged data issues and clawbacks at providers owned by Peter Marples.

David Smales and Keith Hunter, who have 20- and 30-years’ experience in the civil service respectively, gave evidence to the High Court today. They said 3aaa had manipulated data to enhance qualification achievement rates, namely by “alteration of learners’ planned end dates and withdrawal dates”.

This put £521,000 at risk of recovery, plus 3aaa owed £1.2 million worth of Apprenticeship Grant for Employers (AGE) funding that should have been paid to employers. A referral was made to the police, but no further action was taken. 

Adam Solomon, KC for the claimants, attacked the competence and investigative approach of the DfE officials.

Smales, who Solomon pointed out had been accredited as a counter fraud specialist through a four-week residential course with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, admitted not all learner files at 3aaa had been reviewed because their investigation “didn’t get to that stage”.

Of 3,000 learner files, the then Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) identified 253 to closely examine. 

Solomon asked why he didn’t look at all of the underlying data. Smales told the court: “Had 3aaa not gone into liquidation, and had they challenged the findings of the investigation instead, then at that point it would have been necessary for the ESFA to go to 100 per cent audit.”

3aaa went bust in October, a month after co-founders Peter Marples and Di McEvoy Robinson resigned. 

Hunter said it “wouldn’t have been a good use of public money to continue investigating a liquidated provider”. 

‘Does he not learn?’

The ESFA’s data science team calculates numbers of learners who withdraw from their training across the whole sector.

“It turned out that the average was 7 per cent, with a median of 5 per cent. At 3aaa, Keith [Hunter] calculated that the figure was about 20 per cent. That was obviously a much higher rate than usual anyway,” Smales said.

Solomon asked Smales if he knew what was meant by the “mean” and the “median” in statistical analysis. He answered “no. I could guess, but I’m not prepared to take a guess”.

The KC then showed a draft briefing paper Smales had prepared before the investigation concluded, which included the words “in addition to data manipulation”. These words were crossed out by his boss who included a note which said Smales was suggesting 3aaa was “guilty until proven innocent”.

Solomon also read out an earlier email from Smales who had received analysis of 3aaa data from Hunter following allegations from multiple whistleblowers inside the company. He told his bosses: “I had a chat with Keith Hunter earlier this week about 3aaa and data manipulation and the conclusion is it appears 3aaa has been manipulating data for at least two years.”

Solomon showed an email from ESFA deputy director Karen Sherry to Smales’ line manager, named in the court as Ms Allen, which said: “The more I think about it the more angry I am getting. This should have been shared with me and you BEFORE BEING SENT TO DAVID. Does he not learn?” Sherry was referring to Hunter.

Sherry’s email added that “we need to do an audit” and “we need to be very careful about using words like 3aaa manipulated data”.

Allen replied: “I just don’t get it. It gets to a point where I feel I can’t even share anything anymore for fear of what he will do! Despite warnings.”

Sherry then said: “He has ‘got it in’ for certain providers and will do anything to damage them!” She added: “I showed Paul and he said the same as us. Completely out of order. What I am really cross about is he hasn’t told us he is doing it and jumped to conclusions before further work.”

Hunter told the court he was doing “what I considered to be my responsibility under the civil service code to safeguard public funding”.

While Smales told the court that accounting firm PwC “confirmed the findings of the 3aaa Investigation”, he admitted to Solomon he could only “suspect” 3aaa had manipulated data.

Smales and Hunter still work in the DfE’s investigations team.

All fingers pointed to Lee Marples

Smales also told the court that, as a result of the interviews with former 3aaa managers, “all fingers were being pointed at Lee Marples having been the perpetrator, on the instruction of the CEO of 3aaa at relevant times, Peter Marples”.

This “corroborated what 3aaa’s new management had told us in their response of 3 October to the ESFA’s allegations”.

Lee Marples, the nephew of Peter Marples and who was 3aaa’s resources manager at the time, attempted to distance himself from the responsibility of data submissions to the SFA during his evidence, claiming that manipulation would require “collusion across multiple people within the business”. 

He told the court how funding rules are “very subjective” and there are “multiple different opinions of what people constitute as in learning, as a break-in-learning and a start date”.

James Segan KC, for the DfE, pointed to claims of “manipulation to inflate the organisation’s value” including “shortening aim lengths, restarting withdrawn learners, starts claimed without learning taking place”. The barrister asked: “These were all things that were happening, yes?”

Lee Marples replied: “There are reasons why aim lengths should be shortened, because they could be input incorrectly in the first place. There were various components and each of these would have a different timeframe against them because of the volume of data we were processing.

“There would be legitimate reasons to change the dates if they were wrong. The restarting of withdrawn learners – if a learner comes back after they’d previously withdrawn and hadn’t been on a break in learning, learners could be restarted.”

The court heard that one of Lee Marples’ team members told the ESFA: ” …well aware that Lee Marples [was] actively changing information in the Maytas system which would be submitted in the ILR. This usually revolved around end dates for apprentices being manipulated. This was a constant issue.”

Segan added that the team member said he would “correct Lee’s changes to end dates but would often find them changed back. He never confronted Lee directly but described it as a kind of ongoing silent battle between them.”

Other 3aaa workers made similar allegations against Lee Marples.

Lee Marples denied all data manipulation accusations.

‘Poor use of language’

Former SFA director turned college principal Keith Smith denied having a direct role in 3aaa’s change of control during his evidence, despite making significant amendments to official government communication about the process.

He also admitted to “poor use of language” in enforcement rules that led to the multi-million-pound sale of the training provider falling through.

Smith, who is now CEO of Harrow, Richmond & Uxbridge Colleges (HRUC), held multiple roles in civil service for 30 years until 2022. During 3aaa’s proposed sale to TLP he was an SFA director who worked on the implementation of post-16 funding policy. 

A member of Smith’s team, Sharon Forton, took the lead on 3aaa’s change of control request.

In early November she sent an email suggesting the case should be approved. Smith, who told the court he had limited involvement in this specific case, replied “no further questions from me…if Peter is happy to approve I would want to make sure we review this carefully over the next few months to make sure nothing changes or starts to raise alarm bells”.

But following the refusal letter a month later, Forton asked Smith for his advice on how to respond to 3aaa. Smith made series of track changes that included concern around the business plan, namely TLP’s expected non-levy growth. 

And in January 2017, Forton drafted a letter to then skills minister Robert Halfon to inform him of the 3aaa situation. Smith made significant changes to this and changed the name of the sender from Sir Peter Lauener to himself. Solomon pointed out this was despite what Smith claimed to be a “lack of knowledge” about the case.

Solomon showed Smith an email he sent following conversations with 3aaa about their potential sale following a tip off in September 2016. Smith’s internal response was “they know the rules too well not to proceed without our agreement” and another said “we must approve any sale”.

Solomon put to Smith: “You were under impression that at the time you had the power to veto a proposed sale, wasn’t you?”

Smith denied this, stating that while he knows “how this type of language might look”, what he is referring to in those emails “is the process where we could approve the continuation of a contract”.

He added: “I accept that was a poor use of language, I was never at any point approving a sale per say, what I was saying here is about approval of transfer of contract.”

Kirsty Evans, a former SFA director of funding who now works in the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) which Sir Peter Lauener chairs, also gave evidence to the court. She was pressed on the impact of levy funding reforms and achievability of TLP’s business plan around non-levy growth.

An email from Evans at the time said projections were “challenging but not unreasonable” and that 3aaa needed to “diversify” followed by a list of unanswered questions for TLP and 3aaa. 

She also questioned whether or not the possible new investors and contract holders were “more likely to pull the plug, cut and run, than the current owners of 3aaa who had demonstrated their commitment” to the training market. 

Allen and Linford

It was claimed by Tony Allen, a witness for the claimants who worked in the SFA’s large contracts unit until May 2016, that Smith and Sir Peter would take issue with private providers making profit.

Smith strongly denied this to the court, stating that private providers are a critical part of a healthy training market. He said there was concern about “excess profits” because a core responsibility of the agency was to deliver value for money, but there was a “difference between profits and excess profits” and he would expect Allen to understand that.

Allen also claimed he heard, but had no evidence, that Smith would meet former FE Week editor Nick Linford regularly, while Solomon accused the SFA director of being under the influence of Linford and taking everything he said at face value. This was largely due to a tip-off that Linford gave the SFA in 2016 that led to the KPMG investigation of 3aaa. 

“I not only deny the allegations, I do not believe there is any possible basis for them to be made about me,” Smith said. 

The court heard Allen questioned about his assertion that changes of control at other apprenticeship providers would happen “with little in the way of questioning” from the SFA.

Allen claimed to recollect changes of control to this effect for Lifetime Training and Babington, which he said took place in 2015.

They in fact took place in 2016, one of which was after he left the SFA. He admitted he had no involvement in either process during cross-examination.

Allen told the court: “My memory has failed me on this occasion.”

The court will hear from experts for both sides tomorrow followed by a week’s break before closing statements on July 9 and 10.

You can read our report on the opening statements here, cross-examination of Peter Marples here, and evidence from ex-SFA chief Sir Peter Lauener here.