It’s wrong that nobody knows if the adult skills fund actually works

“It is very nice of you to tell Aidan that you will tell him about things. We are the scrutiny body here, and we are saying to you loud and clear that we would like to know more about these things.”

This pointed rebuke from a London Assembly member to Greater London Authority (GLA) officials still resonates with me six months after I addressed the assembly on the mayor’s adult skills fund (ASF).

At that December session, I raised concerns about how little we know about the delivery and impact of the capital’s £345 million programme. Those concerns are not unique to London. Across England, both devolved and non-devolved ASF allocations suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability amidst evidence of substantial budget underspends.

Unlike apprenticeships, where comprehensive data is available from national to individual provider level, we know remarkably little about the outcomes of ASF-funded provision. There is ample data on learner participation. But scant information exists on job outcomes or progression. In London, the GLA’s Learner Survey attempts to fill the gap. However, small-scale survey extrapolations are a poor substitute for robust performance data.

This opacity matters. Sector leaders frequently point to the overall decline in the adult education budget since 2010, but when the Treasury looks for evidence to justify more investment, it finds little to support the case. Without hard outcomes, officials are left unconvinced.

Caretakers of decline

Even before the local elections attention in government had turned again to the ASF, with senior cabinet members demanding that all departmental programmes demonstrate value for money as part of the so-called “Plan for Change”. Labour’s Growth Group of MPs has since accused ministers of being “caretakers of decline”, while another Labour MP warned that “we cannot afford to let stale institutions, cautious regulators, pressure groups or vested interests stand in the way” of reform.

Adult skills funding may not have been the immediate target of those criticisms, but it absolutely should be part of the conversation. Skills policy was central to the prime minister’s recent proposals to reduce immigration. Yet the ASF remains poorly understood and weakly monitored.

Calls for reform are nothing new. The Leitch Review in 2006 set out a clear direction for demand-led funding. But resistance, including from civil servants, has kept much of the system unchanged. Today, it is hard to defend a multi-million-pound programme, delivered almost entirely through grants, with so little public accountability.

The London Assembly agrees. Members have rightly demanded access to provider funding agreements, which might show whether large college groups are held to the same job outcome targets as independent training providers on the GLA’s framework and we should know what the outcomes are. Politicians in other regions should make similar demands and not accept spurious references to commercial confidentiality as an excuse.

Demand-led advantages

The case for making the ASF more demand-led has long been established. In a recent FE Week profile, Isle of Wight College principal Ros Parker noted that after advertising courses in carpentry and welding, the college received 500 applications overnight. It had to close applications early due to overwhelming demand. More provision is now planned for the autumn. But a genuinely demand-led, roll-on-roll-off system could have allowed the college to respond faster.

ASF funding agreements should align more closely and transparently with the sector priorities set out in Local Skills Improvement Plans, especially now that mayors co-own those plans. The mayors’ offices should be thoroughly scrutinising the work of the combined authority officials in this regard.

The current grant allocation system for post-19 provision should be phased out and Lord Blunkett’s call to revive individual learning accounts deserves serious attention. The Department for Education has confirmed that mayors could use ASF to pilot such schemes. Proven models already exist internationally and the technology to deliver them is readily available.

In February, Sir Sadiq Khan announced that he would “start to change the way London commissions adult education” to make it more employer-led. We await the details, but there is hope that long-overdue reform may finally be on its way.

Why FE colleges must lead the fight against coercive control

This month, our college partnered with Avon and Somerset Police and actor and domestic abuse survivor Sam Beckinsale to host Strong Voices, Safe Communities, an event confronting head-on the impact of coercive control and domestic abuse on young people and our communities.

Originally conceived as a local safeguarding initiative, the event quickly resonated beyond Somerset. It reflected a deeper truth: FE colleges are not just educational institutions, but frontline safeguarding environments.

The Hidden Threat in Plain Sight

Conversations throughout the day revealed a pervasive challenge. Local businesses, students and community members shared personal stories of coercive control—stories often hidden in plain sight. Their openness underscored a key lesson: this is not a private issue. It’s a systemic one, affecting every postcode, classroom and age group.

What made the greatest impact wasn’t just the presence of experts or professionals. It was the ownership shown by students. Performing arts learners at Strode College developed original vignettes exploring the realities of coercive control. These performances ignited some of the most honest and impactful discussions of the day.

For too many young people, coercive control is not theoretical—it is lived, normalised and silently endured. If we are to tackle it effectively, they must not only be part of the conversation – they must lead it.

A Role for Every College

The screening of Love?, a film co-created by Sam Beckinsale and director Jason Figgis, highlighted the often-misunderstood realities of psychological abuse. As Beckinsale stated powerfully: “Coercive control kills—and without a fist being raised.”

The response to the event was overwhelmingly positive. Delegates from across education, local government and the business community praised the event’s depth, urgency, and student voice. Crucially, a number of local employers pledged to join the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse (EIDA), recognising their own role in supporting staff and communities affected by abuse.

We are incredibly proud that the talented students who participated in the conference have won the Educational Partnership Award from Avon and Somerset Police in recognition of the powerful work they have done using drama to raise awareness about domestic abuse.

The FE sector has a critical role to play in shifting the national narrative. As safeguarding leads, curriculum designers and leaders of place, colleges must:

  • Widen the lens: Explore how trauma, poverty, identity conflict, and digital exploitation make young people vulnerable.
  • Equip and empower: Ensure both staff and students can recognise, challenge, and respond to coercive behaviours whilst remaining safe.
  • Platform student voices: Involve young people in co-producing resources, campaigns and future events.
  • Share and scale good practice: Work collaboratively across institutions to influence policy and improve intervention.

Too often, coercive control is dismissed as “relationship drama”—particularly when the victim is young. That myth must end. Colleges are uniquely positioned to model healthy relationships and educate on agency, consent and bystander intervention.

From Awareness to Action

Strode College joined EIDA during the event – an important step toward organisational change. But the real challenge lies within. Are we trauma-informed? Are we creating environments where students feel safe enough to speak?

We call on fellow colleges to work with us – not just to respond to abuse, but to prevent it. That means embedding this work into tutorial programmes, student leadership frameworks and staff development. It means recognising coercive control as a safeguarding priority.

Our next step is a follow-up conference with a more diverse range of voices, including students, exploring how coercive control manifests across different communities and relationships.

Leadership Through Education

Further education has long been a place of transformation. In the fight against coercive control, it can also be a place of national leadership. There is momentum here, and we believe the sector is ready to act.

Let’s make it clear: to those who seek to manipulate, isolate, and harm – there is no place to hide. Not in our communities. Not in our colleges. Not anymore.

The unseen impact of Ofsted: What one grade can really cost

Why as a country are we so obsessed with Ofsted grades, and why do we view anything not “good” or “outstanding” with the perception that everything must be appalling at that provider?  This is something I’ve been grappling with for the last year.  

At 9am on June 24 2024, and I’d just taken my seat at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference in London when i received the phone call that nobody wants; two days’ notice of a full Ofsted inspection for our skills bootcamps provision.  We’d never experienced an inspection before as a standalone provider, as all our provision had been sub-contracted from local authorities and colleges.  Nothing compares to the pandora’s box opening at your own full inspection. 

Worse still, it completely caught us out.  Whilst we had received our first Ofsted monitoring visit, for traineeships in 2022,  I didn’t expect a full inspection so soon for our recently acquired bootcamps provision. We’d been out of scope for an inspection, with traineeship funding coming to an end the previous academic year.

After the dreaded call, I quietly slipped away to our Brighton office to get preparing.  Unfortunately, we didn’t receive the grade we’d hoped for but a grade 3.  It was a fair inspection and whist I viewed it as free consultancy on driving ongoing quality improvement, it came with unexpected consequences.

The obvious one was facing challenges bidding for new contracts, as many colleges automatically exclude providers with an Ofsted grade 3 or 4.  We’ve had no choice but to ‘sit out’ of countless adult skills fund (ASF) tenders, as our Ofsted grade prohibited us from bidding.  This blanket-ban approach has been frustrating, especially as we had a 97.1 per cent achievement rate across 211 enrolments last academic year for our Brighton and Hove City Council adult education sub-contract.  Excluding a provider from bidding for a completely different funding stream doesn’t make sense, especially when our data and references from those councils we’ve delivered on behalf of for many years would clarify the high-quality provision we provide. 

As our bootcamps were the only provision in scope for the inspection, we didn’t have the benefit of other funding streams such as ASF being included to provide a more balanced evaluation. Reviewing Ofsted reports from other providers, I’ve noticed that many have received similar feedback on their skills bootcamps.

What I didn’t expect was our new 16-18 study programmes contract being withdrawn by a London-based college in August, two weeks before delivery was due to commence, as they didn’t want to work with a Grade 3 or 4 provider.  We’d bid for their sub-contract six weeks before our inspection.

To make matters worse, we’d recruited two new staff members who had to be made redundant before they’d even started. 

Then in March when our insurance came up for its annual renewal, our insurance premium went up by £10,000 due to the perceived risk associated with our grade.  Whilst our safeguarding was found by Ofsted to be effective, the underwriters thought our public liability risk was higher. 

Then in May, we were finalising a commercial mortgage with a bank who attempted to charge a higher interest rate because of their perceived increase in risk – all because of one inspection of one funding stream for bootcamps, representing one of our 32 contracts.

Grade 3 is seen as a badge of embarrassment, like an STI that you don’t really want to talk about.  Whilst we found the full inspection incredibly useful and embraced the outcome, outsiders automatically assume the grade applies to every funding stream and programme that the organisation delivers.  What I’ve learnt is commissioners and colleges who sub-contract provision through competitive tenders often take the easiest (and dare I say it idlest) route with due diligence, by taking an Ofsted judgment from one funding stream and applying it across the board.  This risks excluding providers who have strong track records with other funding streams that were out of scope for an inspection.

We have come a long way in the last year, and worked incredibly hard.  In May we received an Ofsted RI monitoring visit, and I look forward to sharing the news once it’s published. 

Colleges should be civil society guardians in a more uncivil world

In an era increasingly defined by division, disconnection, and distrust, FE colleges have a critical yet often under-recognised role to play: acting as guardians of civil society.

Since the 1970s, neoliberalism has shaped much of our public life. This ideology, centred on market logic, individual competition, and personal freedom, has slowly but surely chipped away at collective responsibility and public solidarity. Welfare systems have been weakened. Inequality has deepened. Communities have fragmented. And many individuals now face life’s challenges in isolation—without the social infrastructure that once bound people together.

This erosion of civic life has, in part, created fertile ground for populism and polarisation. When people feel disconnected, unheard, and disempowered, they are more susceptible to simplified answers and scapegoats. What’s needed now is not just economic recovery or policy reform, but a deeper, cultural rebuilding of the social fabric. FE colleges are ideally placed to lead this quiet reconstruction.

FE institutions stand at the intersection of education, community, and civic engagement. Unlike schools or universities, they serve an incredibly diverse mix of learners – across ages, backgrounds, and life experiences. This gives them a unique vantage point from which to nurture inclusive values, promote social connection, and create spaces for critical thinking and democratic participation.

In resisting the commodification of education – where value is measured only in job outcomes or wage increases – FE colleges can reclaim their broader purpose: developing not just workers, but citizens.

So how can colleges actively support civic life while remaining politically neutral? The answer lies in focusing on values, not parties; processes, not ideologies. Here are six ways FE can quietly but powerfully champion civil society:

Embed civic education and critical thinking

Colleges can integrate democracy, rights, responsibilities, and media literacy into the curriculum. Teaching students to critically assess information, engage in respectful debate, and understand how institutions work equips them for active participation in society – without pushing any political agenda.

Facilitate student voice and democratic structures

By supporting student unions, councils, and participatory decision-making, colleges give learners first-hand experience of how democracy works. This lived practice of listening, negotiating, and voting teaches essential civic skills in real time.

Promote volunteering and social impact projects

Community-based projects, whether food drives, mentoring, or environmental initiatives, allow students to engage directly with local needs. These actions build a sense of agency and social responsibility, encouraging students to see themselves as change-makers, not just job-seekers.

Host inclusive dialogue spaces

FE colleges can act as safe havens for open dialogue on complex or controversial issues. By modelling respectful disagreement and ensuring diverse voices (however uncomfortable) are heard, colleges help students learn the art of civil discourse – a foundational skill for democracy.

Model ethical leadership and institutional fairness

Institutions themselves must reflect democratic values – through transparency, accountability, inclusion, and fairness. When students see these principles in action, it reinforces the idea that collective structures can work, and that integrity in leadership matters.

Recognise that ‘skills’ go beyond employment

Too often, curriculum value is measured only in economic terms. But courses like the creative arts play a vital civic role. They spark dialogue, provoke thought, and help build bridges between different communities. These subjects may not always match immediate skills priorities, but they contribute to long-term social cohesion and emotional resilience – qualities our society badly needs.

At TSCG, we take immense pride in our ongoing commitment to championing civil society. From hosting pre-election hustings to supporting the annual Greater Manchester Colleges Question Time, we actively use our platform to bring diverse voices together and nurture constructive, respectful dialogue.

Our student council serves as a vibrant hub for democratic engagement and social impact initiatives, empowering learners to shape their college experience and contribute meaningfully to wider society. Through our tutorial and student experience programmes, we strive to go beyond the curriculum and equip students with the skills, values, and confidence they need to thrive as active citizens in today’s complex world.

Yet, we recognise that this work is never complete. We have a responsibility to deepen our impact by reaching out to those in our communities who feel disenfranchised, disconnected or unheard. Strengthening democracy starts with inclusion, a key value for TSCG, and our mission must continue to evolve to meet that challenge.

FE colleges are more than places of training—they are democratic microcosms. By nurturing thoughtful, engaged, and collaborative learners, they help counteract the isolating forces of neoliberalism and the allure of simplistic populism. In doing so, they hold open the space for a more civil, connected, and compassionate society.

DfE appoints three new FE national leaders

Three leaders of ‘outstanding’ colleges have been appointed to the Department for Education’s roster of national leaders of further education. 

The national leaders (NLFEs) form part of the FE Commissioner’s active support offer and are sent in to guide and mentor colleges facing difficulties. 

Following a recruitment round in February, Notre Dame Sixth Form College principal Justine Barlow, City Lit principal and CEO Mark Malcomson and New City College group principal and CEO Gerry McDonald have been appointed. 

They will serve three-year terms. 

Joining them is Peter Doherty, deputy principal for finance and resources and Kirklees College, who has been made a national leader of further education finance specialists. 

Each of NLFE’s home colleges can claim up to £15,000 per year from a DfE bursary to cover “costs associated” with their principals’ national roles. 

DfE guidance states that the NLFEs help colleges identify improvement needs, provide mentorship and deliver the FE Commissioner’s curriculum efficiency and financial sustainability programmes. 

It brings the total number of NLFEs up to eight after the departure of previous postholders from their college roles. Those standing down recently include Peter McGhee from St John Rigby College and Graham Razey from EKC Group.  

FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave’s most recent annual report said her team of NLFE’s and national leaders of governance supported 59 colleges in 2023-24.

To become an NLFE, bosses must hail from colleges graded ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ for financial health and by Ofsted. 

Once again the department has failed to appoint principals from diverse backgrounds to the NLFE team. 

In an FE Week interview in 2021, Legrave was challenged specifically on representative of non-white college principals on her top team. She said at the time this was “reflective of the small number of BAME leaders in the sector”, adding, “I think it is really sad that we haven’t got as diverse in our leadership in FE as we should have. And I will certainly work with everybody to try and ensure that there is a greater diversity”.

National leaders of further education

Justine Barlow, Notre Dame Catholic Sixth Form College

Colin Booth, Luminate Education Group

John Laramy, Exeter College

Mark Malcomson, City Lit

Gerry McDonald, New City College

Sam Parrett, London South East Colleges

Ellen Thinnesen, Education Partnership North East

Gill Worgan, West Herts College Group

National leaders of further education finance specialists

Peter Doherty, Kirklees College

John Hunt, London South East Colleges 

WCG sells contentious campus after High Court win 

A large midlands college has finally sold a campus two years after winning a controversial legal battle with its local council and campaigners. 

Warwickshire College Group (WCG) sold its Malvern Hills campus, which it closed in 2020, to special needs school provider Aurora Group earlier this year for an undisclosed sum. 

The college group was gifted the school by Malvern Hills District Council on the covenant that it could only sell the site for educational purposes. 

However, WCG successfully overturned the legal agreement after taking the local authority to the High Court with the hope of achieving a higher price for the site by selling it for another use. 

The financially embattled college group now plans to use the proceeds to pay off debts to the government, which include a clawback from apprenticeship funding claims previously estimated to be at least £1.4 million. 

It continues to face funding clawback claims from the DfE due to audits of its “historic learner data”, covering several previous academic years. 

A spokesperson said: “We are able to confirm that the sale of Malvern Hills College has occurred to another education provider, with none of the proceeds going to the local authority. 

“In agreement with the Department for Education, WCG has used the funds to cover liabilities owed to the DfE that can now be used to support other public works.  

“The college had a new CEO in place from September 2024, who sought to expedite the sale of what was an already a closed college when she joined, thus ensuring it re-opened for education purposes as soon as possible.” 

A WCG spokesperson refused to confirm how much the site has been sold for, but FE Week understands the college had hoped to achieve a price of about £1.4 million. 

Richard Arquati, spokesman for the Aurora Group, also refused to disclose the price, arguing the sum is a private financial transaction between two parties. 

Dame Harriett Baldwin, MP for West Worcestershire, said: “I campaigned strenuously for education to remain at the historic Malvern Hills College site and I am relieved that a new education provider will be taking over the site for this purpose. I plan to meet with the team leading this shortly. 

“I’ve also had constructive conversations with the new chief executive of WCG who inherited significant budget challenges and I have stressed the importance of delivering the best possible further education opportunities for my constituents.” 

The Aurora Group is a growing provider of special needs education to more than 1,200 children at 25 schools. 

Its ultimate owner is investment giant Octopus Group, which declared a pre-tax profit of £51 million on a turnover of £313 million in 2023-24. 

Arquati said: “We are working closely with Worcestershire Council to ensure that Aurora Peartree School best serves the needs of students with additional learning needs in the county. 

“It will provide day placements for 120 primary and secondary students up to the age of 19 who have special educational needs and disabilities. 

“There are lots of steps that need to be taken before a school like this can open. These include the building works, curriculum planning, recruitment of staff and Ofsted registration. Our plan is to open the school in autumn 2026.” 

DfE agrees ‘transitional period’ for new off the job policy

The government will temporarily slash minimum off-the-job training (OTJ) hours for 39 apprenticeship standards by up to half after concerns emerged that the timing to implement new rules was “too short”.

The move, agreed by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), is part of a four-month transitional period from August for apprenticeship standards “of concern” to allow training providers “headroom” to engage with employers and change delivery models.

The agreement comes after DfE’s May introduction of minimum off-the-job training (OTJ) hours for each apprenticeship standard for the first time.

DfE will publish an updated document with the revised minimum OTJ hours next month.

The changes were introduced in the funding rules for 2025-26, effective from August this year. 

DfE said at the time that the changes were necessary due to the shortening of the minimum apprenticeship duration from 12 to eight months, as well as “the introduction of new products and feedback from the sector”.

But in an email to members today, AELP deputy chief executive Simon Ashworth said it had received feedback from providers that there was not enough time to talk to employers on the change nor to tweak their specific delivery models and curriculum.

“Some members also raised that they believed that in some instances, the required OTJT minimum hours had been set too high,” he added.

One standard of “concern” could have been the level 6 digital and technology solutions professional standard, which had been set a high minimum OTJ hours at 1022 hours. The transitional period will see a 23 per cent reduction to 787 hours for the standard.

Until now, training providers have had to calculate how much OTJ training each apprentice requires depending on the length of their apprenticeship – but must be a minimum of 20 per cent of their working hours.

The biggest difference in temporary OTJ minimum hours is the level 6 financial services professional, which has been reduced by nearly half (47 per cent) to 370 hours.

Other standards with large reductions include level 2 hairdressing professional and the level 7 health and care intelligence specialist, both minimum OTJ hours of which will briefly fall by over 40 per cent.

Three standards will not see and change in OTJ hours: these are the level 3 fundraiser, level 3 funeral director and level 3 team leader standards.

Additionally, 12 standards have had their OTJ hours reduced to the baseline of 278 hours.

“DfE’s criteria for inclusion are only where the minimum hours are “materially” different and that the baseline remains 278 OTJ training hours,” Ashworth said.

He added: “Having secured a transition, this allows some headroom for providers impacted. Over the next period of time, we think 3-6 months, the DfE will be working with Skills England to review standards included in the transition to decide on the right level of OTJT and subsequent funding. 

“We recognise just how important this is, and are preparing ourselves to engage rapidly and fully with the Department to make sure we secure a reasonable outcome for you, for your employers and for your learners. Once we get more clarity on that process, we will share that with you as well.”

The transitional arrangements for the revised OTJ hours will be in place from August until December 2025.

See the full list below:

SEND deficits to be kept off council balance sheets for two more years

An accounting loophole keeping spiralling SEND deficits from bankrupting councils has been extended for two years.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has confirmed today that the so-called SEND deficit “statutory override” – which was due to end next March – has been extended until the end of 2027-28.

The override means high needs spending deficits are not part of councils’ general balance sheets.

Today’s move follows warnings that around half of councils faced going bust if the mechanism was lifted next spring. Estimates suggest the deficits could soon amount to £5 billion.

The government said today it was reforming services for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, “including ensuring councils are properly funded to help support and protect the most vulnerable children”.

“While these reforms are underway, the dedicated schools grant statutory override, which helps councils manage SEND costs, will stay in place until the end of 2027-28 and in addition we will introduce a bespoke formula to recognise home to school transport costs.”

Kicking the can down the road

Today’s decision effectively kicks the can of a permanent solution two years down the road.

The government has not said how it will reform SEND or council funding, recently confirming that it would release a white paper on its planned reforms in the autumn.

But a key focus will be on education more pupils with additional needs in mainstream schools. A government adviser has also said they are considering limiting education, health and care plans to children in special schools.

It comes after the National Audit Office warned last year that the current SEND system is “financially unsustainable”. The current intervention programmes are inadequate to resolve the issues and urgent reform is required, with councils’ deficits due to hit £5 billion.

Committee chair Helen Hayes
Helen Hayes

Education committee chair Helen Hayes said the announcement would “bring certainty to local authorities across the country in the short term, for whom SEND has become one of the biggest financial pressures and who will be already planning for the coming financial year.

But she said ministers “will know that this is only a temporary fix until the government brings forward desperately needed, long-term reforms to the SEND system.

“The Government should not delay a permanent resolution to local authorities’ long term SEND deficits beyond 2028 and it must work to devise a solution that helps councils to achieve long term financial sustainability and does not damage their finances further.”

‘A sigh of relief’

Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, also welcomed the news. He said leaders could “breathe a sigh of relief knowing they no longer face a financial cliff edge in nine months’ time.

“We now need to ensure that the government’s commitment to support councils to manage their SEND deficits rings true.”

He said it was “critical government sets out a comprehensive solution later this year.

“This should include writing off deficits and compensating councils who went through the pain of ‘safety valve’ agreements, ensuring that the slate is wiped clean so local authorities can begin driving through badly-needed reforms to ensure the SEND system works for young people, families, and councils alike.”

The announcement forms part of a package of measures the government said would “overhaul…the outdated and complex council system” to bring “fairer funding, more stability and improve lives of people across the county”.

The local government funding system “will be reformed to get councils back on stable footing, improve the lives for people across the country and deliver essential funding for better public services”.

Ofqual publishes ‘flexible’ apprenticeship assessment rules

The assessment watchdog has set out how it plans to regulate new-style apprenticeship assessments that will see training providers do their own marking and more control over assessment methods handed to awarding organisations. 

Ofqual sets out the rules that awarding organisations (AOs) must follow and has the power to sanction them if these rules are broken. A 14,000-word consultation launched today sets out new proposed rules for “simplified” apprenticeship assessments, following the government’s revised assessment principles for apprenticeships announced earlier this year. 

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

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

It’s unclear when new-style apprenticeship assessments will be brought in. There will be another consultation after this one, and the awarding sector is braced for a raft of new guidance they will be required to follow.

FE Week has asked Ofqual, Skills England and DfE for clarity. We’ve been told delivery timescales will be published “in due course”.

Ofqual is proposing that existing apprentices continue to be assessed under the current rules, with new-style assessments taking place for new starts once the new rules have been consulted on and approved. More on that below.

Here is your trusty FE Week speed-read on Ofqual’s proposals.

RIP EPA

Regulating for assessments under the February principles is a “significant change”, Ofqual said, giving awarding organisations “greater design and delivery flexibility”.

The first change is that elements of an apprentices’ assessment will be able to take place “on-programme”, rather than waiting until the end. 

What apprentices get assessed on will still be informed by the apprenticeship standard, and new slimmed-down assessment plans (more on those below). But behind the scenes, Ofqual will be expecting detailed strategies and plans from AOs on what gets assessed, when, by who, and how. 

The consultation stated: “Ofqual does not propose to prescribe the overall structure of apprenticeship assessment or when individual assessments should take place. This is because decisions about the structure of assessment and when assessment should take place are best made at the level of the individual apprenticeship assessment, in line with the occupational standard.”

Rob Nitsch, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said: “The changes are substantial and will impact awarding organisations, providers and employers; it is important to remember that EPA is valued and the majority of assessments are working well now”.  

Centre marking

Ofqual recommended AOs should be required to mark “a substantial proportion” of apprenticeship assessments but they should allow training providers and colleges to make some of the assessments themselves.

Ofqual said today they recognise this is a “significant” change and have proposed rules to mitigate against risks to the reliability of assessments. Those risks range from inconsistency between different assessors from the same training provider through to fraud and malpractice. 

To reduce those risks, the regulator suggested 40 per cent of the assessment should be marked by AOs, but advised AOs could do less. 

Ofqual’s plan is to publish guidance for AOs to follow, and be held to account to, rather than prescribing how much marking AOs or centres should do. 

Some training providers may not want to mark their own apprentices’ assessments, according to the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP). 

Simon Ashworth, AELP’s deputy CEO, said: “It’s important not to assume that all employers or providers want to play a direct role in assessment. The system should support flexibility and choice, rather than impose a one-size-fits-all model”.

Following the consultation, which closes in August, there will be another consultation on “the detail” and a raft of new guidance AOs will be expected to follow. 

‘Substantial’ synoptics 

Apprentices can face a range of different types of assessment. The methods differ for each apprenticeship but are all currently carried out by independent assessors from approved end-point assessment organisations.  

In the popular level 3 business administrator apprenticeship for example, apprentices currently go through a multiple-choice knowledge test, a 30-45 minute portfolio-based interview with an assessor, and a project presentation. 

Apprentice installation and maintenance electricians currently undergo a 17-hour “observation of professional competence”, a 90-minute scenario-based interview and a multiple-choice online knowledge test. 

Ofqual confirmed that AOs will still need to set the assessments and there will still be rules to make sure these are appropriately demanding. 

But the rules will be less prescriptive. AOs will have to include a “synoptic” assessment in apprenticeships. This means giving apprentices tasks or tests that assess a wide range of knowledge and skills taught over the whole apprenticeships.

These can be marked “by the AO or by centres, depending on what is appropriate” for the apprenticeship. 

These synoptic assessments should, Ofqual propose, make up a “substantial” proportion of the overall assessment. They suggest 40 per cent but there will be guidance for AOs to follow, rather than a requirement. But less than 40 per cent would need to be “justified”. 

Nitsch added: “The Federation welcomes the new opportunities for awarding organisations to apply their expertise whilst sustaining critical aspects of apprenticeship assessment, such as independence and synoptic components.  This will benefit apprentices and employers”.  

Simple plans

New assessment plan structure

Documents known as apprenticeship assessment plans tell AOs and training providers what apprentices need to be taught and how they should be assessed. Each approved apprenticeship must have an assessment plan.

The government wants “simpler” assessment plans, which can currently run to over 30 pages, and told Skills England to start reviewing each one.

Today’s consultation came with a new assessment plan structure for AOs from Skills England. It lists five sections for AOs to follow once they’ve been rolled out; assessment details, assessment of behaviours, assessment outcomes, assessment requirements and a performance descriptor (how apprentices achieve grades).

Writing for FE Week in February, skills minister Jacqui Smith promised “assessment plans will now be shorter and more flexible, focusing on the ‘must haves’ for occupational competency and also allowing providers to deliver assessments in some cases without compromising quality”.

Next steps

While Skills England reviews and simplifies the assessment plans, Ofqual is now carrying out the first of at least two consultations on assessment regulation. 

Ofqual proposes that when new-style assessments are ready, they should be introduced for new apprentices, so existing apprentices will continue under the current end point assessment model. 

They acknowledge that this could mean a period where training providers have apprentices on two different assessment models.

Published delivery timescales have been promised “in due course”.

Ofqual’s consultation says all new apprentices will start under the new assessment regime “in the fullness of time”.

Nitsch said: “Key to the successful implementation of these changes will be sensible timelines, collaboration and the continuing the engagement with the sector that we are now seeing”.

Apprentices, training providers and employers have until August 27, 2025 to respond to the consultation.