Latest news from FE Week

Exam board fined £270,000 over errors in physics papers

Ofqual has handed out a £270,000 fine to Cambridge OCR due to serious errors in last summer’s physics papers, which meant 40 students received the wrong grades.

A total of 12 errors were found in AS and A Level Physics papers sat by 14,000 students as well as in mark schemes.

Ofqual found OCR had breached their conditions by failing to ensure the content of the paper was fit for purpose, and ordered them to pay the fine.

A spokesperson for the exam board said that they “did not meet the high standards that students and teachers deserve” and have apologised for the error.

Five errors were found before the exam took place, and OCR issued correction notices to centres prior to the assessment.

Another five errors were found after the exam, and OCR took mitigatory action, including by awarding full marks for the affected question.

But two of the errors were found after results day. One of them was a mistake in the AS paper and another was an error in the mark scheme for the A-level paper.

There were 37 students whose grade increased after OCR corrected those errors.

A 2 per cent special consideration uplift – where schools and colleges request adjustments to marks because of errors – was incorrectly given to 82 students in relation to one of the errors.

This resulted in three students achieving one grade higher than they would have otherwise, but OCR decided not to amend these results to prevent any adverse effect on those students.

‘Unacceptable failures’

In its investigation, Ofqual took into account the seriousness and the number of errors, the number of students affected, and the previous fine of £175,000 OCR was given in 2018.

It also considered the fact the OCR took action at minimise the impact of the errors, agreed that it breached Ofqual’s conditions of notice and agreed to pay a £270,000 sum.

A Cambridge OCR spokesperson said: “We accept this judgment and we are very sorry to the students and teachers who were affected by these mistakes. We did not meet the high standards that students and teachers deserve, and that we set for ourselves.

“When these issues came to light, we acted to support students and minimise any impact.

“We undertook a detailed root cause analysis, using the findings to improve our processes. We are determined to learn from this and to improve, and we are continually refining our processes.

“We’re grateful to all the physics teachers, students, subject experts, and Ofqual, for their scrutiny, feedback and insights that have helped improve our approach.”

Amanda Swann, Ofqual’s executive director for delivery, said: “Students deserve quality exam assessment materials.

“After years of hard study, these unacceptable failures caused anxiety for students during their exams. Some were issued incorrect grades.

“We will always act to protect students’ interests and maintain public confidence in our qualifications system.”

OCR also provided an action plan for preventing these errors from happening again, which includes strengthening technical checking across AS and A Level Physics exam papers.

Ofqual said it would take action if OCR does not follow through on its action plan.

£9m keeps complex-needs job finder scheme alive

An employment training scheme that helps students with additional needs find work has been handed £9 million to extend for another year.

The Department for Education this week confirmed the cash injection to fund the supported internships pilot during the 2026-27 financial year. The programme, run by local authorities, offers work placements to 16 to 24-year-olds with complex needs but who have no education, health and care plan.

The cash boost will help councils develop more pathways to reach disengaged young people and increase participant numbers.

Ministers hinted at an extension in their long-awaited reforms to the SEND system, published in February, after finding “positive outcomes” from the four-year £7.5 million project.

The pilot was one strand of the ‘internships work’ project, run by the National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTI) and launched in 2022 to remove barriers to employment for young people with SEND.

Local authorities use the funding to link young people with job coaches, structured support and unpaid six to 12-month work placements to transition them into paid employment, or other positive outcomes such as volunteering or further education.

DfE will now take over administering grants to councils after NDTI’s contract ended on March 31.

Just under half (47 per cent) of the 240 participants found a paid job last year.

The programme is an offshoot from supported internships, which are exclusively for SEND learners with EHCPs.

The NDTI administered grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds each to 12 councils that initially took part in the first two years of the pilot, extending to 16 this year.

One council placed young people without EHCPs onto existing supported internship programmes, while other local authorities set up gym-based and digital work placements for local learners.

Enrolments more than doubled this year to 573, according to the NDTI. It is not clear how many supported interns the scheme expects to recruit this year with the new £9 million pot.

Richard Kirkup, NDTI’s programme lead for children and young people, said: “It is great to see the government providing further investment to explore ways to expand and develop supported internships.

“This funding will help local authorities to develop new pathways and support many more young people to experience work and start a journey into sustained employment.”

Minister for school standards Georgia Gould told FE Week: “We’re widening access to supported internships for hundreds more students with SEND – providing the opportunity to learn on the job, build relationships and gain the real-world experience needed to get on in life.

“Whether it’s trying their hand in the hospitality or construction industry or working for the NHS, these placements play a key role in transforming the outcomes of kids across the country, boosting their confidence, offering a sense of community and giving them the skills they need for the world of work.”

Simon Ashworth, deputy chief executive and director of policy at Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said the investment was “positive and timely”.

He added: “These programmes play a vital role in supporting young people into work and further training, and this funding has the potential to reach hundreds more who would otherwise miss out.”

David Holloway, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said: “The proposed reforms to the SEND system mean that this is the right time to open the door to more young people who have SEND but don’t have EHCPs.

“There are too many young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) and we hope that a more flexible model of supported internships will be part of the solution.”

Inquiry vote backed as City & Guilds members demand answers

City & Guilds Foundation members have backed an independent inquiry into the sale of its commercial awarding business, after an action group refused to “accept secrecy”.

At the foundation’s annual meeting, members voted in favour of the Save City & Guilds Action Group’s resolution to launch an inquiry into “all aspects” of the sale of the business to PeopleCert last year.

About 100 attendees, including the charity’s advisory council and a wider group of members, heard the statement that outlined “grave concern” about the decision-making of trustees, large post-sale bonuses to senior executives, and transparency.

FE Week understands 67 of the 100 attendees supported the resolution, which would require the inquiry to be overseen by three councillors and be completed within six months.

The meeting, held at Drapers’ Hall in the City of London, over-ran by two hours.

Attendees said many members, including representatives from City & Guilds’ founding livery companies, expressed frustration to trustees about the sale.

Members also approved the appointment of Jessica Leigh-Jones as the charity’s new chair, replacing Ann Limb who stood down in January. Limb was made a baroness in December but has said she would not take her seat in the Lords until “matters relating to my previous voluntary roles are resolved”.

In a separate bi-annual meeting of the charity’s advisory council, the same resolution for an independent inquiry did not pass, with a minority (six) understood to have voted in favour.

The council includes about 50 councillors who are either elected, co-opted from industry or appointed by the City of London’s livery companies – although it is unclear how many attended.

A charity spokesperson said the trustee board now “needs time to reflect” on the resolutions passed during the meeting.

However, the agenda shared before the meeting warned that the board would only implement recommendations if they were “in the best interests” of the charity.

A letter from law firm Bates Wells advising that an inquiry would not be in the charity’s interest was also understood to have been handed out during the debate.

Speaking on behalf of the action group, council member Neil Bates said: “Today’s vote is a decisive victory for members and fellows after a five‑month campaign to get answers that should have been provided from the outset.

“We were told to move on, to accept secrecy, and to trust without transparency. Members have now made clear that this was never acceptable.

“This resolution sends an unambiguous message: the sale of City & Guilds’ operating arm will not be brushed aside or quietly forgotten.

“An independent inquiry must now be established, and it must follow the facts wherever they lead. Trustees are duty‑bound to act on this instruction, not reinterpret it or delay it.”

The Charity Commission has already opened a statutory inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sale, which will probe trustee decision-making and million-pound post-sale bonuses for executives paid by PeopleCert.

Earlier this week, in an exclusive interview with FE Week, PeopleCert’s owner Byron Nicolaides revealed that his own internal review had been escalated to examine “potential criminal activities” surrounding the deal.

This is understood to include concerns that bidders were not given accurate estimates of the cost of upgrading the awarding body’s legacy IT system, which could be as high as £50 million.

A spokesperson for the City & Guilds Foundation said: “Today we held our bi-annual City and Guilds of London Institute (CGLI) council meeting with members of council and annual meeting with some of our CGLI members.

“Both meetings were an opportunity to reflect and discuss the recent decisions made and present our early thinking on the strategy for CGLI moving forwards.

“Our strategy is deep rooted in our royal charter to advance technical education, and there was a commitment made from the trustee board at both meetings to better work with and engage with them moving forward.

“In addition, a range of resolutions were passed and the trustee board now needs time to reflect on those resolutions and will be meeting in the coming days to discuss them and next steps.”

Colleges face funding squeeze as DfE rations student growth cash again

Colleges and sixth forms in England will once again be forced to absorb the cost of rising student numbers after ministers confirmed they will not fully fund this year’s in-year growth.

The Department for Education said providers taking on additional 16 to 19 learners in 2025-26 will receive only around three-quarters of the funding expected.

This is the same approach the government took last year due to an “unprecedented” number of extra students, with officials citing pressure on budgets as demand continues to grow.

It comes a month after the DfE announced a below-inflation per-student rate rise for the next academic year, with ministers accused of breaking a promise for a real-terms funding increase for 16 to 19-year-olds made in last year’s white paper to ease demographic pressures.

The DfE said today: “There has been another large increase in 16 to 19 funded students this year. This growth is positive for the many young people who have been able to take up opportunities for 16 to 19 education and represents a strong response by the sector.

“However, because of the size and distribution of this growth in student numbers, it does create another year of very high in-year growth. We will fund all students through the lagged student number methodology in future allocations as normal. However, the current growth is significantly above the budget available for in-year payments, and so we cannot fully fund this growth.

“We will provide approximately three-quarters of the funding expected based on arrangements published in August 2025.”

In-year growth provides extra funding to colleges that recruit significantly more students than originally allocated, acting as an exception to lagged funding by offering a partial top-up for additional in-year costs.

The Association of Colleges estimated that colleges are currently teaching around 32,000 unfunded 16 to 19-year-olds due to the demographic bulge.

David Hughes, chief executive of the AoC, said colleges and their students are being “let down once again in today’s announcement by a dysfunctional funding system and a lack of respect which harks back to the dark days of austerity they suffered in the 2010s”.

He told FE Week: “This academic year, colleges recruited 32,000 more 16 to 19-year-old students than they were funded to and did so because they believe in the power of learning to support people in life and in work.

“Today, we learned that the government cannot even find the funding to pay around 50 per cent of the full cost for their courses. Instead, they only have sufficient funding to pay three quarters of their formula, meaning colleges will end up being part-funded at a little over a third of the full cost.”

Hughes added: “The cost of fully funding those 32,000 students would be around £220 million and the DfE formula would probably result in colleges getting half of that, around £110 million.

“But they will now get three quarters of that – around £80 million – meaning they have failed to find £30 million to fully fund their own formula. That suggests these learners and colleges are simply not viewed as high priorities, because no other part of the education system is expected to operate like this.

“At a time when the government is rightly aiming to reduce the numbers of young people not in education, training or employment (NEET), it also makes no sense. College leaders feel that their good will and strong inclusion values have been abused and I worry about what that might mean in future decisions they take when faced with unfunded students.”

Officials acknowledged that the in-year growth decision will be “disappointing” and encouraged colleges that have concerns about the impact of this change to contact their regional officials or the DfE’s customer help centre.

Providers will start to receive growth payments from July.

Speaking and listening exams are failing Gen Z’s anxious learners, it’s time for a rethink

Speaking and listening exam are rarely popular with learners. Currently English functional skills exams are split into three parts: reading, writing and speaking and listening. The first two are fine, the last part needs a rethink.

We are in an anxiety epidemic. Yet we ask learners to chat with a group of other students, who they have often never met. We ask them to be involved in a group conversation lasting up to ten minutes, followed by an individual talk.

The vast majority of learners are fine with this format. Having witnessed speaking and listening exams where it goes wrong, both on-line and in person, from an informed view I feel that changes are needed to the current format.

Being filmed in a formal setting is not an everyday occurrence. No wonder it unnerves some learners. To offer reassurance is helpful; however, this cajoling has not stopped learners from ducking the exam.

I’ve seen learners not showing up on the exam day (even with lots of practice beforehand), walking out as they don’t like being filmed, feeling uncomfortable with other learners who make up the group conversation, not liking being asked to take off a baseball cap and being unable to speak in slang.

There are many negatives. Where are the solutions?

Here are a few to help with exam preparation:

Give learners bullet points as prompts
Practice sessions to boost confidence
Give learners ‘mock’ tests
Let them pick a subject they want to talk about in the presentation

This undoubtedly helps; however, regardless of skill level, on the exam day they are on their own. Nerves and fears can take over. There’s no shame in this.

Some learners enjoy creating TikTok videos with friends and family. In the comfort of environments they know well, they’re more relaxed. They’re happy to give up social time to do this. It’s a bit of fun.

The serious part of exam filming as an essential requirement is another matter. Most learners I’ve met are not enamoured with the process. It’s the albatross of the English exam, with lots of time being eaten up with admin and pastoral tasks. That’s even before we get on to the filming part.

The camera can be a trigger. What alternatives are offered?

Assuming as a modest estimate that 10 per cent of learners have this problem, can they all be eligible to receive exemptions?

Perhaps learners’ anxiety would subside if they were observed by an IQA from a local organisation? This would remove them from the glare of the camera and calm fraught situations. Staff bias would be unlikely as the visiting observer would not know the learners involved.

This would strengthen bonds between organisations, and would only be required for a minority of learners.

There are tens of thousands of learners currently not in mainstream education. They do not sit in large classrooms with large groups of learners. They’re likely to be taught in small groups or individually. I fear it is this demographic who are most at risk of falling short in their speaking and listening exam.

We make adjustments for various reasons when it comes to reading and writing exams with the intention of maximising learner success. This is right. Why not also support those who find their speaking and listening exam daunting? Whilst we live in a digital world, we cannot expect all learners to have the same attitudes to video-recording.

We have to make the exam more inclusive for all our learners, and make sure that their individual needs are met. With a few alterations this exam can be made even better, giving all learners the best chance of passing with reduced friction.

Providers aren’t failing by accident, they’re designed to fail

The sector has watched provider after provider collapse under a crushing ‘inadequate’ Ofsted grade and DfE contract termination. Each time, we blame poor leadership or funding cuts. As a former internal quality assurer (IQA) at a recently liquidated provider, I suspect the root cause lies deeper: a flawed organisational design.

Research shows that when structure does not match strategy, it can lead to fragmented execution. Essentially if a provider’s structure is not aligned with its strategy, it is doomed to fail from the start.

The typical response to standardising quality is to centralise control structurally. Quite often, this takes the form of a rigid functional hierarchy where quality and delivery form isolated pillars. In theory, this creates a clear chain of command and uniform compliance. In practice, it risks a fatal disconnect.

Leaders rely on vertical reporting lines rather than the ‘seams’ between departments. Research warns that having strict functional silos in the ‘middle line’ prevents horizontal communication. For quality, this blocks effective and prompt distribution of pedagogical best practices, which is fatal for standardisation.

When interacting with frontline staff from an isolated quality department, the relationship can feel artificial. Quality ceases to be collaborative, real-time coaching and instead devolves into an external, retrospective policing exercise.

This structural divide precipitates a toxic, defensive environment. It exemplifies Goodhart’s Law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. By treating quality as a separate compliance metric rather than an integrated teaching practice, providers reduce the complex art of education into a checklist exercise.

A ‘tick-box management’ approach becomes necessary to survive top-down scrutiny, and tutors are pressured to prioritise administrative paperwork over actual learner development. This risks deskilling, high turnover or worse.

In 2018, an investigation into 3aaa found that achievement rates had been artificially inflated by over 20 percentage points through manipulation of learner records. Crucially, evidence emerged that colleagues were aware of and attempted to correct the changes, only to find them reversed. The structure made honest internal upward challenging impossible and led to 3aaa’s collapse, after its £16.5 million government contracts were terminated.

A structural problem cannot be effectively fixed using superficial cultural interventions. Surviving the rigorous demands of regulatory frameworks requires us to dismantle these isolated pillars.

Training providers should advocate for a shift towards agile, cross-functional delivery pods under a matrix structure which creates formal reporting lines across two dimensions simultaneously – quality expertise and operational delivery. By embedding dedicated IQAs directly within respective delivery teams, the quality team are no longer external auditors ‘policing’ teaching practices, but rather collaborative partners working towards the shared goal of providing high-quality education. Functionally, IQAs retain a strict reporting line to a centralised, independent quality department, which handles summative audits and external regulatory reporting.

This creates a dual reporting line: vertically to quality and horizontally to delivery. This allows IQAs to retain the objectivity to challenge poor practice sitting within a delivery team and preserve professional independence. Quality owns the standards, and delivery owns the relationship.

As a result, information pathways are shortened and standardised best practices are shared promptly. Importantly, it mitigates the need for tick-box management with proactive, real-time coaching that functional silos prevent.

A matrix structure does carry risks: dual reporting lines can blur authority, embedded IQAs may feel pressure to soften findings and coordinating standards across multiple pods demands stronger oversight.

However, the alternative is worse. In functional hierarchies intervention often arrives too late, as demonstrated by 3aaa and other similar cases. The risks of coordination do not outweigh the certainty of failure ingrained within the status quo.

This approach ensures delivery has innovative freedom and quality retains its independence, whilst preventing the ‘policing’ dynamic that undermines both. We need to stop treating quality as a separate entity by dismantling these silos and instead building structures that constructively support the individuals delivering education.

Learning doesn’t fit neatly into hours, so why do we force it to?

If you’ve ever delivered the level 3 award in education and training (AET), you’ll know one thing straight away: no two learners are the same.

Some walk in with years of experience. They’ve already been training colleagues, running sessions, or mentoring staff. Others are completely new and need time to build confidence just to stand up and speak.

Both can become great teachers. But they don’t get there in the same way, or in the same time.

That’s where guided learning hours (GLH) start to feel out of touch.

GLH is meant to give structure. It tells awarding organisations and providers roughly how big a qualification is and how long it should take. In theory, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it assumes that learning is predictable.

It isn’t.

Anyone who’s spent time in a classroom will recognise that learning is far messier than that. The American educational theorist David Allen Kolb talked about learning as a cycle – doing something, reflecting on it, improving, then trying again. Some learners move through that quickly, others need time to process and build confidence. There isn’t a fixed pace.

The same applies when you look at Russian theorist Lev Vygotsky’s idea of needing the right level of support to move forward. Some learners just need a light touch, others need more guidance. That support changes the time it takes to learn.

And when you’re working with adults, American theorist Malcolm Knowles’s view is even more relevant. Adults bring experience, want learning to feel useful, and often take ownership of how they develop. That doesn’t sit comfortably with a system that assumes everyone needs the same number of hours.

You see all of this play out when delivering the AET.

Some learners grasp planning and delivery quickly. Their micro-teach is strong from the start. Others need a few attempts, not because they’re not capable, but because teaching is a skill that develops through doing it, getting feedback, and trying again.

That’s the whole point of the course.

But GLH doesn’t really allow for that difference. It quietly assumes everyone is moving at the same pace, which just isn’t the reality.

The bigger issue is how it’s used.

In some cases, there’s a heavy focus from awarding organisations on making sure learners complete a set number of hours. It becomes about ticking off time rather than asking a much more important question: can this person actually teach?

That shift matters. Because once you start prioritising hours, the learning experience changes. You end up shaping delivery around the clock rather than around the learner. People who could move faster are held back. People who need more time can feel like they’re falling behind.

Neither situation reflects what good training should look like.

It becomes even more obvious when you look at how people learn now.

A lot of development doesn’t happen in a classroom or a live session. Learners read articles, watch videos, join webinars, and talk to other professionals. The most valuable learning comes from those moments where something clicks after a conversation or a bit of reflection.

The problem is, none of that fits neatly into GLH.

How do you track the time someone spends reading a journal? Or having a discussion with another trainer online? You can’t, at least not in any meaningful way. So it often gets ignored, even though it’s a big part of how people actually develop.

That’s where the system starts to feel disconnected from reality.

The AET in particular is meant to be about the individual. It’s about helping someone find their own way of teaching, building confidence, and developing real skills they can use in front of a group.

It’s not about completing a set number of hours.

GLH still has a place. It helps give a rough structure and stops qualifications from becoming too loose. But it should be treated as a guide, not a rulebook.

What matters more is whether the learner can do the job at the end of it.

In FE, we talk a lot about learner-centred approaches. The AET is one of the clearest examples of where that should apply. If the focus shifts too far towards hours and away from outcomes, we risk losing what the qualification is actually there to do.

And that’s develop confident, capable teachers.

Because in the end, no learner remembers how many hours they spent on a course. They remember whether they felt ready to stand up and teach.

Engineering’s entry point is disappearing

Between 2017 and 2024 there was a 25 per cent reduction in the number of engineering apprenticeship starts in England. Underneath this headline statistic is the potentially more worrying one that in the same period, level 2 engineering apprenticeships starts fell by over 50 per cent. The High Value Manufacturing Catapult has been exploring this further by speaking to employers, providers, and young people who are considering their next steps. Against the backdrop of policy that is seeking to drive up apprenticeship opportunities for young people, we need to ask whether level 2 apprenticeships remain viable in engineering.

Apprenticeships are a hugely attractive progression route for young people, with employers often receiving many times more applications than they have positions for. However, there are limited numbers of entry level opportunities and employers tell us that these need to be balanced against their experienced workforce, to ensure they can continue with their core business as well as training apprentices. Just because policy is driving more funding towards lower-level apprenticeships, it doesn’t mean that employers will have the capacity to take on more entry level apprentices.

Our research further showed that employers are concerned about the risks posed by entry level apprentices. Government data shows that level 2 apprentices currently have a completion rate of 64 per cent, whereas those on higher level apprenticeships are much more likely to complete successfully. Taking on higher level apprentices is much less risky for employers, and this is shown by the net increase in all levels of engineering apprenticeships other than level 2.

The standards themselves are increasingly becoming an issue for both employers and providers. Our research suggested that the content of level 2 apprenticeships is often not technically complex enough to give apprentices the skills they need for roles in modern engineering workplaces. However, some of the hand skills delivered are still valued. Providers discussed that it can often be expensive to deliver level 2 apprenticeships due to increased technical expectations and funding restrictions. One provider we spoke to explained how they roll level 2 and 3 apprenticeships together to provide a balance of hand and higher-level technical skills.

The question remained as to whether the reduction of entry level apprenticeships in engineering is an issue or whether it is symptomatic of changing technical competencies in the workforce. For example, the original battery skills framework, published in 2021, made use of the lean manufacturing operator standard at level 2 for production line staff in gigafactories. But Workforce Foresighting data published in 2025 suggested that these roles were no longer relevant and that the base level of qualification should be level 3.

Having level 3 as an industry entry point would undoubtedly freeze many young people out of engineering opportunities and would be detrimental to the provision of good career entry and progression routes. There needs to be a compromise to address these issues.

One option would be to re-balance engineering apprenticeships in light of changing industry expectations. The use of academic levels has long been unhelpful when describing apprenticeships and addressing this through newly focused entry, intermediate, advanced and higher engineering apprenticeships would allow for greater relevance to employers and enable progression pathways to be clearer. Apprenticeships are not good at providing progression. And as they are focused in skilling someone for a role, you could argue they don’t need to be. However, showing clear progression routes from entry to higher level opportunities, with newly aligned capability outcomes, would better enable career development to happen.

Entry level apprenticeship roles in engineering are disappearing for a wide range of reasons and simply forcing funding for the training component back towards them is not enough. Employers need to see the value of entry level opportunities and a rapid route to competence in the workplace, and learners need to see that they have opportunities to gain a foothold in an engineering career.

The use of the statistics alone is too blunt an instrument to use to make decisions. There needs to be a fundamental and systemic change to secure the future engineering workforce.

‘Experts at hand’ cash must not plug ‘existing gaps’, councils told

Funding for a new scheme aimed at bolstering external support for young people with SEND must not be used to “fill existing gaps or replace current provision”, councils have been warned.

Town halls will also be forbidden from spending the cash on support named in children and young people’s existing education health care plans (EHCPs) or wider family support.

Leaders will also be expected to devise an approach that ensures support is not “disproportionately accessed” by the “most proactive schools and settings and includes out of area mainstream further education settings attended by local young people with SEND”.

As part of its white paper reforms, the government announced the creation of a new “experts at hand” service, backed with £1.8 billion in funding over three years.

The service aims to boost availability of external support. Schools and FE colleges can then draw from a pool of education and health professionals to fix the current “inconsistent and limited access” to their services.

The Department for Education has now published guidance on how the funding and an additional £200 million “transformation” pot will be allocated and how it must be spent.

Funding can’t cover support named in existing EHCPs

Councils will split £429 million this financial year and could impact nearly 390,000 16 to 19-year-olds with low prior attainment across the country.

This grant will “first and predominantly” provide cash for councils to work with integrated care boards (ICBs) to “develop and deliver a new EAH offer for mainstream education settings”.

However, the grant will also fund the administrative costs for local authorities associated with “evaluating their existing SEND support services to mainstream settings” and “developing and submitting local SEND reform plans”.

According to the document, at least 80 per cent of the cash “must be spent on EAH direct delivery for all settings, staff and their children and young people”.

No more than 10 per cent can be spent on administration costs for councils’ EAH offers, and no more than 10 per cent can be spent on “local authority transformation costs, including staff or other associated costs”.

But no funding can be used to support named in young people’s existing education health care plans (EHCPs), to make provision “schools can or should make themselves” or for the assessment for EHCPs.

“This funding is not intended to fill existing gaps or replace current provision, including traded services. The EAH offer should build on and enhance existing local capacity and good practice.”

‘Tilt provision to mainstream’

The guidance further sets out the government’s vision for the service, telling councils to “ensure that the EAH investment benefits all children and young people aged 0 to 25”.

Local areas should “also consider how they will develop this offer over time to ensure there is support and appropriate provision available across early years, primary, secondary, and FE settings”.

And councils have also been told to “start tilting local provision to focus on early support for mainstream education settings, so that staff are able to meet the needs of children more quickly and effectively within the setting”.

This approach “means mainstream education settings having access to expert professionals (both health and specialist education professionals) who can provide whole setting support, tailored guidance and strategic advice, as well as some group level interventions”.

The offer “should be additional to existing statutory and 1:1 support”.

No disproportionate support for out of area mainstream FE

The DfE has also said today that councils’ SEND reform plans must include a “proposed approach to settings accessing support which ensures support is not disproportionately accessed by the most proactive schools and settings and includes out of area mainstream further education settings attended by local young people with SEND”.

The grant also includes funding to establish new speech and language therapist advanced practitioners in every ICB geographical area, the DfE said.

It will also support “local reform and work with universities, education settings and local speech and language services to get more speech and language therapists working directly with children and young people”.

Councils will have to assure the DfE that funding is spent in line with the guidance.

It comes after the government pledged to write off 90 per cent of town hall SEND deficits. It will also take on the cost pressures in the system from 2028.

In its guidance today, the DfE said future support for deficits that arise between 2026 and 2028 “will take into account local authorities successful delivery of their approved local SEND reform plan, including appropriate use of investment to establish an EAH offer”.