Head of Skills, Employment and Education, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority
Start date: November 2025
Previous Job: Head of Skills and Inclusion, North East Combined Authority
Interesting fact: Leigh is a keen cricketer, and in the spirit of widening participation in the sport, she is a counding member of the ladies cricket team in her home town
George Trow
Chair, Hereward College
Start date: October 2025
Previous Job: Vice Chair, Coventry College
Interesting fact: Earlier this year, George drove 7,500 miles around the west of America visiting nine states and spent 43 nights in motels en route, having previously done Route 66 in a van in his early 20s.
Top government officials offered updates on key skills reforms during this week’s Association of Employment and Learning Providers autumn conference. Here’s what we learned.
Minister defends flexibilities amid apprenticeship reputation fears
Skills minister Jacqui Smith (pictured above) defended the government’s apprenticeship reforms in the face of concerns from providers that increased flexibility could damage the brand.
Ben Rowland, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said while shorter modules and assessment changes were welcome in principle, there were worries about undermining a brand that has been built up over the past decade.
“From 2012 on, apprenticeships were very focused on rigour and employer engagement. Employers can really trust it to mean something,” Rowland said.
Officials who are pushing through plans that involve assessing apprentices on only a sample of knowledge and skills have suffered a backlash from employers. The government will also allow mandated qualifications within apprenticeships to become the sole form of assessment, and employers will be responsible for testing behaviours.
Construction employers have already warned that these reforms risk allowing apprentices to qualify without proving they are competent.
New “apprenticeship units”, set to be funded through the growth and skills levy from April, could also last just one week and involve zero assessment.
Smith acknowledged the challenge, but said reforms were designed to balance quality with widening access.
“The brand has grown because the quality is there,” she said. “People know that if they go onto an apprenticeship, they’re going to get proper training to progress in their careers. But as programmes develop, you have to judge where standards may restrict growth more than they maintain it.”
Smith cited Skills England’s consultation with employers in areas like carpentry and joinery, which led to revisions of proposed assessments.
The employers involved in this consultation have, however, hit out at the approach taken by Skills England, accusing officials of ignoring their concerns.
“Keeping close to employers, being clear that quality is important, but being as flexible as possible – it’s not always easy, but it’s the right approach,” Smith said.
‘Damp squib’ start for foundation apprenticeships
The government’s new foundation apprenticeships have welcomed their first cohort of apprentices, but sector leaders warned the much-hyped rollout has fallen flat.
The first seven foundation apprenticeships launched in August, including three for the construction sector, two for digital, one for engineering and manufacturing and one for health and social care.
The new programme is designed to “give young people a new route into careers in critical sectors” and create “a new pipeline of fresh talent”, Kate Ridley Pepper, DWP director of work-based skills, told AELP conference delegates.
She revealed the first cohort of foundation apprentices had started, but stopped short of saying exactly how many there were.
AELP chief executive Ben Rowland said the delivery had been “a damp squib”.
“Foundation apprenticeships are an idea that AELP helped to generate,” he said. “The prime minister announced them to great fanfare over a year ago. Saying the delivery has so far been a damp squib is an understatement. Government did what they thought would look good, rather than what would do good.”
Rowland added that the initiative had been championed by employers in hospitality and backed by sectors such as retail and care, “but the government began by taking them to industrial strategy sectors who didn’t ask for them, need them or want them”.
FE Week understands the government is mulling over whether it can afford to extend foundation apprenticeships to more sectors.
Ben Rowland
Registration needed to offer apprenticeship units
Training providers will need to register with the government to deliver new “apprenticeship units” through the reformed growth and skills levy, it was confirmed.
Officials also expect the content of each unit will be drawn from existing apprenticeships instead of brand new or other non-apprenticeship-related courses.
Ridley-Pepper told AELP’s conference that this design approach would ensure government and employers know that all apprenticeship units have “the rigour to be really high-quality products”.
Last month’s post-16 education and skills white paper confirmed the current apprenticeship levy would fund a selection of short courses when it is turned into the growth and skills levy from April.
Apprenticeship units will be offered initially to employers in “critical skills areas” such as engineering, digital and artificial intelligence.
Skills minister Jacqui Smith revealed during an FE Week webinar on Monday that the units’ duration will be as short as one week and up to a few months.
Ridley-Pepper confirmed this approach on Tuesday before outlining which providers would be eligible to offer apprenticeship units.
She said: “I’m sure you’ll be keen to know how you offer apprenticeship units, and I can confirm that you will need to be approved by the department in order to deliver and claim funding for apprenticeship unit delivery.
“Details of how that will work will be published near the time and shared, but I can assure you that we will try and make sure the process is simple and efficient with no duplication.”
Ridley-Pepper added the plan was to use the existing apprenticeship provider and assessment register (APAR) instead of developing a separate register. Providers already on APAR will not need to re-register.
The skills director added the government is also thinking about ways to ensure providers not currently on APAR can get onto it to deliver apprenticeship units.
She also confirmed that apprenticeship units will be “built from employer-designed occupational standards using quality assured knowledge and skills”, adding that the “intention there is to complement existing apprenticeships and to offer employers the greater choice in how they invest in their skills in their workforce, which they have been calling for for some time”.
Ridley-Pepper said the government planned to lift existing content from apprenticeship standards, such as a mandatory qualification, to use as apprenticeship units.
There is, however, concern that providers will be able to deliver apprenticeship unit training without an element of independent assessment.
Asked about this during the conference, Ridley-Pepper said: “So I think that will very much depend on what the particular unit is and how long it is, whether, in the existing apprenticeship, there is an assessment associated with it.”
Kate Ridley-Pepper
Minister’s transparency pledge on levy decisions
Skills minister Jacqui Smith said the government would “try to be as transparent as possible” when deciding how to ensure the apprenticeship levy remains affordable.
Officials are turning the policy into a growth and skills levy, which will fund a range of shorter courses from April, following years of employer lobbying.
But as Smith reminded the sector during Tuesday’s conference, the apprenticeships budget was fully spent last year.
It was partly for this reason that ministers have pushed through the defunding of level 7 apprenticeships for people aged 22 and older, which will come into effect from January.
This controversial policy decision was made without consultation and has received sector-wide backlash.
Smith said the government will “try” to be transparent about decisions on levy spending restrictions if more hard choices need to be made.
She told the conference: “As we develop the growth and skills offer, we’re mindful that last financial year, the entire apprenticeship budget was spent.
“So, like any budget, it demands choices, but we will make these in a careful, considered way, taking into account the needs of employers and the economy, so that we make the most of the levy and deliver on our shared priorities.
“We will always try to be as transparent as possible in our decision making, to give you as much chance as possible to feed into that and to plan ahead. But a clear priority is young people. They are front and centre of our plans.”
LLE focuses on ‘missing middle’ to fill skills gap
The government’s new Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will focus on qualifications at level 4 and above to plug England’s “missing middle” of skilled workers, the skills minister said.
Jacqui Smith faced questions over why the flagship scheme will not cover level 3 qualifications amid calls for a more inclusive approach. The LLE, due to launch in 2027, will give adults access to student-style loans for tuition and maintenance on higher technical and degree-level courses at levels 4 to 6.
AELP chief executive Ben Rowland challenged the government’s decision, asking: “Why are we limiting it to level four and above? Why don’t we want to make it really inclusive?”
Smith said the government’s focus reflected the country’s biggest skills gap. “The majority of the new skills that we need will be level four and above,” she said. “We have a high proportion of people educated at level six, but where we have a gap – the missing middle – is in levels four and five. That is holding us back.”
She added that technician-level roles were vital to improving productivity in key growth sectors, and that lifelong access to funding for higher-level training would help close that gap.
Smith described the LLE as a “big opportunity” for independent training providers to deliver the modular, shorter courses that will be funded under the new system.
However, Learning Curve Group CEO Brenda McLeish warned that private providers face “huge barriers” to participation because they must register with the Office for Students (OfS), which comes with strict conditions.
The OfS is, however, planning to consult this autumn on proposals to remove some conditions of registration for providers in the further education sector already regulated by the Department for Education.
Smith said quality safeguards were essential but confirmed the LLE remained a “work in progress”.
A high-stakes legal battle over what former apprenticeship boss Peter Marples called a “malicious” government intervention has ended decisively in favour of the Department for Education.
In a detailed High Court judgment, Mr Justice Rajah dismissed the £37 million claim brought by Marples, his wife Sarah, son Thomas and nephew Lee against the secretary of state for education.
The judge found no duty of care was owed to the family and rejected claims that senior officials at the former Skills Funding Agency (SFA) acted out of personal animosity, ruling that government chiefs sought to “protect public funds”. He also made stinging criticisms of several witnesses, including findings of “evasion and dishonesty” against Peter Marples.
Background: 3aaa blocked sale and collapse
The Marples family were shareholders in apprenticeship giant Aspire Achieve Advance Ltd (3aaa), which collapsed in 2018 following a government investigation into alleged data manipulation. The police were later involved, but no charges followed.
The court case centred on the SFA’s refusal to “approve” a proposed majority sale of 3aaa to private-equity firm Trilantic Capital Partners LLP in 2016. Under clause 5.10 of its apprenticeship contract, 3aaa had to notify the SFA of any ownership change. The SFA reserved the right to terminate its contract if the change “prejudiced” delivery.
In a first-of-its-kind refusal decision, then-SFA chief executive Sir Peter Lauener told 3aaa the agency was “not able to agree to this change of ownership in the context of current and future contracts”. The claimants argued this refusal blocked the sale, cost them tens of millions, and amounted to misfeasance in public office because the SFA was exercising a power it did not legally possess.
The government countered that the SFA owed no duty of care to shareholders and that its process was an informal assurance, not a statutory power of “approval”. Officials said the decision was taken in good faith for regulatory reasons, including doubts about the proposed business plan and the impact of forthcoming apprenticeship levy reforms.
SFA had no approval power – and no duty to shareholders
Rajah accepted it had become routine for providers to seek “approval” before ownership changes, but confirmed the SFA had no power to refuse or block such transactions – only to terminate a contract if necessary.
While internal SFA emails showed some staff, including Sir Peter and then-funding director Keith Smith, mistakenly believed they could approve or prevent a sale and 3aaa had to seek its permission before the sale, the judge ruled this misunderstanding did not create any obligation to the claimants.
The Marples family, he said, had their own legal advisers and could not reasonably rely on the SFA to act with a duty of care toward their commercial interests. It was foreseeable the decision might affect the sale, but that alone “is obviously not enough” to create such a duty.
“There was nothing to stop the parties proceeding with the sale,” the judge wrote. “It was not reasonable to rely on the SFA taking care in relation to that ineffective decision.”
The SFA was, he said, 3aaa’s customer, not a regulator acting on behalf of shareholders. “I conclude there was no duty of care owed by the SFA to the claimants in relation to the decision letter.”
No evidence of personal grudge
A major plank of the family’s claim was that Sir Peter held a personal grudge against Peter Marples and acted out of malice, fuelled by resentment of his wealth.
Emails from late 2016 appeared to show Sir Peter being agitated by information about 3aaa’s profits and the renewed interest from Trilantic. “My blood pressure is much higher now,” he replied to a message describing the firm as “highly cash generative”.
Rajah said Sir Peter’s explanation that this was “banter” was “unsatisfactory”, and that it was clear the messages reflected genuine irritation. However, he found no proof that this irritation amounted to a malicious intent to harm the Marples family.
Evidence showed Sir Peter had earlier praised 3aaa as an example of success to then-skills minister Nick Boles, even intervening in early 2016 to save the company from administration. These actions were “not consistent” with a “grudge or personal animosity of the strength required” for targeted malice.
While former SFA official Tony Allen told the court that Sir Peter and others regarded some private providers as a “necessary evil” who made “excessive profits”, Rajah found that such policy concerns about value for money did not amount to personal hostility.
“I reject the allegation that Sir Peter Lauener and others at the SFA held a grudge or significant personal animosity against Peter Marples,” he concluded.
Sir Peter’s motives: protecting public funds
The judge accepted that Sir Peter personally intervened in an unprecedented way, taking charge of the change-of-control process and describing it internally as an “important test case”.
Emails showed him anticipating “fireworks” when the SFA refused approval, predicting that Trilantic would “ditch 3aaa” after learning of the decision. The judge said he was “painting a deliberately pessimistic scenario” to Trilantic during the proposed buyout and this reflected a deliberate attempt to discourage the sale, but not a malicious one.
“Sir Peter was at pains to understand what value the sellers were taking out of the deal. It is likely Sir Peter was concerned that the value being placed on 3aaa and the sums the sellers would receive were excessive,” he wrote.
“Sir Peter’s intention appears to have been to protect the sector and public funds, not to injure the claimants.”
The judge found Sir Peter’s stance was driven by anxiety over private equity’s entry into apprenticeships amid the incoming levy, and by scepticism about Trilantic’s “over ambitious” business plan. He exaggerated the risks to deter the sale, but this, the court found, was not bad faith.
“A desire to prevent excessive profits being made from public funds, or to discourage private capital from entering the sector in search of profits, is not a specific intent to injure anyone, even if that may be a consequence of the action,” Rajah said. “The claim based on targeted malice fails.”
Key witnesses criticised
The judge reserved his harshest criticism for several witnesses.
Rajah said Sir Peter’s evidence was “not consistent with the contemporaneous documentation”, accusing him of trying to “spin” the documents to fit his narrative.
Former SFA funding director Keith Smith – now principal of the HRUC college group – was described as a “poor witness” who sought to “distance himself” from responsibility for the decision letter and the change of control process. His claim of limited involvement was “not credible”.
However, “on matters not concerned with the decision letter and change of control, I considered him more reliable,” the judge added about Smith.
The judge said much of Peter Marples’ evidence was a “reconstruction after reviewing the documents and mulling over this case over the last decade” and added: “It did not seem to me that Peter Marples would have volunteered or conceded any point which he thought undermined his case.”
Expert evidence thrown out
The court also threw out the claimants’ expert accounting evidence after discovering that Marples had secretly rewritten it himself.
The appointed expert, Vivian Cohen, had previously worked for Marples’s company, Fair Result, on matrimonial valuations. Marples made around 150 amendments to Cohen’s joint expert statements, which were supposed to be impartial.
“This was a deliberate, cynical, planned breach of the rules relating to expert evidence,” Rajah said. Both men “colluded” to mislead the court. Cohen, who has been criticised in at least two previous High Court cases, had his evidence thrown out.
The judge said this episode of “evasion and dishonesty” further undermined Marples’ credibility and required his evidence to be treated “with considerable caution”.
3aaa data-manipulation allegations ‘inconclusive’
Although the claim focused on the 2016 sale decision, the DfE’s defence drew on subsequent data-manipulation allegations that led to 3aaa’s 2018 collapse.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), which replaced the SFA, had accused 3aaa of inflating achievement rates by altering learners’ planned end and withdrawal dates, and of wrongly retaining about £1.2 million in apprenticeship grants meant for employers.
However, Rajah said it was “not possible” for the court to rule on whether these allegations were true. The ESFA’s statistical analysis of large-scale data anomalies suggested deliberate manipulation, but investigators never completed their work after the company went into liquidation.
Key investigators Keith Hunter and David Smales admitted under cross-examination that the inquiry remained “inconclusive” as to who, if anyone, was responsible. The judge described both as “honest, straightforward witnesses” who were “simply doing their jobs.”
By contrast, he found Lee Marples, who had been implicated in the alleged data issues, unreliable: “At times he would argue that black was white if he thought it would assist his case.”
Court rejects all claims
Rajah comprehensively rejected the Marples family’s case. The SFA’s refusal letter, he said, may have discouraged the sale but had no legal effect – it was open to the parties to proceed regardless. The SFA owed no duty of care to shareholders, and there was no targeted malice behind the decision.
The Marples family’s assertion that their shares were rendered unsaleable was “flawed”, because “the SFA’s blessing was not required”.
While the court found that some of Sir Peter’s conduct and correspondence were unprofessional and “unsatisfactory”, his overriding concern was judged to be protecting public money and shaping policy as private capital entered the apprenticeship market.
Both parties must now agree legal costs, which soared into the millions.
Marples has until 4pm on November 18 to apply for permission to appeal.
As people from all education settings scrambled through the pages of the newly published curriculum and assessment review this week, I was delighted to find words like “mandatory Enrichment”, “strengthen guidance” and “promote effective practice” in the 16-19 section .
Across our settings there are amazing examples of enrichment and personal development opportunities available and a wealth of evidence supporting the positive impact these activities have. However, the CAR report rightly highlights the “inconsistent” approach to enrichment in the post 16 sector and that non qualification development is variable between colleges.
As a sector we have always valued the additional activity and opportunities we can provide our students. In more recent years the study programme requirements and the 2019 education inspection framework both put emphasis on the importance of personal development which were welcomed by advocates of enrichment, like myself, who fundamentally believe these skills and knowledge development opportunities are essential to student success, retention and positive progression. In fact, I would personally go further and say that enrichment (in its broadest sense) is now essential to address the changing dynamics of the world, the impact of social media and our students’ confidence and wellbeing. It plays a vital moving forward in community cohesion and addressing division.
The CAR report states that the DfE’s expectations in this area have been “deliberately broad” in the past to allow flexibility. But that leads to significant variations in student experience, something we have seen in our NAMSS work supporting the student engagement practitioner network (SEPN). This network was formed to connect college enrichment staff, who are often unique in their roles, with other likeminded individuals and share ideas for engagement.
We have found varying approaches across the sector. Some colleges strategically approach enrichment by providing budget and resources, quality assurance and tracking and recognising that enrichment happens in many forms. Others are still operating a minimal offer, with limited funding and without the ability to acknowledge the skill development contribution that enrichment makes.
As a sector, we are constantly juggling funding demands and ensuring that we have the right resources to deliver on our programmes. Many college leaders would love to focus more on enrichment but simply have too prioritise other things.
But when you take a strategic and holistic view to the development of students in any college, you will reap countless rewards from improvements in attendance and engagement to more students progressing positively. More than that, when you develop these skills in students and encourage staff to support this as well, you enhance your whole college community. You improve student outcomes, and make your organisation’s culture more vibrant.
The big question now is what this will look like moving forward, and whether we can meet expectations set out for us. The DfE’s response to the CAR discusses extending their current work on a schools’ enrichment framework to FE settings, which is where I get a little nervous. How many times has a framework originally developed for schools really been fit for purpose in FE?
Schools and colleges operate in very different ways. Enrichment and personal development in colleges is vastly different to schools and any framework for colleges needs to recognise us as a sector and the significant impact we can have on our student’s growth and development to become active global citizens.
The fight for our young people is on in the UK, we need to reskill them to harness the benefits technology brings, whilst also giving them real life skills outside the online world for work, life and wellbeing. Enrichment has the power to make a huge difference to our college and local communities. But let’s watch this space to see if the framework and support (financial or otherwise) allows us to ensure a consistent and impactful approach to enrichment across FE.
The uncertainty over what will be taught in the freshly painted classrooms of the Workers’ Education Association’s new centre poignantly reflects the state of flux pervading all of adult education right now.
Chief executive Simon Parkinson is hoping the new Whitehawk Community Learning Hub, which will be the WEA’s biggest centre when it opens in January, will live up to its name and deliver the type of community learning that the WEA has built its reputation on for the last 122 years.
But given the chancellor’s pre-Budget warning shot last week and recent cuts to adult education funding, is this just wishful thinking from a man who cares deeply for the plight of his sector?
As he hands me a high-vis vest and hard hat for a tour of the 5,500 square foot redbrick building in Brighton, Parkinson tells me how the hub will (“hopefully”) act as a model for at least eight other “one-stop shop” community learning centres across the country – a “Sure Start model for adults”.
But that all depends on the willingness of the adult education sector’s new caretaker, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the various new and soon-to-be-created combined authorities, to agree to fund such ventures amid economic turbulence.
Adult education can’t just be about skills for work
The WEA is “already quite well embedded” with the DWP, and Parkinson welcomes the department’s intentions now it has adult skills in its remit to “get rid of some of the duplication” with employability courses, and remove some “uncertainty” about where job seekers can go for training.
“But it can’t come at the cost of lifelong learning, tailored learning and community learning. Adult education can’t just be about skills for work, it’s got to be skills for life as well,” he says.
WEA chief executive Simon Parkinson (credit: Maria Sinnott)
A wounded mothership
The WEA was founded in 1903 on the lofty principles of empowering working people to improve their own lives, participate more fully in democracy and shape social progress. That meant teaching the liberal arts as well as the vocational training required to meet national economic needs.
Between the wars, many WEA members emigrated overseas and opened WEA branches in Australia, Canada and New Zealand that are still thriving today, with the UK’s WEA being “the mothership”.
“We showed everybody how to do adult education and were world leaders,” says Parkinson, proudly. But “we are now a little bit behind the curve compared to our overseas counterparts”.
Adult education is increasingly viewed through a narrow utilitarian lens, with arts and crafts, health, wellbeing and cultural learning being replaced by the types of skills and employability sessions which are popular with politicians, but not necessarily accessible to the people that need them.
Parkinson believes that community learning activities, like health and wellbeing sessions, are essential for incentivising the economically inactive through their doors, where they could then be encouraged to progress to skills and employability provision.
WEA learners in a session
Charity reform
The changing plight of the WEA reflects the turmoil facing the entire adult education sector. TheLearning and Work Institute found the number of adults engaging with learning dropped nine percentage points to 21 per cent this year.
Other historic adult education pioneers are in a state of flux, too. Residential provider Northern College is set to merge with Barnsley College, and the Mary Ward Centre in London, now under financial intervention, is having tohike its fees by around 26 per cent this year.
In the wake of Covid, Parkinson spoke of his wish to open a community learning centre in every town. But instead, the WEA has had to close many of its local branches. It now has 80 active branches, down from 122 in 2023-24 and over 600 in 2015-16.
A “root and branch” staffing restructure scrapped regional arrangements in favour of “specialist teams”, and its number of contracted tutors dropped from 506 to 349 in the year to July 2024. It reached around 35,000 learners across England and Scotland that year, compared to 60,000 in 2015-16.
But although it is relatively revenue-poor, the WEA finds itself in the strange predicament of being capital-rich.
In 2023-24, although its income fell “significantly short of expectations, resulting in a significant operational loss”, its total income actually rose from £27.5 million to £32.7 million after the charity received three capital grants worth £9.6 million to develop its estate (£6.9 million being recognised that year). It is an odd paradox that the government has been so generous in supporting the WEA’s capital endeavours, while at the same time reducing the funding it needs to fill all the new classrooms it helped to build.
This year, “methodology changes” meant the DfE’s cuts to theadult skills fund turned out to be £250,000 worse than the 6 per cent it told providers to expect in March. After the WEA launched a successful business case, this was reduced to £30,000. That amount “isn’t going to put us out of business”, says Parkinson, “but there’s a lack of clarity around how they’re doing the numbers”.
The end of the Multiply numeracy scheme earlier this year will also impact the WEA; last year £1.63 million of its income came from the national programme.
East Midlands mayor Claire Ward and WEA tutor Shamaila Firdaus
Adapting to survive
But ultimately, this is a tale of adaptation rather than abolition.
The WEA has seen “growing demand” for online learning since the pandemic, with almost half of its training now provided online through around 6,000 courses.
Because the charity can no longer afford to provide online arts and cultural courses free or at reduced cost, from September it has been asking for full-cost payment from those with an income of over £20,000 a year. Parkinson claims the new rate of around £12 an hour (roughly double what it was) is “still competitive”.
The “hope” is that if they can get the paid-for courses to “wash their own face”, then the money made will go towards hardship funds for those unable to afford the provision.
“One of our strategic goals is that everybody’s welcome at the WEA; it’s just how we find the money to help them,” says Parkinson. “But we’re not going to turn people away.”
So far, the paid online provision has had “good uptake” despite “some trouble” with discontent over the price hike.
The charity’ssocial media disinformation course remains free for all because “we thought it was an important issue”. The course, built off the back of a lecture by BBC journalist Amanda Ruggeri, is franchised around the world as part of the WEA’s charitable purpose.
“It opens our front door to people; if they do that for free and enjoy it, maybe they do another course.”
WEA CEO Simon Parkinson with East Midlands mayor Claire Ward
Driving change
The WEA has also grown it’s maths, English and ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) provision in recent years. It has been working “at scale” for just over a year under the Afghanistan resettlement scheme, teaching Afghans on Ministry of Defence bases. Such work is not without its controversies. One of the MOD bases is in Lincolnshire, where mayorAndrea Jenkyns announced last month that she wanted to redirect ESOL funding to “improving literacy for people in Lincolnshire”.
Parkinson points out that it is not just English language skills that the WEA is teaching Afghans refugees; “We’re doing plenty of British values, gender equality, functional skills. And the most popular thing they want is driving test theory,” he explains.
The WEA is currently delivering 32 courses with over 500 enrolments at four MOD sites (of which two remain open) and two hotels. They had been working in other hotels, but Parkinson says (referring to recent protests against asylum seekers and refugees outside hotels) that they “had to really think carefully about how we protect our colleagues, not from the learners but from the people outside, as they come in and out”.
WEA learners with East Midlands mayor Claire Ward and WEA tutor Shamaila Firdaus
Devolution dramas
The WEA has had to become ever more fleet of foot, moving on from some places where it had longstanding historic links, to where new combined authorities are more amenable.
The charity currently boasts contracts with all the existing combined authorities except Conservative-controlled Tees Valley (Parkinson admits they “didn’t perform as well as we would have liked” in the first year of devolution there). But devolution has been a steep learning curve.
Not all combined authorities have been enthusiastic to engage. The WEA initially lost its grant funding in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, but later regained it. And last year, it had tothreaten legal action before the new North East Combined Authority would agree to continue its adult education grant.
In 2023-24 its performance with mayoral combined authorities was “particularly poor”, accounts said. A £1 million restructure took place to address the challenge of “more skills focused” mayoral contracts where “funding is performance based”. Its total income from mayoral areas dropped from £7.5 million in 2022-23 to £6.2 million that year, while fee income fell from £859,000 to £591,000.
But Parkinson is quick to react to potential opportunities.
In Reform-controlled Derbyshire, at least five adult education centres have been earmarked for closure, but as most of Derbyshire’s adult education funding has now been transferred to the region’s new East Midlands Mayoral Strategic Authority, which is already working with the WEA, the charity is “talking” to them about whether it can save the centres.
“If there’s one of those learning centres that Derbyshire has decided they can’t make work but there’s still a need, then maybe we can step in and help with that,” he says.
Parkinson currently spends “half his life” going around authorities in the process of devolving and urging them not to cut their existing provision.
He praises new mayoral combined authorities in East Midlands, North Yorkshire and Cornwall for their “sensible approach” in “talking to their existing provider network and almost changing nothing in year one, whilst they start working out what to do”, rather than “throwing everything up in the air”.
“When you just cut everything, it makes it so much more difficult to get things up and running again,” he says. “We know it needs to evolve. But don’t force it. Work with us and it’ll be better for everybody, particularly for the learners – it’s their provision and they don’t understand that [their area] was not devolved and now it’s devolved. They just understand that their course has stopped… that’s the most difficult thing.”
“Good conversations” have also taken place with Lancashire and Cornwall, and with Suffolk, which is set to forge a new mayoral combined authority with Norfolk.
“We’re in a good place now with devolution and think we know how to do it,” says Parkinson.
The WEA’s head of estates Mitch Bell (credit: Maria Sinnott)
Footprint changes
The WEA is repurposing centres in Scunthorpe, Nottingham and Leicester, where the WEA’s head of estates, Mitch Bell, says they have “really gone out to get into the community”. It also has centres in Bristol, Southampton and Leeds, and is looking to open new centres in London.
The new Nottingham centre, which is “almost carbon neutral” with solar panels and electric vehicle charging points, was opened last month by East Midlands mayor Claire Ward.
The WEA is also selling a building it has owned for 34 years in Newcastle (which it is no longer using) and is opening provision in Sunderland instead.
Parkinson says the WEA’s flexibility is an advantage it has over colleges. “You can’t move a college site from Newcastle to Sunderland because the needs shifted, but we can. We can close that building in Newcastle, it’s not fit for purpose anyway, and we’ll reinvest the money that we can from that and move to a community that needs it more.”
Parkinson hopes the WEA’s new centre in Scunthorpe will become a steel workers’ community hub. “Whether it comes from the adult skills fund, or whether Andrea [Jenkyns, mayor of Lincolnshire] will fund it or not, I don’t really care. Just, let’s get it going. We’ll find the revenue from somewhere.”
The WEA’s Whitehawk Community Learning Hub (in September)
Bright future in Brighton?
The uncertainty facing WEA’s new Brighton hub is compounded by the fact that from next year, the city will be part of a new mayoral combined county authority covering the whole of Sussex, and nobody knows whether it will prioritise adult education.
The WEA bought the 90-year-old former pub for £1 million two years ago with proceeds from selling another building, and it has been a “long journey” since then to upgrade it, supported by an £8.65 million FE capital transformation grant.
Such grants are more commonly associated with FE colleges than adult providers, and Bell praises the DfE for showing “so much flexibility” on the project.
The Brighton hub was previously rented out to an NHS provider, the Wellsbourne Healthcare clinic, and Parkinson is pleased to welcome them back into the building when it reopens. He hopes they will refer patients for the kind of “social prescribing” activities that the WEA could provide. But that all depends on health partners being willing to fund it.
“If they’re saying, ‘you’d benefit from a yoga class or mindfulness class’, well – you could come through this door here and we could provide that”, says Parkinson, gesturing to a freshly painted room with its own kitchen space and toilets.
Parkinson takes me through a future ICT suite and another kitchen which he tells me he envisions becoming a “working café”, providing much-needed “barista training” to a town heavily dependent on its hospitality industry.
There are hopes for another room to be used for arts and textiles workshops. “We’ve put low-level lights in, to help with sewing and needleworking,” explains Bell. He is optimistic that in artsy Brighton, even if such provision cannot be funded via public bodies, people will be willing to pay for it anyway.
Parkinson adds: “We’ll be led by what the community wants and needs.
“So actually, if there is a need or a desire for people to do some textiles work, then our job is to facilitate that. We’ll fund what we can through the adult skills fund, then we’ll shout from the rooftops about the difference it’s making and that somebody should fund it.”
Pathways into higher education (HE) still suffer from a lack of parity of esteem. Too often, foundation years and CertHEs are seen as fallback options – a detour for those who couldn’t make it onto a “real” degree.
That perception is wrong, and it’s time we challenged it. These programmes are not remedial; they are rigorous, high-value routes that prepare students to thrive at university and beyond.
In my role at Roehampton, and through my wider career in apprenticeships and employability, I’ve seen how central pathways are to the sector. They draw in students who might otherwise be locked out of higher education: learners from further education with vocational qualifications, mature students returning after time in work, and international students developing academic English.
Others simply don’t have the right subject combination from school to progress directly to a degree. Pathways provide them with a structured, supportive and respected entry point into higher education.
And here’s the crucial point: these students don’t just “catch up”. In many respects, they arrive at the start of their degree more ready to study at university level.
Foundation and pathway programmes do more than cover subject knowledge. They build the skills and habits of successful students: independent study, critical thinking, confidence in communication, and, for many, academic English.
By the time pathway students progress to the first year of their degree, they are well-equipped to succeed. Far from being remedial, pathways accelerate readiness.
They also foster collaboration between colleges and universities. Foundation programmes are carefully mapped so that what students learn in FE flows smoothly into the expectations of HE. That curriculum alignment doesn’t just ease the transition for learners – it creates shared ownership across the sectors. Pathways quietly model what genuine partnership can look like.
Recent policy developments underline their importance. The new skills white paper promises a single regulatory system for levels 4-6 under the Office for Students. For the first time, parity between FE and HE is being hard-wired into the system rather than left to aspiration. Pathways already embody that joined-up model, demonstrating how collaboration and progression can work in practice.
The same white paper introduces V Levels to sit alongside A levels and T Levels, with a goal of simplifying technical education at level 3. That shift will shape the next generation of pathway learners. As V Levels replace the current patchwork of vocational qualifications, we have a real opportunity to ensure smoother progression into higher education through stronger FE-HE alignment.
Pathways also sit squarely within the government’s lifelong learning entitlement agenda. If learners are to move flexibly in and out of study across their lives, we need entry points that support non-linear journeys. Foundation years and CertHEs already do that – they are the living, proven infrastructure of modular learning.
Local Skills Improvement Plans and the proposed new regional improvement teams reinforce the same principle: routes, not ranks. Pathways connect colleges, universities and employers, ensuring learners don’t fall through the cracks between local skills needs and higher-level study.
And for providers, these programmes aren’t just “nice to have”. They support widening participation, strengthen student outcomes, and align with the success measures regulators focus on. For universities and FE colleges alike, pathway provision is part of how institutions are held to account.
The challenge, then, is one of esteem. Employers should understand pathways as evidence of resilience, determination and adaptability. Policymakers should treat them as a vital part of the post-16 landscape, not as peripheral experiments. And within education itself, we should be proud of what pathways achieve for students and society.
The real test of fairness in higher education is not how we treat those who follow a straight line from A-levels to graduation. It’s how we design for those whose journeys take a different route. Pathways make those journeys possible.
For thousands of students every year, they are not a back door to university – they are the front door. And it’s time we treated them that way.
Brooklands College will remain a standalone institution, the FE Commissioner has decided following a six-year review.
The decision for the Surrey college, now called Brooklands Technical College, comes after a structure and prospects appraisal (SPA) which explored whether a merger would be the best strategic option to secure its long-term future.
The review concluded that remaining as a standalone institution was the “most effective way” for the college to provide the “very best for students, continue to deliver financial resilience, and deliver responsiveness to local skills needs”.
It marks the end of direct oversight from the FEC that began in 2019 – a period that was triggered by a subcontracting scandal which resulted in Brooklands repaying the Department for Education over £20 million.
The college is technically still in government intervention but expects to move into post intervention monitoring shortly.
Principal Christine Ricketts said the SPA outcome “gives the college and our community the certainty and stability needed to continue the transformational work of the last few years”.
“I want to thank the FE Commissioner team and our stakeholders for their constructive engagement and support throughout what was a thorough and transparent process,” she added.
“Most importantly, I want to recognise our staff, whose commitment and resilience have been remarkable throughout this extended process.”
Brooklands’ recovery has been closely watched since the 2019 financial crisis and repayment order, which came after a government probe discovered one of the college’s subcontractors had created “ghost” learners and was illegally using funding to pay wages.
Ricketts, who stepped up from deputy to principal after the scandal came to light, and her leadership team have been credited with pulling the college back from the brink.
Brooklands is partway through a £45 million redevelopment of its Weybridge campus – a project that is funding the government’s clawback. The first new facilities are already open, with further phases due for completion over the next 18 months.
The college reported a 5 per cent increase in enrolments this academic year, which it said reflects “growing confidence” from students and employers.
Ricketts added: “The FE Commissioner’s conclusion that Brooklands should remain standalone is an endorsement of the progress we’ve made and the strong position we now hold. With stability secured, we can move forward with confidence – continuing to invest in our people, our facilities, and the learners and businesses we serve.”
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.
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.
