The exam board OCR has paused its planned changes to a geography GCSE paper amid “unanswered questions” about the future of qualifications during the government’s curriculum review.
But in an update to schools today, the exam board told leaders to “continue to teach our current GCSE geography B specification (J384) for the remainder of this academic year and from September 2025”.
OCR said it was “always mindful of your workload and want to make sure you have everything you need to prepare for the delivery of any new qualification”.
It said its decision was the result of “feedback and two other key factors” – one of which was the government’s curriculum and assessment review, which will not issue its final report until the autumn.
“With many unanswered questions about the future of GCSEs, we believe it’s wise to wait for the Department for Education’s review outcomes later this year before making significant changes.”
Improvements to current paper planned
The other factor was the “development process and timelines”.
“We aim to develop the best possible qualifications for you and your students, and provide you with clarity and sufficient planning time for any changes we may make.
“We’re currently unsure how much longer the development process will take and, as the summer term approaches, want to offer you more certainty for next year.”
OCR added that it had received “lots of feedback” about the proposed new paper, for which it was “extremely grateful”.
It wants to use the feedback to make “some smaller improvements to our current specification (J384)”.
Options being explored include offering enhanced support with new and updated resources, “improved accessibility” and “factual content updates to the specification”.
“We’ll notify you in advance of any changes we’ll be making. However, our aim will be to enhance the experience of our qualification for you and your students.”
The exam board also apologised “for any inconvenience this news may cause.
“Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries or concerns – we’d be happy to help.”
A government scheme that paid disadvantaged teenagers to stay in education could have harmed their employment and earnings potential, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
In a new study – the first to track longer-term education, earnings and employment outcomes of Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) recipients – researchers found that while claimants were more likely to have stayed in full-time education post-16, they were also more likely to claim out-of-work benefits later.
Limited education outcomes
EMA was introduced by the last Labour government in 2004. It handed out 16- to- 19-year-olds from poorer backgrounds weekly cash payments of up to £30 if they attended school or college. The idea was it would incentivise continuing full time study post-16 and help towards course-related costs such as transport.
But it was expensive, costing nearly £900 million a year in today’s prices. The coalition government abolished the scheme in England in 2011, replacing it with a much lower-cost college-run bursary fund.
EMA is still available to young people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Labour did pledge to bring it back in its 2017 and 2019 manifestos, but it did not appear in its 2024 election commitments.
Previous evaluations of EMA overstated its positive impact attainment, according to IFS’ new study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation.
Full-time education participation of 16-year-olds increased by 2.5 per cent because of EMA, half the previous estimate of 5 per cent.
However, IFS said that increase in participation did not lead to better qualification results for A-level or level 2 and 3 vocational students.
“Despite high uptake and attendance-based payments, EMA had no measurable impact on A-level results or vocational qualification attainment,” the report said.
EMA’s impact on specific groups of students was greater.
For SEND learners, the payments increased full-time education participation by 4 percentage points.
And for students with fewer than five A*-G grade GCSEs, EMA also increased participation by 4 percentage points.
Lower earnings down the line
Counterintuitively, researchers found receiving EMA reduced earnings by around 1 per cent each year when recipients were in their 20s.
This could be because EMA recipients were “discouraged” from part time work while at college, therefore reducing their work experience. Similarly, IFS suggested EMA could have incentivised students who would have done work-based training to study at college instead, with the former more likely to give them a better chance at higher earnings in their 20s.
“Our analysis suggests that students reduced their part-time work in response to receiving the EMA, and this appears to have harmed rather than helped their long-run labour market prospects.”
Nick Ridpath, research economist at the IFS, said: “The EMA, which cost billions through the 2000s, did not have the hoped-for positive effects on educational outcomes and later employment. Indeed, it looks like it may have had negative consequences by discouraging disadvantaged young people from getting work experience.
“The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments, which still fund this scheme, might want to take note.”
But EMA may have cut crime
While not an explicit objective of EMA, the IFS report suggests it may have contributed to a small reduction in crime.
IFS estimated EMA reduced the probability of convictions between the ages of 19 and 29 by 4 per cent.
The report said: “The EMA appears to have had a persistent negative impact on criminal behaviour that extended into later life.
“This is most likely due to its initial impact on criminal convictions at ages 16-18, as students diverted from criminal activity at younger ages become less likely to commit crimes at older ages.”
College turnaround specialist Martin Sim is set to retire from his job as interim principal of Bath College due to health concerns.
He will be replaced Jacqui Ford, who worked at Weston College for almost three decades, on March 3.
Sim took on the interim role at Bath College in April 2024 amid quality issues raised by Ofsted and financial concerns.
The college said Sim has “fulfilled” that role, in a statement today.
Sim, who initially retired 10 years ago but has since taken on multiple jobs as interim leader of troubled colleges, said he has decided to step back from full time work.
He will, however, continue in his role as an adviser to the FE Commissioner.
Sim said: “It has been a pleasure to collaborate with colleagues at Bath College, and we have ensured the college’s future. I would like to recognise the hard work and professionalism of the staff who have strived to keep everything progressing.”
Sim has spent over 40 years working in the FE sector. He oversaw the merger of Pendleton, Eccles and Salford Colleges to form Salford City College, becoming principal in 2010.
Since he retired in 2015 he has been parachuted in to West Nottinghamshire College, Barnfield College, Gateway College, Nottingham College and City College Southampton.
He served as a deputy FE Commissioner from 2019 to December 2023 and was made a CBE in the King’s birthday honours 2024.
Bath College’s governors said Jacqui Ford has agreed to join as interim principal while recruitment for the permanent post concludes in March.
Ford has held several leadership positions at Weston College since 1995, most recently as interim chief executive.
A spokesperson for Bath College said: “Jacqui is an accomplished senior leader with over 25 years of experience in the further education sector. She brings extensive senior leadership expertise, including roles as deputy principal, interim principal, and chief executive, specialising in strategic leadership, governance, and organisational transformation.
“She is passionate about education and creating opportunities for all and will bring valuable insight to Bath College’s continued improvement.”
Leicester College principal Verity Hancock has announced she will not return to the role due to her ongoing cancer treatment.
The 58-year-old has been on sick leave for the past five months and said she is due to undergo major surgery this month followed by more chemotherapy.
In a message to staff yesterday, shared with FE Week by Hancock, the principal said: “This is another difficult message to write but I don’t think it will be a surprise to many. The governors and I have taken the view that I won’t be able to return to my role at Leicester College.
“There are two main reasons for this decision. The first is practical and logistical. This treatment is lengthy. Even if I were to recover sufficiently to return, it would still be many months away, with no guarantee that a return would be possible in any case. The college needs a permanent leader to take it forward into the next strategic plan and beyond. You all need stability and certainty, as do those currently running the college.
“The second reason is more personal. Even if I was able to return, I know that I would not be able to do the job as well as I would like. Having undertaken the role for nearly 12 years, I know that nothing less than 100 per cent will do.”
Hancock became principal of Leicester College in January 2013. Prior to the role she was executive director of capacity and infrastructure at the then-Skills Funding Agency where she developed the National Careers Advice Service.
She has been involved in education since gaining a law degree from Oxford in 1988, holding positions with the City and Guilds London Institute, Training and Enterprise Councils and the Learning and Skills Council, including national director of funding, planning and performance for the latter.
Hancock has also been a board member of the Office for Students, a director of the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP), a trustee of the National Space Centre and of the Skills and Education Group. She also chaired the Student Loans Company’s advanced learning loans stakeholder group.
Shabir Ismail, who has worked at Leicester College since 2010, has been acting principal since Hancock’s departure.
The college, which is judged as ‘good’ by Ofsted and teaches around 8,000 learners, said it will be starting to plan for a permanent successor shortly.
Hancock told staff: “It’s a critical, full-on job with enormous commitment, time and energy required. It would not be fair on you, or the students, to assume that I would recover that energy, even if all the treatment is successful.
“The college needs someone who can bring all that to the role, and my priority for the foreseeable future must be to focus on my health so that I can be around for my family as long as possible.
“It has been the honour and privilege of my life to be your principal, and I hope I will be able to say a lot more about that when I say a proper goodbye at the end of the year. I will miss the college enormously but this is the right decision for me, and for the college.”
Danielle Gillett, chair of Leicester College, said: “Verity has been principal for 12 years and during that time has made a huge contribution to the college, positioning it firmly as the college of choice for young people and adults wishing to pursue technical and vocational education and training, and as a key local partner for many companies and organisations.
“The board and staff of the college are very sorry to see Verity go. We will miss her greatly and we wish her all the very best for the future.”
Former senior Ofsted inspectors behind the “alternative big listen” last year have launched their own consultation on new inspection plans, fearing the watchdog is asking leaders to “take it or leave it”.
Frank Norris and Colin Richards have created the “alternative big consultation” (ABC) to independently gather opinions on plans for new report cards.
The survey, which launches today and closes on April 4, will run alongside Ofsted’s own official 12-week consultation, which closes on April 28.
The watchdog’s plans have prompted concern in the sector. Leaders have questioned how inspectors will judge a greater number of areas without the length of inspections increasing.
There are also fears the scorecard system will make judgments less reliable.
Leaders asked if proposals are ‘fit for purpose’
The alternative big consultation comprises the same questions as the government’s own consultation on the plans, but also asks respondents if they believe the proposals are “fit for purpose”.
“We are disappointed that Ofsted has presented a model of inspection very similar to the previous one and with such a tight deadline that it feels like it’s a matter of ‘take it or leave it’,” said Richards.
Colin Richards
The watchdog’s 12-week consultation ends on April 28. The watchdog then has about six months to implement its new framework in November, and the lead-in time must include a pilot of the finalised framework.
Asked recently if Ofsted would push back its timeframe should the proposals require change, chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver said he would “respond to what the consultation tells us” and “will not do anything as a fait accompli”.
Richards said the ABC “will also allow respondents to suggest different features of a responsive inspection system, which we will share in the report of our results”.
“Ofsted has stated it is willing to be flexible in response to comments made about its proposals,” he said.
“But it is largely pursuing a similar approach to what has gone before. Although we believe that Ofsted’s proposals do not go far enough, we accept that a final decision needs to be made by Ofsted or any successor inspection agency.”
Norris said they hoped Ofsted will collaborate with and listen to the sector as it consults on its reforms.
Balance of power ‘too heavily with Ofsted’
He said he hoped this would “redress the balance of power/control which currently rests far too heavily with Ofsted”.
“We want to show that it is possible to create a system better fit for purpose,” he said.
“However, this will take some time and we will need the help of those who inspect and those who are inspected. We will continue our pursuit of a fairer, more trustworthy and respected inspection process.”
Frank Norris
Norris encouraged people to engage with the alternative big consultation, and also with the Ofsted consultation.
Last spring, the alternative big listen received thoughts from 1,368 respondents. It revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the watchdog, with nine in 10 deeming it “not fit for purpose”.
The official big listen meanwhile received more than 16,000 responses, making it the largest consultation in Ofsted’s history.
Richards said the ABL was launched “because we were not confident Ofsted would report without fear or favour and would most likely try to obfuscate and show themselves off in the best possible light”.
The online survey, which mirrors Ofsted’s consultation, can be found here.
It closes on April 4, and organisers say results will be published shortly afterwards.
An art and design college that helps a high proportion of students progress to prestigious London stage schools has been awarded its third consecutive ‘outstanding’ grade from Ofsted.
Following its top results in 2022 and 2009, Middlesborough-based The Northern School of Art was bestowed with grade one marks almost across the board, according to its latest inspection report, published today.
Inspectors found during their January 14 to 17 visit that the college’s 600-odd learners work “extremely hard” and demonstrate high levels of maturity when working together.
The watchdog highlighted the college’s “strong” contribution to skills needs. Stakeholders told inspectors they “welcomed” the college adapting new courses to “maintain currency with developments in the creative industries sector”.
Inspectors found the college highlights the diverse job opportunities available in the creative sector. As a result, “a high proportion of learners progress to prestigious stage schools in London”, the report said.
The college, which has two campuses in Middlesborough and Hartlepool, offers vocational qualifications, A-levels and access to higher education courses in art and design. At the time of inspection, there were 639 learners, the majority of which are on level 3 programmes, and an additional small cohort of adult and high needs learners.
The college was awarded grade one in all areas except its high needs provision, which was rated ‘good’.
Martin Raby, principal of The Northern School of Art, told FE Week: “The whole school community is delighted that we have become part of a very small and select group of further education colleges which have achieved three successive Ofsted outstanding ratings, going back to our 2009 inspection.
“I could not have wished for a better report. I am lucky to lead a friendly, dedicated and professional team, and to be able to rely on academic colleagues described by Ofsted as highly experienced lecturers who have subject expertise and industry experience.”
Inspectors made glowing remarks about students’ “exceptional” attitude to learning.
“Learners work extremely hard and participate fully in lessons, developing their artistic and creative talents,” Ofsted’s report said.
When working with each other, inspectors beamed at learners’ “sincere willingness” to learn and maturity when communicating with their peers.
On the level 3 diploma in acting for stage and screen course, students learn how to critique each other’s work constructively, objectively and supportively.
Meanwhile, teachers were found to be “highly experienced” with subject expertise and industry experience.
Lecturers have “a range of very successful teaching strategies” to help learners obtain the basic skills to build onto to more complex topics further on in their course.
The report said: “In the first year of the level 3 acting for stage and screen course, lecturers demonstrate principles of acting, and learners cover voice, physicality and characterisation. In the second year, learners move on to studying classical theatre and also focus on audition preparation and digital portfolios.”
In the college’s most popular course, the level 3 diploma in illustration and animation, the watchdog praised teachers for giving learners feedback that “guides them well” to future work.
Learners are “well prepared” for their next steps. Learners retaking GCSE maths also achieve well.
The college was found to have improved achievement rates since their last inspection in 2022.
Meanwhile, governors were praised for holding leaders to account effectively. Governors receive “comprehensive” board papers and also hear first-hand from staff and learners about challenges facing the school.
Raby said: “The inspection recognised that the school ensures that its curriculum aligns closely with the region’s specific arts and creative industries priorities, and that we provide an exceptionally current and relevant curriculum enabling learners to develop specialist knowledge and skills in creative arts, together with access to highly specialised equipment and resources that enhance their studies.
“Perhaps most gratifying was Ofsted’s recognition of the ethos of the school, noting that learners regard the school as a big family where they collaborate well with staff and peers, and that staff create a highly effective, calm, purposeful and welcoming learning environment where learners feel part of a supportive and creative community, also being valued, respected and comfortable expressing themselves.”
Getting published in FE Week is your chance to share insights, spark debate and influence thinking in the further education and skills sector.
If you have strong opinions on policy, a new idea to share or a fresh perspective on the big issues in education, training or apprenticeships, we want to hear what you have to say.
You don’t have to be a CEO or senior leader to write for FE Week. In fact, our Staffroom column is reserved exclusively for teaching and non-teaching professionals on the front line. We’d love to hear from students and apprentices too.
This guide will walk you through the essentials to getting your voice heard across the sector.
Find your crowd, make your pitch
Our readers span all the different types of provision, providers and occupations across further (and some higher) education, so if you think your idea may be too niche, it probably isn’t.
We welcome pitches on funding, curriculum, teaching and learning, assessment, student support and everything in between. All we ask is that what you want to write is about, or concerns, learners, staff, leaders and/or providers in the sector.
When you pitch your idea, search our website to see what’s already been written on that theme to make sure your angle brings something new to the table. That will also give you a feel for how to write your piece.
Your pitch can be a brief outline or a first draft.
We love reaction pieces too, so approach us with your insight and expertise as soon as you can following significant news affecting the sector.
Contact details for our commissioning editor are at the end of this guide.
Promoting diverse voices
FE Week is committed to being a platform for everyone in the sector. Staff and students come from all backgrounds, and we want to showcase that diversity on our pages.
If you’re a group or organisation, when deciding who should write a piece, please consider authors from underrepresented groups.
Writing essentials
We know our sector is littered with jargon, but do your best to avoid.
Your article should read as though you’re having a lively and insightful discussion with friends over dinner. We’re not an academic journal. This ensures a good read and that your points and arguments are accessible.
Your word count will be 600-650 words. If you do go slightly over, we will edit it down and run the new version by you before publishing. Give your piece a re-read just before you send it to us to make sure you’re not using your precious wordcount repeating, restating or reiterating.
To make our Friday editions, your deadline is Monday. That will give us plenty of time to work together on edits. Don’t be alarmed or offended if we send you a list of edits to consider.
Try starting your article with a line that grabs the reader’s attention and sets the scene for the rest of the piece.
If you’re writing about a topic we’ve covered, you can include a link to a news story or another opinion piece. You can also add a couple of external links if you, for example, reference some research.
You’ll also need to send us a recent and unfiltered headshot, along with your name, job title, organisation and any social media handles we can use to promote your piece once it’s published.
By all means, use an AI chatbot to rephrase a sentence or two if you’re stuck. Don’t use it for whole chunks of copy though. The essence of a good op-ed lies in its authenticity.
Style guide
For consistency, we lower case most things. Use lowercase letters for curriculum subjects (eg level 3 engineering diploma), the names of policy reforms (eg apprenticeship levy) and job titles.
Organisations, acronyms and certain qualifications (eg Ofsted, BTEC, T Level) can be upper case.
You have to pay for adverts
Opinion is free; overt product sales pitches from suppliers are not (click here for our competitive advertising packages).
Finally, we won’t accept a piece that has been published elsewhere. If you or your organisation wish to republish your FE Week piece somewhere else, please check with us first.
Let’s get started
Please send your pitch to FE Week’s commissioning editor, Jessica Hill.
Incoming tax rises on hairdressing salons could eliminate popular apprenticeship places in the industry within two years, a new report has suggested.
Forecasts by CBI Economics, on behalf of the British Hair Consortium (BHC), show apprentice numbers in hairdressing and beauty dropped from 16,000 to 6,000 between 2016 and 2023, and could be 0 in 2027.
The report, published this week, said tax rises from the government’s autumn budget will accelerate the decline in apprenticeships.
It says: “In simple terms, it has been unaffordable to take on and train apprentices for many years now and the decline shows this trend that can only be reversed by a fundamental change for employing businesses who train the next generation.”
‘Unlevel playing field’
CBI Economics research suggests that apprentice numbers have been driven down by a growing trend of employers cutting their tax burden by hiring self-employed staff.
This is creating an “unlevel playing field” between salons that mainly hire self-employed workers and traditional employer salons that tend to invest in apprentices.
Toby Dicker, co-founder of the Salon Employers Association, said: “The recent budget has accelerated the move to self-employment.
“I don’t blame anyone but it’s happening and has been happening for a long time, that’s going to reduce the tax going to the Treasury and is going to basically eradicate apprenticeships.”
Surveys of more than 2,000 salon owners also suggest that the Labour government’s recent budget decision to increase national insurance rates and national minimum wage increases will accelerate the rate of decline of hairdressing apprentices.
But apprenticeships are preferred
Apprenticeships are understood to be the preferred training route for the hairdressing and salon sector.
This was one of the key reasons hair and beauty T Levels were dropped last year, despite extensive marketing and millions of pounds spent on new college facilities and staff training.
Hairdressing professional remains one of the top five most popular apprenticeship standards for under 19s, with 3,800 to 4,500 starts each year between 2020-21 and 2023-24.
Of the 2,130 starts in quarter one of this academic year (August to October), 91 per cent were under 19 and 96 per cent were female.
Dicker said: “[Apprenticeships] are favoured by 95 per cent of employers in the industry.
“The only true way in is through apprenticeships because we need those hands-on skills. You need that work experience of life of talking to people”
The BHC argues that salons have a disproportionately high tax burden compared to other high street businesses because they have more employees and sell fewer goods, resulting in lower VAT refunds.
They estimate that a salon with a turnover of £1.2 million pays three times more tax than other retail businesses with the same turnover.
The Treasury should take a “necessary correction” by cutting VAT rates on salon labour-based services to 10 per cent, the report argues.
Apprenticeship model under threat
Laura Geary, director at Headmasters, which has more than 50 salons and two apprenticeship training academies, said: “The changes from the last budget have made it very hard for salons to continue to offer the benefits of employment and we will certainly not be able to take on as many apprentices going forward.
“This will kill the future of our industry.”
Using DfE estimates of the benefits of apprenticeships, CBI Economics estimate that the fall in apprenticeships since 2016 means society has “foregone” about £3.2 billion in lifetime productivity benefits.
The analysis argues that this could “jeopardise the sector’s labour supply for years to come”.
Charlie Collinge, director at Collinge & Co, a group of training salons across the north west, said: “Last year we had over 300 applications but were only able to find employment for 60 apprentices because fewer salons can afford to take them on.
“Apprenticeships are the main route for sustainable careers in hairdressing, but the model is under threat if there aren’t enough salons able to directly employ hairdressers.”
The DfE has been approached for comment.
A HM Treasury spokesperson said: “We delivered a once-in-a-Parliament budget to wipe the slate clean, now we are focused on going further and faster to kickstart economic growth so working people have more money in their pockets.
“We’re also levelling the playing field for high street businesses, including hairdressers, by permanently cutting business rates and removing the £110,000 cap for over 280,000 retail, hospitality and leisure business properties, while also capping corporation tax for the duration of parliament.”
Only apprentices who began their apprenticeship training when aged 16 to 18 will continue to be subject to the mandatory requirement to study towards and achieve English and maths.
We require children to attend school, whether they like it or not. Almost all children do so, almost all of the time. So in school we can make them listen to teachers – whose aim is to teach them to read and write, to add up and take away – whether they like it or not. Most people manage to learn these skills, and most are pleased that they have done so.
But not all children manage. And bluntly, if after more than 12 years in education someone cannot pass functional skills in literacy and numeracy, we have to face up to two realities. First, the system has failed that person. After more than 10,000 hours of tuition, we, the sector, have failed to teach them the most basic academic skills. My god, my god, why have we forsaken them? We all need to examine our consciences, and – perhaps more usefully – our professional practices.
We also need to accept that if someone has spent 10,000 hours in school, and still can’t pass literacy and numeracy at functional skills level, they are likely to believe that they just can’t do it. I was rubbish at music at school, and have absolutely no confidence that I could ever learn to hold a tune. You don’t learn much if you think you can’t learn much. Now most people are wrong to believe that they cannot learn to read, but so what? What matters is what they think.
If people think that they cannot master these skills, they probably won’t master them. Which means they will either fail their apprenticeship, or more likely won’t start it at all. Having that requirement means that we, the literate, are denying others the right to gain other, also valuable, skills that can transform their lives, and those of their families. That denial compounds our failure to teach them basic skills the first time. Doing so is simply unacceptable.
We should also accept that it is getting easier to learn vocational skills – and to survive in life more generally – without literacy and numeracy. It hurts me to write those words, but I think they are true. Back in the day, Treloar’s plumbing was the standard text for plumbers. And it is certainly useful to be able to read a plumbing book as a trainee plumber. But in truth many people learn practical skills from videos these days. I have repaired my microwave, my car and my dishwasher thanks to online videos. Similarly, knowing your times tables is still useful, but the value of numeracy has fallen now that we all carry mobiles, and they all have calculators on them.
The right to be literate and numerate is real. Everyone should have the right to acquire these skills – as and when they want to. The lifelong learning entitlement to these skills should be real, generous and everlasting. But that does not mean forcing people who do not believe that these skills are both useful and within their grasp to study them as part of an adult apprenticeship.
Employers and students have both welcomed the government’s decision. It is a good decision. But let’s leave the champagne on ice for a bit longer – until every child leaves our schools literate and numerate and this discussion is unnecessary.
