Nuclear needs people power

The UK’s nuclear sector stands at a pivotal moment. As we grow the economy, meet ambitious net-zero targets, ensure energy security and maintain world-class nuclear defence capabilities, the demand for a skilled and sustainable workforce has never been greater. However, the industry faces a significant challenge: workforce capacity.

The sector is grappling with an ageing workforce alongside a growing demand for skilled professionals. Around 96,000 people are employed across the civil and defence nuclear sectors. Yet 31 per cent of this workforce are over 50, with many nearing retirement. This demographic reality, combined with the need to deliver major projects such as Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), the Dreadnought and AUKUS submarine programmes, and decommissioning underscores the urgency of ensuring a robust and future-proof talent pipeline.

The Nuclear Skills Plan, developed collaboratively by industry, government and education providers, is the strategic response to this challenge. It addresses capacity issues, attracts new talent, and equips the next generation with skills required to sustain and grow the sector.

Expertise handed down

The many highly skilled professionals approaching retirement have invaluable expertise, and their loss risks creating a skills gap that could hinder the delivery of major projects and the safe operation of existing facilities.

To mitigate this, our plan prioritises knowledge transfer. Programmes will ensure that retiring professionals can pass on their expertise to the next generation. This includes pathways for experienced workers to transition into FE roles, enabling secondments and exchanges, and significantly increasing the number of apprenticeships across the sector. These apprenticeships, alongside FE provision, enable younger workers to learn directly from seasoned colleagues.

Digital campaign

The sector’s long-term sustainability depends on attracting new talent. Destination Nuclear, a flagship digital campaign, has raised awareness of the diverse and rewarding career opportunities available. From engineering and project management to environmental science and digital technology, nuclear offers roles that appeal to a wide range of interests and skill sets. Linked to an industry-wide jobs portal, Destination Nuclear has already generated tens of thousands of job applications.

Diversity is another critical area. Women currently make up just 22 per cent of the nuclear workforce, and representation from ethnic minority groups remains low. Addressing these imbalances is a moral and practical imperative. A more diverse workforce brings fresh perspectives, fosters innovation and ensures the sector reflects society.

Partnerships with schools, FE colleges and universities are being strengthened to showcase the sector as an exciting and viable career path. The Nuclear Sponsorship Scheme and the Nuclear Bursary Scheme are already making a tangible impact, offering financial support and structured industry pathways.

With a mid-career skills gap caused by reduced early career pipelines, the Skills Plan also focuses on attracting experienced hires. This includes targeting armed forces service leavers, workers from downsizing sectors and those transitioning from traditional to clean energy roles. Tailored ‘top-up’ training will adapt or enhance their skills for the nuclear sector, supported by accelerator programmes offering targeted education based on their needs.

Collaboration with FE

FE providers are central to our plan. Colleges play a vital role in delivering the technical and vocational training that underpins the nuclear workforce. The plan works closely with colleges to ensure curricula align with industry needs and that students graduate with the skills employers require.

The sector is providing data, insight and partnerships enabling colleges to tailor their teaching offer, including apprenticeship programmes, to current and future sector demands. A forum has also been established to allow FE provider voices to shape the delivery of the Skills Plan. At regional level, nuclear skills hubs bring together colleges, employers and others to respond to local skills challenges.

Looking ahead

The challenges facing the nuclear sector are significant but not insurmountable. By addressing the ageing workforce, attracting new talent and strengthening partnerships with education providers, the UK will remain a global leader in nuclear innovation and delivery.

The nuclear sector is not just about power plants, submarines and decommissioning; it’s about people. It’s about creating opportunities, fostering innovation, and contributing to a sustainable future. Together, with support from FE, we’re rising to the challenge and building the workforce of tomorrow.

Ofsted inclusion 2.0: Making space for learners without EHCPs

The new definition of inclusion is broader than educators have faced before. It covers not just pupils with SEND, but also disadvantaged pupils, those in care or formerly in care, and learners facing other barriers which might be social, related to their well-being or protected characteristics.

Inclusion hokey-cokey: In, out, in, out and you decide

The ‘pupils with SEND’ element of Ofsted’s definition of inclusion is ‘pupils receiving special educational needs (SEN) support, and those with an education, health and care (EHC) plan’.

Every educator knows that a learner with an EHCP sits well within this definition. But what’s interesting is how Ofsted has also chosen to define those learners who meet the legal definition of ‘significant learning difficulty’ but don’t have an EHCP.

It’s interesting because their phrasing implies that it’s an educator’s decision whether a learner without an EHCP is defined within this new inclusion bracket or not. Subsequently, one learner could be outside, inside, and outside of the threshold again within a single academic year. In fact, that’s not just probable, it’s reasonable.

It’s also smart, deliberately so. Ofsted is obligating providers to focus on the learners whom education has long failed: those who fall between the cracks. Not complex enough for an EHCP, yet different enough to struggle in systems built for the average. Learners whose edges don’t quite fit the mould, and who need education to flex a little – but not EHCP-level flex. 

Knee-jerk: Unintended consequences

I can imagine that recently, senior leaders have been hearing SEND and thinking: “We’ll need more SENCos, just think of the costs”.

It’s quite possible that some leadership teams right now are thinking about removing provisions where there’s a higher rate of learning differences.

But to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi: “these aren’t the learners you’re looking for”.

These are the learners where you, the educator, decide that the inclusion tag applies. The ones not complex enough for EHCP or, frankly, for your experienced team of SENCOs in most situations.

This cohort needs to be supported ‘in the flow of learning’. Not by specialists, but by their main educator who understands them the most. Understands them as an individual enough to curate a simple list of ‘unlocks’ (adjustments) to explore with them. Some adjustments will work. Some won’t. The ones that do will make all the difference.

“In the flow of learning” means support becomes part of the learner’s everyday experience. No specialists to schedule, no removal from class, no logistics to juggle, just everyday learning. It’s about an informed educator trying a few personalisation techniques with their own learner, right where learning happens. I have heard the DfE is even creating CPD training to upskill college educators on just this topic.

Structure is the new inclusion strategy

Providers will need a structured way to support learners and their educators below the EHCP level. September’s new Ofsted toolkit tells inspectors to check the providers’ structure includes “early and accurate assessment of pupils’ needs” and, when you decide support is necessary “a continuous cycle of planning, actions and review”.

This structure will look something like: assess, identify, decide, start support, stop support, maybe start it again.

Providers with an apprenticeships provision may be ahead already. Since 2020 the Education and Skills Funding Agency (now part of DfE) has been enhancing the apprenticeship rules for learners receiving additional learning support and it encourages the same structure – identical in fact.

It’s almost as if different arms of the government have the same goal, have communicated between themselves and aligned their requirements. It’s probably just a coincidence. But if not, it’s a strong message that personalised learning is being expanded beyond those with an EHCP.

When flags divide instead of unite, FE must help rebuild belonging

No one can have missed the surge of national flags being flown from bridges and lamposts across the UK.

For some it represents national pride and unity. For others it has triggered feelings of uncertainty, fear, and exclusion – particularly among people of colour and those who have immigrated here. It’s led many to question whether they are truly accepted as part of British society.

The motives behind this raising of flags have at times been contradictory. Some argue that it is about “reclaiming the flag” and fostering a renewed sense of British identity and unity.

Others have used the flag to promote divisive narratives, claiming the UK is “full,” that immigration should stop, or have used inflammatory rhetoric that targets specific groups such as Muslims, refugees, and people of colour.

The exploitation of national symbols to stir fear and resentment creates an environment where belonging feels conditional and acceptance uncertain.

FE’s role

In the FE world, we’re privileged to influence young lives and shape inclusive communities. Colleges and training institutions are places where individuals from diverse backgrounds come together, often at a pivotal stage in their personal and professional development.

However, there is a hidden anxiety that many staff and students carry. Some feel they cannot express their concerns about racism, identity or belonging because they fear how colleagues or peers might react. This silence can lead to isolation and negatively impact both wellbeing and achievement.

A sense of belonging is linked to mental health, engagement and success. When young people feel valued and included, they’re more likely to thrive.

However, when they experience subtle or overt signals that they do not belong, whether it’s through national debates, media narratives or everyday interactions, it can erode relationships and damage confidence.

As educators, we have a responsibility to counter this by creating spaces where everyone feels recognised and respected.

As Maya Angelou said: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel”.

Here are five ways we in FE can help:

Create safe spaces

FE institutions should establish dedicated spaces where individuals can speak openly about their experiences without fear of judgment or reprisal. These are not forums for debate or solutions, but spaces for listening, empathy and understanding. Such initiatives build psychological safety and send a strong message that the college values every person’s lived experience.

Showcase the beauty of diversity

Negative stories about people of colour often dominate public discourse, overshadowing the many positive contributions that such people make. Education providers should actively highlight the achievements, culture, and creativity of diverse groups. Representation matters – when students see their identities reflected positively, it reinforces pride and belonging.

Empower the silent majority to speak up

Many people who disagree with prejudice remain silent, fearing confrontation or backlash. In FE settings, leaders and staff must model courage by speaking out against racism, xenophobia and exclusionary behaviour.

Hold inclusive celebrations and events

Actions speak louder than words. Celebrating a range of cultural and religious events such as Diwali, Eid, Hanukkah, Christmas, Black History Month and Pride demonstrates that diversity is valued. These events bring people together, break down barriers, and allow everyone to share and celebrate their identity and heritage.

Educate and challenge misinformation

In a climate where misinformation spreads rapidly online, educators have a vital role in promoting critical thinking. Staff and students should be equipped to question biased narratives and recognise propaganda when they see it. Providing fact-based information and encouraging open discussions can counter divisive rhetoric and build resilience against hate-driven messages.

Promoting inclusion cannot just be slogan in prospectuses or mission statements – it must be visible in daily practice. Creating a sense of belonging requires bravery, empathy and consistent action from everyone in the sector.

FE has the power to model the kind of society we wish to see: where national pride doesn’t exclude, where diversity is celebrated and where belonging is not conditional. Right now, this message is more important than ever.

Workforce development needed to achieve white paper’s tertiary vision

A core strength of the government’s skills white paper is its recognition that post-16 education must function as a coherent tertiary system, bringing together FE, HE and lifelong learning.

The paper sets out a clear direction: strong teaching; effective leadership; genuine professionalism and skills; and a unified tertiary ecosystem, where learners move seamlessly between study, work and retraining throughout their lives, as the basis of national renewal.

It describes a future in which teachers and leaders are valued for the transformative work they do and in which professionalism sits at the heart of quality.

The most promising opportunities lie in how we make this tertiary vision real. It’s a vision that emphasises a strong workforce, flexibility through regional collaboration and local integration to address skills gaps, and a shared commitment to employer engagement, with evidence-based and data-led planning.

Coherence needs a shared framework

Yet for all its strengths, the white paper reveals there are two different stories to tell, divided by structures and regulators: one for FE and one for HE.

FE and HE are still framed around differing priorities – FE on technical excellence and local delivery, HE on research and global competitiveness – with no unified governance or funding model that spans both. The language of reform continues to separate the vocational from the academic, even as skills, research and innovation increasingly overlap.

We believe that a shared framework for teaching quality, workforce development and regulation – a framework that connects every part of the education landscape through common professional standards and values – can help bridge this gap.

Education through learners’ eyes

Building a connected tertiary environment starts with people, not systems alone. We need a shift in perspective.

Through the work that ETF does, I’ve seen how motivation, confidence and belonging to a professional community shape progress more powerfully than structures.

Together, we need to see education through the eyes of learners and how wellbeing and inclusion shape their choices: the 17-year-old exploring technical pathways, the adult retraining after redundancy, the teacher moving between college and industry. Their journeys cut across educational sectors – from school to FE, from FE to HE and from school to HE – yet the policy still treats them as disparate.

Workforce development: the binding thread

Every element of the framework – from technical excellence colleges to the introduction of V Levels to AI adoption – depends on the capability of the people who teach, lead and support learning. And of course, the sector also needs to address long-standing issues around both recruitment and retention. If the government’s aim is a coherent, high-quality tertiary system, then workforce development must be its binding thread.

ETF’s work already demonstrates what this looks like in practice: structured professional development, clear career pathways and a culture of collaboration between educators, employers and policymakers. And our evidence shows that investment in professional development improves learner outcomes, retention and institutional performance.

The emerging T Level teaching workforce is a good example. T Levels succeed when educators are supported to bridge classroom and industry practice – the essence of dual professionalism.

ETF’s programmes have shown how targeted development, employer engagement and peer learning can raise confidence and quality. Scaling that approach will be essential if we are to deliver on the white paper’s vision and give every learner access to world-class technical education. The introduction of V Levels will require similar support.

From ambition to achievement

ETF’s vision is for a respected, connected and expert FE and skills profession, one that drives productivity, inclusion and growth.

By embedding professionalism at the heart of reform, we will ensure this white paper delivers both structural and cultural change.

Through our partnerships and professional membership community, we will continue to work collaboratively to strengthen teaching, leadership and professionalism across the sector: because ultimately it is the people in the FE and skills sector – the teachers, trainers, leaders and support staff – who will turn our shared ambition into results.

Changing how we deliver teaching will ease FE’s workforce crisis

The 16-19 capacity issue will not be solved by funding alone; We need excellent teachers to deliver to these learners. We’ve treated FE’s staffing crunch purely as a hiring problem. It isn’t. It’s also a delivery problem that demands a different model.

I joined FE in 1993 and the same subjects still keep leaders awake: construction trades, digital, engineering, English and maths and specialist SEND.

Some areas are perennial shortages, while others spike with the labour market. New industries arrive before we can grow our own teachers. Meanwhile, colleges fight a constant battle to keep classes covered and quality consistent year after year.

A significant share of college staff are not on permanent, full-time contracts; even where posts are filled, replacement churn and variable quality swallow leadership time and budget. Add the 30 per cent pay gap with schools and it’s hard to see how “more of the same” recruitment solves the problem at the scale or speed needed.

The £800 million coming into FE is welcome, but it’s largely about serving more learners, not transforming the unit economics of delivery. The uncomfortable truth is we won’t hire our way out of this. We must change how learning is organised.

What we’ve learned from large-scale online delivery

Over the last few years, we’ve delivered national bootcamps fully online with high-quality, continuously updated resources combined with live online tutoring. It wasn’t painless, but it worked: strong learner feedback and a positive Ofsted outcome. The lessons learnt?

  • Specialist and scarce talent become national, not local. We’ve timetabled excellent tutors in the Hebrides with a class in Devon. Many of our tutors would never commute to a college site, but they will teach a day a week online, including evenings or weekends, some alongside their industry roles.
  • Quality improves because it’s observable, blended with high-quality resources. Every live session is recorded. Learners can revisit content; quality assurance (QA) teams can dip in any time; targeted coaching becomes normal, not remedial.
  • Timetabling flex grows. Online theory can fit to college timetables, be delivered to combined groups, or be undertaken at home to ease student transport, caring or work burdens.
  • Data gets granular. Every attendance, click and submitted task is trackable, giving leaders real-time visibility and intervention points.

A practical model: 30 per cent shared, 70 per cent local

This isn’t about turning colleges into remote providers. It’s about using online delivery where it’s better value and easier to staff, so we can protect and grow the on-site learning that only colleges can do.

What it could look like:

  1. Shared online theory (30 per cent) delivered through nationally curated resources and vetted online tutors, timetabled to your day.
  2. Local practical (70 per cent) kept on campus: workshops, employer projects, assessment, pastoral, enrichment.
  3. Elastic capacity. If numbers dip, scale the online element down; if demand surges, scale it up without scrambling for scarce staff.
  4. College-owned quality. You still set schemes of work, standards, assessment policy and intervention triggers; recordings and analytics make oversight easier, not harder.

Why it helps immediately:

  • Releases on-site staff time
  • Reduces agency and supply churn.
  • Supports part-time specialists who want to teach but can’t commit to campus or their local college timetables.
  • Creates a consistent national core of resources that are continuously improved and aligned to employer needs.

Blended models fail when they’re bolted on. They succeed when three things are designed in from the start – a single scheme of learning, clear roles and non-negotiable quality assurance.

And yes, pay matters and must improve. But even with better pay, FE will always compete with industry for scarce specialists. The fastest way to get consistent expertise in front of every learner is to redesign delivery so we start sharing our scarce talent safely, visibly and at quality across the system.

This isn’t going to happen overnight, but we could start now and the transformation could be rapid. Why not pick a number of components of a course where there are constant workforce challenges and work with us on a timetable and delivery piloting the approach?

If we keep treating FE’s workforce crisis as a recruitment problem, we’ll keep getting the same results. If we treat it as a delivery challenge, we have a chance to change the game.

DfE sets out apprenticeship intervention rules for new Ofsted regime

The Department for Education will not rely on specific Ofsted grades to place poorly-performing apprenticeship training providers in intervention for the next 12 months.

Training providers found to offer poor quality training to apprentices currently face a range of sanctions, including contract termination, if inspectors judge them to be ‘inadequate’.

Apprenticeship bosses have been waiting to know what the new intervention triggers will be under Ofsted’s new inspection regime, which begins next week, and does away with single overall headline judgments ‘inadequate’, ‘requires improvement’, ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’. 

New report cards will instead grade provision along a new five-point scale ranging from ‘exceptional’ to ‘urgent improvement’.

And where there was previously one grade for apprenticeships, there will be a grade each for: curriculum, teaching and training; achievement; and participation and development. 

Under the government’s current apprenticeship accountability framework training providers judged ‘inadequate’ for apprenticeships or overall effectiveness can lead to “contractual action”. Ofsted grades are one of several measures taken into consideration.

DfE confirmed this afternoon it will not use Ofsted grades in the first 12 months of “transition” between the old and new inspection model. It will instead decide whether or not to take action on a case-by-case basis. 

It said today: “We understand the sector’s concerns about the framework’s complexity and timing. We will evaluate each case according to its own circumstances and take a proportionate approach, particularly during the first 12 months of transition.

“Ofsted judgments are just one part of the apprenticeship accountability framework. We will continue to take a holistic view of provider performance, using multiple data sources with the learner experience central to our decisions.”

The first further education and skills providers to undergo a new-style inspection have been notified this week, ahead of inspections commencing next week.

It is not yet known whether DfE’s case-by-case approach will also apply to DfE’s other accountability regimes. Colleges are currently placed in FE Commissioner intervention if they are judged ‘inadequate’.

A revised apprenticeship accountability framework is due to be published by November 28. 

White paper fails to put employers at the centre of our FE universe

I have read the skills white paper from cover to cover, revisited it, discussed it, commented on it. Each time it feels less like a coherent, single document and more like a collection of loose ideas at different stages of maturity, all trying hard to be seen to say the “right sort of thing”.

It lacks a North Star: a fixed point guiding where we are going that would bind the ideas and create a unifying purpose. Without this, drifting into the doldrums feels like a very real risk. 

Members of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers span the skills system. Best known for our independent training providers (ITPs), we have a growing number of FE colleges, universities, assessment organisations and employers among our ranks. This breadth gives us a rounded and grounded view of how the system does and could work.

So, what do we think should be guiding the North Star for the skills system? The institutions that deliver it all – the ITPs, colleges and universities? Frontline staff, perhaps, the people who make the magic happen? Or the learners we exist to support? 

All are vital.  

But none are as important as the stakeholders for whom the system should be built: employers. 

There are three reasons for this:

  1. Employers are the end user and the ultimate gatekeeper. If it doesn’t work for them, it doesn’t work at all. We can train people endlessly, but if employers don’t value or use those skills, that effort is a waste of time and money. 
  2. Employers, when involved and harnessed properly, simplify and improve the system because they have to live with its results. 
  3. Engaged and equipped employers would amplify and multiply government inputs, creating a virtuous cycle of skills, confidence and growth, making precious taxpayer pounds go much further.

The white paper does not ‘get’ this. There are some warm words about meeting employers’ needs, but at a superficial level. There is no exploration of how and why employers act and respond in the way they do and how that might be influenced. 

The white paper gives the impression that the government sees employers as a means to its own skills needs, rather than government being there to serve employers’ needs. 

Even if you think this is the right way to view the skills system, it is not an effective way to get employers on your side!

This government’s blind spot about employers is beginning to cause problems. Good ideas – foundation apprenticeships, assessment reform – struggle to gain traction and their implementation consumes precious resources, including time and goodwill. When employers are put front and centre instead, this changes dramatically for the better.  

That means a more structured, engaging and confident approach to consultation with employers. So far – across not just employers, but also providers, awarding organisations and other stakeholders in the system – the government has really struggled with consultation. It starts, but does not follow through. 

What employers and other stakeholders want is proper consultation, which means true co-creation. We want to work through messy problems and trade-offs together, all the way through to implementation and impact.  

There is a risk that the government looks at its hit-and-miss involvement of employers to date, for example through route panels and trailblazers (the groups of employers and other experts who provide strategic oversight for specific sectors within the apprenticeship system) and draws the conclusion that there should be less engagement with them. 

This would be precisely the wrong conclusion. It needs MORE engagement with employers, including a refreshed and strengthened mechanism for employer involvement in Skills England, in programme and assessment design and in policy formulation.

A live example of this at the moment is around reform of apprenticeship assessment, where two of just five ‘exemplar’ reformed assessment reforms have run into the buffers (and the other three have emerged only torturously), precisely because employers are pushing back – hard – on what to them are obvious problems that they could have told government upfront.  There is a risk that this experience could be repeated in the creation of new apprenticeship units.

So I want to see a new coda to the white paper in which the government commits to genuine partnership with employers, providers, and assessment organisations, with employer wants and needs as the North Star.

Not only will this maximise the chances of us getting the skills system we so badly need, it will also happen more quickly and with much less of the friction we are beginning to experience.

EPA reform: changes inevitable, but not unfamiliar

By Sacha Finkle, Director of Delivery at NCFE

What I’ve learned is that we’re resilient, adaptable, and flexible. That gives me confidence that this time will be no different.

The latest apprenticeship reforms are significant. We’ve spent the last decade working with employers and apprentices to help them understand the benefits of independent end-point assessment (EPA). Independent EPA, developed following the 2012 Richard Review, has been a key part of apprenticeship assessment. Since its introduction, there has been a shift in perception and apprenticeships have become more valued, and their profile has increased.

The current system is costly, complex and in many cases has a negative impact on timely achievement for an apprentice waiting for end point assessment. We welcome the reforms in the hope they will solve these challenges.

Accountability and trust

In 2020, Ofqual introduced Centre Assessment Standard Scrutiny (CASS). This was to support the improvement of controls that awarding organisations have over centres – part of its overall strategy to ensure assessments consistently and accurately reflect the learner’s skills and knowledge.

The introduction of CASS was a response to perceived risks within delegated assessments to training providers, schools, and colleges, which could undermine standards and public confidence. Awarding organisations formalised controls to align with Ofqual’s conditions, where centres mark assessments to improve accountability and trust.

This balanced the need for flexible delivery with associated risks, ensuring learners’ awards accurately reflect their skills and knowledge in the subject and performance in assessments.

The right approach?

Yet have we found ourselves in a position where we’ve addressed one problem in two different ways?

Independent assessment contributed to raising the reputation of apprenticeships, but have we moved the issues from providers to end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs)? Are we confident that all apprenticeship assessment is comparable?

Why do EPAOs measure themselves on success rates when true success is with the provider and apprentice?

Could a CASS approach help?

Within a good quality CASS strategy, all assessors are quality assured internally, then again by External Quality Assurers (EQAs). This provides greater governance, consistency, and utilises multiple individuals in the approval process.

Good quality EPAOs have Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) processes, but this isn’t consistent across all and not as robust as what’s required within a CASS strategy.

Independent assessment has challenges. The approach can present an unfair view based on a short assessment, particularly within an observation of practice. This has risks when working in environments such as schools or care settings.

Where there is environmental unpredictability, this can lead to ‘staged’ assessments, where apprentices work with the most compliant group in the easiest scenarios. Does this show that employers have already decided on competency? Does it allow the apprentice to fully demonstrate their abilities?

Something else to consider is whether the policy environment has created unfair assessments for apprentices. For example, increased complexities when other, comparable qualifications such as T Levels don’t require costly independent assessment in the same way.

Independence is valued by employers, but would employers also value a CASS strategy if they fully understood the ecosystem around centre assessment and how quality and standards are maintained? Particularly if this approach provides reduced costs and complexities.

Demonstrating behaviours

Reforms have thrown up contention with ‘behaviours’ being moved to employers for approval. I’m confident in this approach. Once an apprentice reaches the end of their apprenticeship, they’ve been employed for at least 8 months.

Would employers retain staff who aren’t demonstrating the right behaviours? While I expect varying standards and can understand concerns, we need to recognise that behaviours in the current system are rarely assessed in silo.

Holistic assessment is commonly used, where behaviours are assessed alongside skills. In the new approach, behaviours will still be seen by the assessor, just not formally assessed. In many cases, you can determine that if an apprentice holds a skill, they’ll also hold the associated behaviour.

For example, an observation of practice for an early years educator includes behaviours such as care, compassion, honesty, trust, and integrity. These will be displayed across an entire apprenticeship, and it’s simply the employer who has final confirmation.

There’s a question about the burden for employers. I’d understand this if they were being asked for something beyond what’s already required. If we look at it another way, why don’t we incorporate these discussions within formal review cycles where the employer, apprentice, and provider discuss them together?

Change is coming, so what do we need to do?

To prepare for the move to the reformed apprenticeship standards, EPAOs will be working closely with providers to support them through the transition.

NCFE, for example, is offering a tiered assessment approach which will allow providers and employers to carefully move to centre assessment, if that’s what they choose.

Change is inevitable, and while it can be scary, I do think it’s for the right reasons. Ultimately, if more apprenticeships result in employment, and apprentices and employers benefit from developing the right skills and behaviours, these latest EPA reforms will be seen as a success.

For more information on how we’re supporting organisations like yours in navigating these changes with confidence, book a one-to-one consultation with a member of our team today.

Francis review prompts DfE shake-up of English and maths accountability measures

College performance measures for English and maths will be changed so the government can monitor how much time students have in learning before they are entered for resit exams.

The Department for Education (DfE) has confirmed it will “revise” the reinstated 16 to 18 English and maths progress measure and qualification achievement rates in its response to the curriculum and assessment review, led by Becky Francis, published today.

Francis’s review concluded, and DfE agreed, that students should continue to be required to study towards grade 4 GCSE passes in English and maths if they don’t reach that level when they leave school.

But she found that “providers reported certain aspects of performance and accountability arrangements may be inadvertently contributing to the practice and culture of repeated resits, including pressure to enter learners for exams prematurely.”

Most of Francis’s proposals for 16 to 19 education, such as V Levels, English and maths GCSE stepping-stone qualifications and two new level 2 pathways, were accepted in the government’s post-16 education and skills white paper, which was published two weeks ago.

The white paper, published last month, also appeared to criticise colleges for entering unprepared learners for resit exams.

“Too many students are entered into resit exams in the November after their GCSE entry the previous summer, without sufficient additional teaching to enable them to succeed,” it said.

The 16 to 18 English and maths progress measure, part of a range of accountability measures for schools and colleges, shows the difference between students’ English and maths results at age 16 with their results at the end of their 16-18 study. It was paused following the pandemic, but will be brought back this year as planned.

Responding to Francis’s findings, DfE said: “We agree with the review’s recommendation that we should immediately take steps to strengthen the condition of funding and accountability system.

“We have reinstated the 16 to 18 English and maths progress measure this academic year, for 2024 to 2025 data.

“We will revise this measure, and qualification achievement rates, to ensure they reinforce the need for sufficient time to be given to students to consolidate learning prior to entry.”

Officials will “begin full engagement with the sector on these changes and the timeline for their implementation.”

DfE added it will continue to monitor the impact of this year’s condition of funding requirements to deliver a minimum of 100 hours of face-to-face teaching for each of English and maths for eligible students, increases in numbers of students in scope of the policy, and clearer guidance on which students would typically be suitable for entry into the November exam series.

The response also agreed with the review’s recommendation to explore how to better incentivise “effective practice” across the sector.

It confirmed the government is enlisting the Education Endowment Foundation, which is run by Francis, to examine what works to ensure strong outcomes for 16-19 year olds.

Enriched at college

DfE also confirmed it will work with college leaders to extend planned guidance on a “high-quality” enrichment offer in schools to colleges.

The enrichment framework, which the government previously committed to publishing by the end of the year, will now be extended to further education settings, and along the same timeline.

Francis criticised the current “non-qualification” offer for 16-19 year olds as being “inconsistent” and current guidance from DfE as “ambiguous” and “unhelpful.”

In its response, DfE said it was: “already developing guidance for schools to deliver a high-quality enrichment framework.

“Working with college leaders, we will extend this framework to further education settings. This will improve the consistency of students’ enrichment experience across the country by promoting highly effective practice.”

DfE said “beyond enrichment” it also wants to improve the transfer of information between schools, colleges and higher education providers. 

This follows the government’s commitment, as stated in the post-16 white paper, to tackle rising NEET numbers underpinned by “better data” to track attendance and destinations.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “I am pleased to see the recognition of the value of enrichment and extra-curricular activity. Every young person deserves access to sport, arts, civic engagement, social action and life skills and we want to see that entitlement properly funded and embedded in 16-19 study programmes. 

“Colleges already do a great deal in this space, often with limited resources, and this commitment must be matched by investment.”

Refining T Levels

The government promised to continue to “refine” content, assessment and industry placement requirements for T Levels after the review recommended the “assessment burden” of the qualifications should be reduced.

“We have been refining the approach on content, assessment and industry placements to make T Levels more accessible and manageable at scale while retaining their quality and rigour,” DfE said. “As recommended by the review this work will continue.”

In March, DfE streamlined the core content and reduced assessment volume in the digital, construction and education and early years T Levels.

The DfE response added the government will work with Skills England, employers, Ofqual, awarding organisations, schools, colleges, and universities to increase T Level student numbers.

It also agreed with Francis’ review that there is a “strong rationale” for V Levels to create a mixed programme of study, but stressed that where large qualifications are required, “these should be T Levels”.

“We agree with the review that there may be a need for large qualifications in areas where there are not T Levels at present, and we launched a new marketing T Level in September,” DfE said.