College-run ITP awarded its own ‘outstanding’ 

An apprenticeship provider that is part of an Ofsted ‘outstanding’ college group has secured its own grade one rating from the watchdog.

Axia Solutions Limited has jumped to the inspectorate’s highest possible rating just two years after being judged ‘requires improvement’.

Ofsted said leaders have “successfully improved the quality of education that apprentices receive” and strengthened links between centre-based and workplace learning which has led to “high” achievement rates.

The feat comes months after Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group (NSCG), of which Axia is a wholly owned subsidiary, retained its own ‘outstanding’ grade with Ofsted.

Craig Hodgson, chief executive of NSCG, said this is a “truly phenomenal accomplishment for NSCG”.

“We are incredibly proud of the Axia Solutions team for their dedication and hard work in securing this well-deserved ‘outstanding’ grade,” he added.

“Their success means that every aspect of our group is now officially rated as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, a milestone that reflects our collective pursuit of excellence and our mission to provide the very best education and training for our communities.”

Axia Solutions, based in Stoke-On-Trent, was formed in 1999 specialising in delivering qualifications to the ceramic industry. The business has since extended to service the training needs of sectors including manufacturing, logistics, and print engineering.

It was acquired by Newcastle-under-Lyme College in 2014 and now makes up part of NSCG in Staffordshire following a merger with Stafford College in 2016.

At the time of this latest inspection in July, Axia had 134 apprentices in training across level 2 to 7 standards in leadership, facilities supervisor, administration, manufacturing and print technician.

Ofsted’s report, published today, noted that apprentices “thrive and they feel highly valued, supported and well cared for”.

The report also praised the team of industry-expert trainers who help apprentices “quickly apply their learning” and commended the “expertly sequenced curriculums” that contribute to high achievement and attainment rates.

Latest government data shows Axia Solutions had a 65.9 per cent apprenticeship achievement rate in the 2023-24 academic year.

Governors were praised as “highly skilled” people who have “extensive experience in the further education sector” and use this to “effectively support leaders and provide challenge that leaders use to improve the quality of education that apprentices receive”. 

Victoria Harte, managing director of Axia Solutions, said: “This recognition is a testament to the dedication of our team, the strength of our employer partnerships, and our shared core values.

“This achievement is not only a significant milestone for us but is also excellent for the local area, building on existing education strengths by providing exceptional workplace training and development.”

Scrapping AGQs will create a qualification black hole

In order to “direct” students towards T Levels, the government announced a ban on AGQ diplomas and extended diplomas in T Level subjects in December 2024. As a result, popular and well- respected applied general qualifications (AGQs) in subjects such as health and social care, applied science and IT will be scrapped in 2026, with highly regarded AGQs in business and engineering due to follow in 2027.

Last month, we published a report on behalf of the 28 organisations in the Protect Student Choice campaign warning how such a ban could lead to 52,000 fewer young people studying health and science courses from next year (a drop of 45 per cent) and 11,000 (a third) fewer young people on digital courses.

The qualifications gap across all sectors will of course be much larger, as the government estimates that just 91,200 students will be studying a T Level in 2027 – the last year that all remaining AGQs will be funded – while there are currently 277,380 students studying an AGQ.

What will students do next year when AGQs are no longer available? We know from the government’s own projections that most will not be studying T Levels. Other options such as level 2, A-level or a combination of small alternative academic qualifications (AAQs), will in many cases be sub-optimal workarounds.

The clear risk with reducing student choice in this way is that learners who would have previously studied AGQs will either underperform or disengage from education altogether.  Taken together, this could reverse the recent progress made in widening access to higher education and lead to an increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).

And what will employers do when successful and well-established qualifications aligned to high-growth sectors of the economy are scrapped? Representative bodies such as Care England and techUK joined with employers such as the NHS and Cisco to support our report’s call to retain AGQs in T Level subjects.

In June, skills minister Jacqui Smith reconfirmed the government’s position in a letter to our campaign: “The government remains committed to T Levels being the best large qualification in routes where they are available”.

So, as things stand, colleges and schools will be enrolling students on diploma and extended diploma-size AGQs in applied science, health and social care and IT for the last time this month.

But rather than directing students towards T Levels, the government’s ban will direct many students towards a qualification black hole.

The last chance to avoid this lies with the curriculum and assessment review (CAR). If its final report endorses our recommendation that diploma and extended diploma size qualifications should be permitted in T Level subjects, and the government accepts that recommendation, many students starting Year 11 this month will not be left without a pathway next year. 

That short-term certainty would be very welcome. But more fundamentally, policymakers must also accept that a qualification system that requires learners to choose between an academic or technical route at the age of 16 is neither realistic nor desirable.

For many young people, applied qualifications provide a more effective route to higher education or skilled employment than A-levels or T Levels.

Refreshing the content of AGQs makes sense; scrapping them altogether makes no sense at all. So it was encouraging to see an acknowledgement in the CAR’s interim report that other high-quality qualifications are needed alongside A-levels and T Levels.

The current policy of approving a small number of small ‘alternative’ academic and technical qualifications by exception is no substitute for a genuine applied pathway.  

The CAR’s final report and the government’s response will be pivotal moments for post-16 education.

Is a government committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity really going to pull the rug from under tens of thousands of young people next year? 

Is a government committed to kickstarting economic growth really going to scrap qualifications linked to the very same high growth sectors of the economy it has prioritised in its industrial strategy?

Let’s hope the answer to both questions is a resounding ‘no’. That will require making a short-term and long-term commitment to applied qualifications. A full suite of AGQs of all sizes has an essential role to play as the middle (equally important) route in the qualification system alongside A-levels and T Levels.

Migrant skills tax take tumbled by £100m last year

Income from the government’s controversial “skills tax” on migrant visas has fallen for the first time in four years, new Home Office figures reveal.

The immigration skills charge (ISC) was introduced in 2017 as a tax on employers who sponsor visas for workers recruited from overseas to “incentivise” training British workers instead.

Income was supposed to fund programmes that “address skills gaps in the UK workforce”, but the Treasury has faced criticism for treating it as “simply a tax” that goes into its main “consolidated fund”.

The government has raised a total of £2.7 billion from the ISC so far, with income increasing almost every year to a record high of £668 million in 2023-24.

But according to the Home Office’s annual report, published earlier this month, income dropped 16 per cent to £559 million in 2024-25.

It comes ahead of a proposed 32 per cent increase in the ISC, announced in the government’s immigration white paper alongside a government pledge to “end the chronic underinvestment in domestic skills that has hindered economic growth”.

The fall in income, the first since 2020-21, is likely to reflect “wider labour market shifts”, according to the Chartered Institute of Professional Development (CIPD).

Lizzie Crowley, senior skills advisor at CIPD, said this could include “cooling demand for labour in some sectors” and ongoing “economic uncertainty”.

However, Crowley told FE Week the “lack of transparency and clarity” around how the income is spent is the “bigger issue” with the charge.

She said: “If the charge is truly to deliver on its purpose, the funds should be ringfenced for skills investment and allocated transparently, with a clear link to programmes that tackle shortages in the UK workforce.”

Treasury ‘snaffling’

Former skills minister Robert Halfon said: “I think they need to be very transparent about how much of this is coming back towards skills.

“It’s in the nature of the Treasury, even with supposed special taxes, to snaffle away some of the money.

“This money is for skills and should be spent on skills, and we need to be transparent on how this is spent.”

A Treasury spokesperson claimed any enquiries about the charge should be directed to the Home Office.

The Home Office has been contacted for comment.

The incoming charge

The government’s immigration white paper said the one-third increase, the first in eight years, will “bring the ISC rates in line with inflation”.

Small businesses or charities will now have to pay £480, up from £364 for the first 12 months of hiring a migrant, and then £240 (originally £182) extra every additional six months.

Medium to large “sponsors” will now pay in £1,320 for the first year, up from £1,000, and £660 for the subsequent six months, up from £500.

£1.5bn immigration skills charge ‘blackhole’ revealed

It remains unclear when the new rates will come into force.

When the increase was announced, it faced criticism from expert bodies including the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), techUK, and the Institute of Directors.

Jane Gratton, deputy director of public policy at the BCC said: “Businesses prefer to employ people from their local labour market.

“Accessing the immigration system is costly and complex, and only 1 in 10 employers we surveyed use it, often as a last resort when they can’t get the skills they need in the UK. 

 “The immigration skills charge adds to the high cost of employment that is being piled onto business.

“So the money raised from it should be fully ringfenced for skills to help build the domestic talent pipeline. The growth and skills levy should also be ringfenced in its entirety to help boost skills in the workforce.”

College taken to High Court over £6.6m row with developers

A London college has been accused of “unjust enrichment” and holding “secret negotiations” with rivals by two property developers in a £6.6 million High Court claim. 

South Bank Colleges (SBC), part of London South Bank University (LSBU), is being sued by 45 CCS Limited and Vauxhall Development London Limited, which allege the college walked away from an agreed redevelopment of its Clapham and Vauxhall campuses after the firms had already spent millions on planning and design work. 

In documents filed at the High Court, the developers claim the college encouraged them to pursue the project while knowing it was negotiating separately with another company, and has since been “unjustly enriched” by the work they carried out.

SBC denied the allegations, stating the firms were aware they were liable for all costs before a signed contract and said it “lost confidence” in the claimants’ ability to finance the project. 

Both claimant companies are subsidiaries of Lambeth Property Group Ltd.

‘Naked in the park’

According to the developers, senior SBC staff gave them repeated verbal assurances that they would get a binding contract for a “mixed-use” redevelopment of the sites, including a new college building, nursery, housing and temporary teaching facilities.

London South Bank University’s group director of estates, Rychard Scrase-Field, is said to have told the developers he would “jump out of the window” if the project didn’t go ahead with them, and later reassured them by saying the university had “come too far to deal with anyone else”. 

In another exchange, Scrase-Field allegedly assured a director of the developers that he would “run around Wandsworth Park naked” if the deal didn’t go through.

When the developers questioned whether an alternative firm was interested in the project, they were allegedly told by another university estates director, “all is ok, relax.”

The claimants say they went on to secure planning consents and worked up designs based on those assurances. 

These have “enriched” SBC, the claimants say, because “the value of the sites has been substantially increased” because of the secured planning permissions, and SBC “has been saved the cost of otherwise preparing the sites for redevelopment.”

The college is being sued for over £6.6 million in “quantum meruit” damages to recover those costs. 

Non-binding opinions

In June 2024, around three years after initial heads of terms were agreed between SBC and the claimants, the university was “secretly negotiating” with another firm, Legal and General, to redevelop the sites without the claimants. 

Then, that August, the claimants were told the university had decided to work with other partners.

But SBC denied any liability, insisting it had no binding contract with the claimants, who were aware that their costs were at their own risk prior to the contract being signed.

SBC said the assurance comments made by senior staff “in so far as they happened, were no more than opinions expressed by individuals as to SBC/LSBU’s current position”.

Defence lawyers say the claimants “knew at all times the individuals alleged to have given assurances had no authority to bind SBC to contract or make payments not contracted for or vary any prior agreement or understanding on behalf of SBC.”

“All and any statements made by such individuals were at all times subject to board approval and that was known by [the claimants].”

Its defence states the developers acted at their own risk, with the initial heads of terms making clear no party would be liable for costs until final contracts were signed. 

Enrichment denied

SBC added it was entitled to walk away after losing confidence in the claimants’ ability to secure finance with their proposed funder, Legal and General.

SBC further denied it had been “unjustly enriched”. Its defence said it was SBC that secured outline planning permission, which increased the value of the sites, and accused the claimants of “acting unconscionably in delaying the progress of the development of the sites unreasonably and entirely for their own benefit in seeking to give themselves more time to improve their position, particularly with regard to funding.”

In reply, the claimants maintain they had funding in place, and blame SBC for delays. They claim the college was negotiating directly with a third party, Legal and General, “without their knowledge”, and which they allege caused the collapse of the project. 

Lawyers representing the claimants and London South Bank University both declined to comment. A date for trial has not yet been set.

Training provider to close after 40 years following damning Ofsted report

A training provider is planning to close after an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgment due to “systemic weaknesses” in safeguarding and “distracted” management.

An inspection of Resources, based in the north east of England, found apprentices study “poorly planned curriculums” and “too few” adult learners find work after gaining a qualification.

Ofsted uncovered “systemic weaknesses” in safeguarding, including inappropriate responses to “serious concerns”, staff ignoring messages about training, and records that were “incomplete, disorganised and difficult to access”.

It also found that attendance in construction apprenticeships was “too low”, with poor coordination and understanding of off-the-job requirements, and a lack of engagement with businesses about their employees’ progress.

The company, which has operated for more than 40 years, is now dismantling its five rented premises across the north east, including Jarrow, Sunderland and Newcastle, and at least 38 staff are understood to be facing redundancy by October this year.

Contracts expected to expire or be terminated include Department for Education apprenticeship training, adult education through the North East Combined Authority, and a programme for unemployed young people subcontracted from Barnado’s.

At the time of the inspection, Resources had about 60 adult learners on courses such as security, warehousing and hair and beauty, and 100 apprentices in hair, beauty and construction.

Leaders failed to improve the quality of training because they were “distracted” by “prolonged operational change and financial instability”, Ofsted said.

The report adds: “Many lack a secure grasp of operational issues such as learner numbers, achievement rates, and line management responsibilities.”

But managing director Barry Stidolph hit back at the report, which he said was “absolutely nowhere near fair” as it failed to reflect the “good stuff” or quality improvement plans the company has in place.

He added: “What annoys me in the report is it’s written in a way that’s damning, rather than fair – it’s not a fair reflection of the 40 years’ work we’ve done – we just want some accuracy and balance.

“Are young people in the area going to be better off because we are now closed? I don’t think the answer is yes.”

Stidolph, who claimed the inspection required him to work 80 extra hours, said his complaints about the report were rejected by Ofsted, which he claimed were “basically marking their own homework”.

When approached about the managing director’s concerns, an Ofsted spokesperson said they do not comment on individual cases.

The report downgraded Resources from ‘good’ and rated the company’s quality of education, leadership and apprenticeships as ‘inadequate’.

Personal development and adult learning were graded ‘requires improvement’ while behaviours and attitudes were graded ‘good’.

Key concerns in the company’s performance included just over half of apprentices achieving and declining achievement rates in English.

Management was taking “appropriate action” to improve apprenticeship completion, but improvement plans in other areas were “yet to be implemented”.

Inspectors noted that curriculums were not “ambitious” with painting and decorating apprentices lacking the opportunity to practise key skills such as wallpaper hanging techniques and beauty therapy learners on “insufficiently challenging” level 1 courses.

Apprentices were not set targets that would help them develop knowledge and skills, with tutors setting tasks such as “complete log” or “start collecting evidence”.

Careers guidance was also ineffective, inspectors suggested.

Both adults and apprentices study in environments that are “often poor”, due to a lack of privacy in the beauty therapy facilities and unclean Construction areas.

However, inspectors praised an “inclusive and supportive” culture at the centres, with learners building their confidence and “effective” teaching on short adult study programmes.

Saqib Bhatti appointed as Conservative shadow education minister

Saqib Bhatti has pledged to “hold Labour to account for their damaging policies and empty promises” following his appointment as a shadow education minister.

The MP for Meriden and Solihull East took on the role last month in the Conservatives’ frontbench reshuffle.

He replaced Neil O’Brien, who was promoted to the shadow cabinet as shadow minister for policy renewal and development.

Laura Trott, MP for Sevenoaks in Kent, remained in her post as shadow education secretary.

Bhatti entered Parliament in 2019 as MP for Meriden. He was a private parliamentary secretary (PPS) in the Department for International Trade from 2020 to July 2022 and was the parliamentary under-secretary of state for technology and the digital economy between November 2023 to July 2024.

He was also the Conservative Party’s vice chair for business and was elected to the foreign affair select committee in 2022. Over the past year he has held shadow ministerial roles in the health, science, and culture departments.

Prior to his political career, Bhatti was a chartered accountant and president of the Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce.

Following his appointment to the shadow education ministerial brief he said: “I look forward to working with the shadow secretary of state, Laura Trott MP to hold Labour to account for their damaging policies and empty promises.”

Bhatti told FE Week: “I am delighted to have been appointed shadow minister of state for education because education is the greatest enabler of social mobility and opportunity, and post-16 education and FE colleges are core to this mission.

“I have always been a great believer in further education, which is vital for both personal and professional growth. It provides individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to adapt to a changing job market, increase career opportunities, and boost earning potential. This is something I have seen first-hand.”

Bhatti was born in Walsall and attended King Edwards VI School for boys before reading law at the London School of Economics. He also holds an honorary doctorate from Aston University in business administration and was awarded MBE in 2020 for services to diversity and inclusion in business communities.

The MP was on the national board for Vote Leave in the build-up to Brexit, during which time he “also launched ‘Muslims for Britain’ and he is credited with delivering the Leave vote in Birmingham”, according to his website. 

Bhatti was also deputy chair for the Andy Street 2020 mayoral campaign.

He said Labour’s planned removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships for over 22-year-olds “hurts social mobility and reduces opportunity.”

Bhatti added: “I am also concerned about the impact of tax rises and inconsistent funding from government. 

“FE institutions need consistency so they can plan, and any further tax rises (especially unfunded ones) could be deeply damaging to the sector and would be contradictory to the government’s growth agenda.”

When is a pass not a pass? When the system says so 

Imagine in any other time in life where you graft, battle, sweat, cry and manage to get yourself ready to do an incredibly challenging thing, to then be told that your ‘pass’ isn’t worth anything because it’s not the right number. This, as we all know, is what will be happening to thousands of students across the land on GCSE results day. 

Then the yearly battle occurs of the FE sector picking up the pieces and having to support students through the challenge of mitigating disbelief, disappointment and at times diminished self-worth. 

When posing the question of when is a pass not a pass, a flurry of confusing and often rather contradictory ideas come to mind. A grade 1-3, whilst technically still a pass, will always be sidelined in data meetings and result day headlines. A grade 4, known as a ‘good pass’ – an arbitrary statement in itself – is the benchmark. Whilst we agree that a benchmark is needed, we have to ask ourselves whether we are essentially refusing to acknowledge the thoughtful work that requires our pupils to achieve a grade 1 to 3 and below.  

The concept of ‘failure’ does not seem to be given the thorough consideration it deserves in relation to the effect it has on our young people. As educators, we get inundated by the notion that high expectations only means one thing: a 4 and above at GCSE.  

But what if this year we switched the narrative and for all students consider that a pass is exactly that, a pass? The constant monitoring and target-setting is making education feel finite, when in fact it’s arguably one of the most infinite things we have. 

We’re applying finite rules upon an infinite game

In his book “Finite and Infinite Games” James Carse, American academic and religious scholar defines a finite game as being “defined as known players, fixed rules, and an agreed-upon objective”, whereas an infinite game is “known and unknown players, the rules are changeable, and the objective is not to win—the objective is to keep playing, keep perpetuating the game”. 

In our target-driven education system, we are applying finite rules upon an infinite game. A pass at grades 1-3 should not equate the end of an academic journey, especially considering students achieving a grade 1-3 have often done so against odds and challenges that have been placed upon them during their entire academic journey. 

We should not and cannot ignore that for many, time in education is not as linear as our system would like and the desired result may manifest later.

Something the English and Maths Coalition is striving to alter is the perception that the problem is the exam itself. For many students, it’s not the case that a particular GCSE exam isn’t the right exam for them, but that they’re just not at the right time to take it yet.  Take reading development, for instance. If you’re still developing your reading fluency, automaticity and even needing additional support with phonics, then you just weren’t ready for the exam yet.  It doesn’t mean that you never will be. 

Seventy-six per cent of our young people now achieve level 2 English and maths by age 19 which means we should praise the FE sector for transforming lives and allowing students to reach that level 2 benchmark at the time when they’re ready.  With strong, consistent teaching and learning, which doesn’t just focus on exam prep but a re-engagement in English Language learning, young learners are improving their grades. 

Often, FE colleges get ignored when reporting on KS4 success. Rather than creating a system where mainstream secondary schools can learn from them, the role of FE becomes an addition that feels elusive and hidden. This must change. It is time to have a more holistic view of education, one that chooses to centre on the potential trajectory of the child, rather than one arbitrary destination.  

Forget the gloom, T Levels are turning a corner

Baker Dearing and the University Technical College network are really pleased more students have completed their T Levels this year, and that the pass rate has surpassed 90 per cent.

This shows how T Levels, which rely on solid employer partnerships and a high bar for technical provision, have matured and are working well across the school and college system.

Industry placements are giving young people the experience of the workplace that helps them move seamlessly and confidently into apprenticeships and careers.

The course content and examinations for T Levels, while exacting, means students have the skills that industry needs and are prepared for the high expectations of work.

All of which means more students can progress onto fantastic apprenticeship and university destinations. Like Jenson Burrows from UTC South Durham, who is progressing onto a degree apprenticeship with County Durham technology firm Kromek after achieving a distinction in his engineering T Level.

Or Lincoln UTC student Finlay Ingram, who achieved a merit in his engineering T Level and will be progressing to a degree apprenticeship with BAE Systems in Cumbria.

UTC Norfolk’s Katie Condie, meanwhile, will be studying biochemistry at the University of Lincoln after achieving a distinction in her science T Level.

Destinations such as these prove that T Levels can deliver the “skilled and knowledgeable workforce” that Ofqual chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham rightly says is needed for Britain’s economic future.

To reach those destinations, students have had to complete their qualification. The latest T Level results suggest that 27 per cent left the course early, which is an improvement on the 29 per cent and 34 per cent dropout rate recorded in 2024 and 2023 respectively.

The improvement in retention is cause for celebration, as it shows T Levels work for young people and that students understand the value in their course. 

T Levels have settled into the education landscape

UTCs have dovetailed perfectly with T Levels, as they already had the employer partnerships and the strong focus on delivering high-quality technical provision to make the qualifications work.

However, it was always important that the qualifications worked well in mainstream schools and colleges to ensure their viability.

While the flexibilities introduced by DfE (such as allowing students to carry out up to 20% of their work placement remotely, and 50 per cent for digital T Level students) have been controversial, they have helped make the qualifications viable for many centres. Arguably, they have contributed to the massive increase in centres delivering T Levels. A 57.4 per cent increase, from 162 to 255 centres between 2024 and 2025, should not be discounted – it is a huge improvement.

The continued support of ministers, up to and including skills minister Baroness Smith, have also helped build momentum and confidence in the brand.

T Levels are now firmly ensconced in the education landscape as the gold-standard technical education pathway and an alternative to existing vocational and technical qualifications such as BTECs. Their cohabitation with T Levels means a wide choice of pathways for students.

What does the future hold?

The future looks bright for T Levels. They have gained acceptance and understanding in the school and college sectors. From speaking to employers, we know they have started to see they can use T Levels to pipe talented young professionals into the workplace.

We expect the retention rate will improve as providers become more confident and as employers step up their support, including in terms of the elusive industry placements.

This all bodes well for technical education in England. The continued success of T Levels will help build a skilled and knowledgeable workforce for the UK economy, while also creating parity of esteem between technical and academic routes.

We still need to tackle the high T Level dropout rate

T levels are the new flagship level 3 technical qualification in England, designed in collaboration with employers to meet the needs of industry. But they have experienced their fair share of challenges in the early stages of their rollout, including being plagued by high rates of dropout among T level starters.

Equivalent to three A Levels, T Levels combine classroom learning with a substantial industry placement, giving students the opportunity to gain real-world experience in their chosen field.

One reason for the dropouts is that the volume and complexity of content across some pathways was initially set far too high.

As the rollout continues, DfE is revising the qualifications to improve delivery and the student experience. This includes engaging in a full review of T level content over the last year in response to these high dropout rates.

But have recent changes worked?

Dropout remain higher than alternatives

On a positive note, overall T level retention has continued to rise, going from 66 per cent in 2023 to 74 per cent in 2025. This suggests that the changes made as the T level rollout progresses have had a positive impact on retention.

However, the T level dropout rate (26 per cent) remains significantly higher than the dropout rate from studying 3 A levels (10 per cent) and from similar sized VTQs (22 per cent). Given T levels are somewhat of a mix between existing VTQs and A levels, one would expect T level retention to be somewhere around the 80 to 85 per cent mark – still a way off the current state of play. While recent improvements are very welcome, it is important that the department and industry keep working on boosting T level retention.

Retention challenges remain for first-year T levels

Dropout rates vary considerably by pathway. The digital route remains the best performing pathway, delivering the lowest dropout rates in every year of T level delivery. Changes to the health and science content and assessments continue to pay dividends. Having initially suffered from an  abysmal dropout rate in 2023 (only 53 per cent of students were retained) the health and science pathway has seen its retention rate rise to 72 per cent.

Of particular concern is the low retention rate for students on the brand-new agriculture and animal care pathway (61 per cent). This highlights that new T level routes continue to face challenges with retention in their first year of delivery. It is imperative that more work is undertaken to support students in these first cohorts of new T levels and consider why dropout has been so high in some subjects.

Disadvantaged, female and white learners drop out more frequently

Our recent research has investigated the drivers of T level dropout to better understand who drops out and why. Results show that disadvantaged and female learners were significantly more likely to drop out than their peers even after controlling for prior attainment. White students were also more likely to drop out and so too were students with lower GCSE grades. 

Dropped out students at risk of going backwards or missing from education and training

One final concern is what happens to students who drop out of their T level. Are they transferring to another course? Moving to an apprenticeship? Or are they leaving education all together?

Concerningly, our research shows that more than a third of 16-year-olds who drop out of their T level in the first year go completely missing from the education and training system. Moreover, many students drop down onto a lower-level course (level 2 or below). While some students who drop out may go into skilled employment in their T level sector, these students are still missing out on a significant level 3 qualification that could open doors in their future.

Improvements in retention deserve to be celebrated. But addressing the T level drop rate out must remain a strong focus for the government. Students deserve more support in completing their T level and finding suitable destinations on other high-quality pathways if they do decide to withdraw. Given disadvantaged students tend to drop out more frequently, this yet again reiterates the urgent call for more targeted support for disadvantaged learners in post-16.