SWAPs scheme for jobless achieves 40% success rate

A popular training and work experience scheme for the unemployed helps four in 10 participants into work, data has revealed.

The Sector-based Work Academy Programme (SWAP) aims to match jobseekers with employers in need of staff via a short combination of training, work experience and a job interview.

But scant evidence exists to show the impact of SWAPs since 2020, when the previous government revived the programme under its Plan for Jobs initiative.

Data obtained exclusively by FE Week via a freedom of information request reveals officials used personal tax information to track how many unemployed people were earning money after taking part.

The earnings data, accessed from HMRC and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) systems, suggests that as of July last year about 40 per cent of SWAP participants were earning after six months.

This rate has steadily fallen from 55 per cent in April 2021 when the government began its analysis.

The data FE Week secured does not show earnings levels despite the department seemingly having access to this information.

Data release reluctance

It is the first time the DWP has released statistical evidence that offers clues about the scheme’s impact on the 98,000 participants who start each year in 2022/23 and 2023/24.

The department initially claimed data was unavailable due to being “held clerically at a local level”, before admitting it tracked participants’ earnings using “administrative data provided by HMRC”.

Eventually, it shared the earnings tracking data with FE Week, adding the disclaimer that while it provides “some insight”, it does not give “an accurate assessment of the true impact” of the impact of SWAPs.

The department also confirmed that a detailed study, described as a “counterfactual impact assessment” of the outcome of SWAPs for participants between April 2021 and March 2023, will be published.

‘The verdict’s out’

Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said: “It’s good DWP have released this data, though it doesn’t tell us how much people earned after completing a SWAP, nor whether they likely would’ve found a job without the provision.

“I’m pleased they plan to publish an evaluation estimating how many people would’ve got jobs without support. Until then, the verdict’s out on its effectiveness.”

The unemployed are referred to SWAPs by Job Centres. Each programme, delivered by independent training providers or further education colleges, should include training funded by the adult education budget, now known as the adult skills fund, unpaid work experience and a guaranteed job interview.

But a qualitative study released in May suggested “few” participants were offered work placements and some were “disappointed” because there was no job interview at the end.

The Department for Education declined to comment when asked whether it viewed SWAPs as a worthwhile use of adult education funding.

FE Week also obtained DWP statistics that suggest fewer than two-thirds of SWAP starters finished the programme in 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Success rate similarities

Ian Ross, chief executive officer of Whitehead Ross Training and Consulting, said the SWAPs 40% success rate was similar to the 36% rate achieved by DfE-coordinated skills bootcamps, while 38 per cent of participants in the DWP’s Restart scheme secure a job.

Steve Morris, commercial director at Learning Curve Group, which delivers SWAPS, stressed the scheme is a “good idea” as it ensures training is tailored to employers’ recruitment needs.

He said: “The reducing success of SWAPs recently, if that is the case, needs to be measured against the backdrop of an increasing rate in unemployment, a growth in economic inactivity and a constant and steady decline in the number of vacancies.”

Morris added that while a job should be the “hard measure” of success, moving people “closer to the job market” is a beneficial outcome.

Gary Durant, vice principal of Weston College, stressed the need for regional data showing starts, achievement and progression into work, to feed into local benchmarks that would help the government and combined authorities measure success.

History and future

The SWAPs scheme began in 2011 when the then prime minister David Cameron funded 330,000 starts over seven years.

But it faced controversy and a high-profile legal challenge known as the ‘Poundland case’ due to the use of benefits sanctions by Job Centres to stop people quitting what some viewed as unpaid work.

Rishi Sunak pumped £60 million into the scheme in mid-2020 to counter unemployment during the pandemic.

In its recent Get Britain Working white paper, the Labour government said it would fund the programme until at least 2026, pledging to “build on our experience of what works”.

A DWP spokesperson said: “SWAPs provide people from all backgrounds invaluable opportunities to gain on the job experience with local businesses across a wide range of industries.  

“We are currently on course to meet our target for the number of SWAP starts for this year. Alongside this, our Get Britain Working reforms will transform Jobcentres into a truly public employment service, guaranteeing every young person the chance to earn or learn, delivering the growth and jobs our country needs.”

Mayors better at spending adult skills cash

Regional mayors have allocated more of their adult education budgets than the government, figures obtained by FE Week show.

Between 2019 and 2023, England’s mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) spent 97 per cent of the £2.85 billion handed to them to fund adult courses, leaving a total underspend of £87 million.

Meanwhile, the Department for Education spent 91.5 per cent of its £2.98 billion budget for non-MCA areas in the same period, leaving £254 million untouched.

Experts suggest the figures show regional mayors are more effective at administering the AEB than Whitehall – and better at focusing investment on local needs.

Underspends decrease

AEB devolution began in 2019 and is continuing to grow. In this academic year, about £839 million of the adult education budget has been handed to the Greater London Authority and nine combined authorities, accounting for 60 per cent of the £1.4 billion AEB now known as the adult skills fund.

Annual underspends appear to have improved since local leaders established themselves as skills commissioning bodies.

In 2019 they underspent a combined £15 million, or 4 per cent of their budgets.

But by 2022-23, 99 per cent of the £789 million of the AEB available to regional mayors was spent, with some overspending due to high demand.

Jamie Driscoll, former mayor of the North of Tyne, which has now become part of a larger North East Combined Authority, said spending was “pretty much bang-on” during his tenure, with an underspend of just £1 million on a £70 million budget over three years.

He added: “That’s no mean feat considering we took control of the AEB budget during Covid. It was crazy.

“What AEB devolution let us do was plan, build relationships with training providers, and basically do a good job.

“We increased AEB enrolments from 22,000 to 35,000 on the same real-terms budget.”

‘Devolution journey’

Money left over from the AEB is kept in MCAs’ reserves and carried forward into future years, with many using it to make free adult education more accessible to disadvantaged people.

Exactly how much MCAs have in their adult skills reserves is unclear but authorities for South Yorkshire and Tees Valley told FE Week they had £12 million and £7 million respectively.

Some, such as the West Midlands, use left-over funds to increase the threshold for free level 3 courses to include people earning up to £32,000 per year.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough targeted spending for the most deprived areas and introduced a £1,200 bursary for care leavers in further education.

South Yorkshire, which took control of skills in 2021-22, said it had “significantly” improved its spending from 80 per cent of its £31 million budget in the first year to 98 per cent in 2023-24.

“Devolution is a journey”, they told FE Week.

‘Effective outcomes’

Experts said the figures reflect positively on devolution.

Simon Ashworth, deputy chief executive officer of the Association of Learning Providers, said mayors with devolved skills powers take a “more progressive approach” to commissioning, which leads to “more effective spending outcomes”.

He added: “Given Treasury’s expected drive to extract more effective spending throughout government at all levels, this represents an opportunity to continue to do things differently.”

Gareth Thomas, a skills policy adviser and former director at the Learning and Skills Council, said mayoral adult education spending appears to “get better year on year”.

This is likely because authorities can “leverage” skills with other activities in their remit, such as housing, planning and business growth.

However, he added that 10 devolved skills bodies create a larger administrative cost than when the DfE managed all adult education contracts with independent training providers.

“The key thing for MCAs is getting the balance right between knowing what’s going on and assuring value for money, versus not putting too much burden on providers through admin costs and getting as much as possible out to learners on the front line,” Thomas said.

Transparency call

FE Week obtained the spending figures through a series of freedom of information requests to the 10 English mayors with control of skills budgets.

Most MCAs fail to routinely publish headline figures such as how much of their budgets are spent each year.

Others publish spending figures in different formats which makes comparison difficult.

Thomas said: “This is taxpayers’ money, and taxpayers have a right to understand how much is being spent and the impact of it. Some consistency of reporting would be helpful.”

Since being contacted for comment, MCAs including South Yorkshire have committed to publishing their spending performance “for all future years”.

Alex Stevenson, deputy director at the Learning and Work Institute, said: “As more devolution areas take on responsibility for adult skills it’s important to have transparency and accountability in how skills funding is spent.

“DfE should work to ensure a consistent approach to the reporting and publication of data at MCA level.”

The DfE, which agrees the terms of skills devolution with mayors, declined to comment.

FE ethnicity pay gap revealed

Ethnic minority teachers and leaders in FE are paid more than their white colleagues – but there is a stark underrepresentation in top roles, an FE Week probe has found.

Never-before-published figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request show non-white teachers earned a few hundred pounds more than their white counterparts in 2022/23, equivalent to 1 per cent.

The FE ethnicity pay gap bucks the trend for the rest of England’s education sector, where pay gaps that favour white people were 7 per cent among school teachers and 5.2 per cent for university staff.

Jeff Greenidge, director for diversity and governance at the Association of Colleges, said the analysis shows a “positive reflection” of the dedication to diversity across the sector that makes FE a “welcoming sector to study and work in”.

The data provided to FE Week shows FE teachers from ethnic minority backgrounds earned an annual median salary of £34,927 in 2022/23 – the most recently available data – compared with £34,546 paid to white teachers.

The overall ethnicity pay gap for England stands at 2 per cent as of 2022 in favour of ethnic minority workers, but it differs amongst ethnic groups. Nationally, black workers earn on average 5.7 per cent less than white workers, but workers of mixed or multiple ethnicities outearn white employees by 7.2 per cent.

The data provided to this publication showed that ethnic minority teachers made up 12 per cent (7,206) of the FE teaching workforce. White teachers made up 77 per cent (44,553), and the rest (12 per cent) preferred not to state their ethnicity.

First-of-its-kind analysis

All FE colleges and training providers have to submit ethnicity and pay data to the Department for Education as part of its annual FE workforce data collection, which now covers two academic years.

The DfE held the data obtained by FE Week on ethnicity pay but it has never been made publicly available.

FE Week analysed the median pay of FE staff across all ethnic groups broken down by provider type, role, age, gender and geography.

However, pay figures were only provided for the 150,000 staff on permanent or fixed-term contracts, which is about 75 per cent of the FE workforce. The DfE also excluded data where fewer than 25 people were counted in any region.

Median pay, which is referenced throughout our analysis, shows a salary midpoint in the range.

Handle with care

The pay gap in favour of ethnic minorities was even higher among FE leaders, but this was largely skewed by London-weighted salaries and a lack of non-white leaders outside the capital and West Midlands.

The DfE’s workforce survey defines a leader as any provider senior manager, including directors, principals, vice principals, assistant principals, chief executives and managing directors.

Ethnic minority leaders in FE made up 7 per cent of all 5,748 recorded leaders and were paid 5 per cent more than white bosses (£65,576 vs £62,180).

Non-white college principals drops to 5%

This is an underrepresentation, however, as figures for 254 non-white leaders were not provided as they did not meet the DfE’s statistical threshold across individual regions.

And despite ethnic minority leaders being concentrated in London, they earned an average median salary of £67,586, 9 per cent below white leaders earning £74,307.

Meanwhile, Asian leaders in the West Midlands, the only other ethnic group with regional data provided, earned a median of £59,546, 4 per cent below white leaders in the area.

Paul Bridge, UCU head of further education, said: “This research highlights that too many institutions, be it through caution or complacency about pay inequality, must be well aware that black [ethnic minority] staff are dramatically under-represented at higher levels but have let it slip under the radar for too long.”

Greenidge said the data “highlights the areas we need to focus on for the future; inter-regional pay differences for example, and the consistent disparity between male and female pay across all ethnicities”.

Regional cold spots

FE Week’s analysis found differences in the ethnicity pay gap across the English regions.

Non-white FE teachers were paid more than the regional average in five out of nine areas of the country. They were paid less than the regional average in the east of England, London, south east, and the north west.

Teachers from “other ethnic groups” in the West Midlands earned the most out of the whole country, paid an average (median) salary of £44,256, outpacing the regional average of £36,376.

The DfE defines “other ethnic groups” as “any other ethnic group, Arab”.

In London, the highest paid teachers were from mixed/multiple ethnic groups, earning 5 per cent more than the regional average at an annual median salary of £43,582.

But black teachers earned 5 per cent less than their white counterparts in London (£39,821 vs £42,000). White teachers earned 2 per cent more than the average teacher in the capital (£41,317).

ONS data shows a 30 per cent ethnicity pay gap (an hourly median of £14.16) amongst black workers London-wide in 2022 and a 12.3 per cent gap for Asian workers (£17.71) compared with white workers (£20.20).

Some colleges report their ethnicity pay gaps and are making some improvements, such as Croydon College which reduced its ethnicity pay gap for all staff from 15.9 per cent to 13.6 per cent in 2023.

Meanwhile, Milton Keynes College group reported a 2.5 per cent ethnicity pay gap amongst its non-white staff, who made up 16.5 per cent of its 1,110 workforce in 2023-24. The gap widened from its prior two years of voluntary data, when it reported 2.1 and 1.9 per cent pay gaps respectively. Its published report details steps it is taking to close the gap, including internal leadership development programmes.

Bridge said: “All institutions must be prepared to radically examine their structures, policies and procedures and make changes, and employers must work with us to analyse all pay gaps, including ethnicity, gender and disability.”

Gender differences

Our investigation also found that men of all ethnicities working in FE are paid more than women. 

Overall, female ethnic minorities were paid a median of £30,165 – 10 per cent less than white men, 11 per cent less than male ethnic minorities and 5 per cent more than white women.

The smallest pay gap amongst the same ethnicities was 8 per cent, between men and women from “other” ethnic groups.

The largest pay gap was from those who did not state their ethnicity at 15 per cent, followed by white men earning 14 per cent more than white women (£33,536 vs £28,693).

A DfE spokesperson said: “We want teaching to be a supportive and inclusive profession, and it’s important we attract and retain talented FE teachers and leaders who represent the communities they serve.

“We recognise there is still more to do, and we are working hard to support recruitment and retention of teachers from lots of different backgrounds, with equal opportunity for all.”

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 483

Sam Double

Chief Executive Officer, VetSkill

Start date: January 2025

Previous Job: Director of Operations, VetSkill

Interesting fact: Sam has a research interest in positive psychology and recently undertook an emotive study on Ofsted inspections and their effects on wellbeing of senior leaders. Sam is also a Plymouth Argyle season ticket holder.

Richard Turner

Head of Apprenticeships, Graduates and Industry Development, Network Rail

Start date: January 2025

Previous Job: Head of Apprenticeships, BT

Interesting fact: In his spare time, Richard creates history-based animations for over 400,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel

David Laws Chair, AQA

Start date: December 2024

Previous Job: Chair, Energy UK

Interesting fact: David is the only current or former UK politician who has helped negotiate two national coalition governments (the Lib Dem-Labour government in Scotland from 1999-2003 and the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition government of 2010-2015

Learning Curve vs DfE contract case ends in secret settlement

A secret deal has been struck to end an 18-month legal battle between a major group of training providers and the government over a controversial adult education contract bid.

FE Week understands Learning Curve Group has agreed to withdraw its claim that the Education and Skills Funding Agency acted unlawfully when it didn’t award its seven subsidiary companies an adult education (AEB) contract in 2023.

Training providers rarely successfully challenge adult education procurement losses through the courts. Learning Curve’s apparent unprecedented win could open the door to more legal challenges from disgruntled training providers.

The case was due to go to trial later this year, with the group seeking a re-run of the 2023 adult education budget procurement evaluation, damages and costs.

Details of the settlement have not been disclosed. A re-run will not go ahead.

Learning Curve filed fresh evidence for its case in November in which it claimed its bid for a contract was not “evaluated or scored consistently with the published award criteria”.

A trial was initially due to take place in December but had been adjourned to a window between March 17 and August 1.

Learning Curve launched its case in August 2023 after its bid for a national AEB contract was rejected by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

It centred on a dispute over a section of Learning Curve’s bids that asked for forecasts for training courses and learner numbers, known as the Q1B1 submission. DfE’s defence claimed Learning Curve’s tender “failed to provide the forecast of the number of learners per course, which is an entire deliverable asked for”. As a result, it couldn’t be awarded a contract.

Following an initial disclosure of procurement evaluation documents in November 2023, Learning Curve alleged that documents showed evaluators had initially scored its Q1B1 response as 100 – enough to be considered for a contract, but this was downgraded to 50 by “non-evaluators” that “did not apply the published award criteria”.

The DfE’s next defence admitted that the initial evaluators “failed to apply” the award criteria for that crucial question. As a result, the usual “consensus score” process, where two evaluators agree on a final score for a question, did not apply and a moderator decided the lower score.

The DfE repeatedly denied it acted unlawfully in its evaluation of Learning Curve’s bids that “deprived” the group “of a real chance of winning a contract”.

Mind the ‘minor gap’

Fresh high court documents, filed by Learning Curve in November, included new evidence it claimed backed up its argument that it was treated differently to other providers in the Q1B1 evaluation.

It included an anonymised list of 122 Q1B1 bid scores from providers’ bids and alleged each of them did not include forecast learner numbers per proposed course, a list of courses and/or breached the award criteria for another reason. Yet, each of those bids appeared to have been scored ‘good’ or ‘very good’ – enough to be considered for a contract.

The document suggests 22 of the 122 examples were awarded a contract. In one case, a score of ‘very good’ was awarded to one provider where the Q1B1 submission did not include forecasts for courses or learner numbers per course. That provider was awarded a contract.

Another example also scored ‘very good’ and was awarded a contract after submitting learner forecasts by subject and region, but not per course. In numerous other examples, missing learner forecasts were described by evaluators as “a minor gap.”

Learning Curve was approached for comment.

The Department for Education declined to comment.

Principals’ dismay over £50m pay deal ‘own goal’

Ministers’ decision to stump up £50 million to help fund teacher pay in colleges this year has divided leaders – with some describing the deal as an “own goal” that benefits the Treasury.

A lack of new funding for adult education, rising costs and growing industrial unrest have dampened what on the surface is good news for principals.

The Department for Education told the sector last Friday that a chunk of the £300 million announced for FE at the autumn Budget would be released this April as a “one-off grant”.

The remaining £250 million will be made available through 16 to 19 funding rates for the 2025-26 academic year.

Ministers have been under pressure to get additional funding into FE to help fund teacher pay rises since last summer’s snub which saw £1.2 billion injected into schools and academised sixth form colleges to pay for a 5.5 per cent boost.

Standalone sixth form colleges and general FE colleges were given no such subsidy until last week’s deal, which put an end to a judicial review claim that the Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) brought against the government.

Colleges have mostly welcomed the £50 million grant while they wait for their individual allocations as any additional money is good news after 14 years of austerity. 

While recognising that colleges are still unlikely to match the school pay award, the SFCA said the move was a “significant step in the right direction” as it increased its pay recommendation from 2 per cent to 4.3 per cent.

But multiple general FE college principals told FE Week they would rather have the full £300 million be put into the 16 to 19 base rate in the next academic year as this would result in a higher consolidated uplift.

A saving for Treasury

One college CEO, who did not wish to be named, said: “We’re far better off getting the £300 million in our rates because it is then embedded in forever, so every year the DfE has got to fund that over and over and over again. A one-off grant is a saving for the Treasury because they only fund it once rather than on a recurrent basis.

“That’s a huge own goal for us.”

They added that the deal had not achieved its desired outcome because sixth form college unions are continuing with strike action.

Another principal agreed, saying that any colleges calling for one-off cash payments to fund pay are on “dodgy ground”.

“From my point of view as an accounting officer, I would not take any confidence in consolidating a pay rise on unconsolidated budgets, because the future affordability of that is so uncertain,” they said.

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes said it does look like the £50 million will be a one-off payment that doesn’t then get consolidated into the permanent 16 to 19 rate.

“I think that causes potential problems for colleges, where, if they use their share of the £50 million to improve the pay of staff in this academic year, it’s difficult to know how they pay for that next academic year because it’s not consolidated into the baseline,” he told FE Week.

But Hughes added that any money coming to colleges “is a good thing”, and this year’s grant will be “really helpful” for colleges that have gone to the wire to try and exceed the AoC recommended 2.5 per cent pay award. 

Funding cliff edge?

The SFCA countered the argument that the full £300 million would be better off going into the base rate next year as this would also be shared between schools and academies that deliver to sixth formers and not just colleges.

Bill Watkin, the association’s chief executive, said: “One of the great benefits of the £50 million we have secured for 2024-25 is that it is targeted exclusively at 16 to 19 education in colleges. 

“Those making the argument that the £50 million should have remained in 2025-26 are effectively making the case to give half of this money to schools and academies. That would be the impact of using it to increase the funding rate next year.”

He added: “In our view, it is far better to share the funding exclusively between 200 colleges than to share it between 2,800 school sixth forms and other institutions.

“It is important that colleges do not face a funding cliff edge next year, and we have been assured that this will be avoided. Next year, the additional funding will be sufficient, we believe, to address the growth in student numbers and to raise the funding rate further.”

The DfE said it will provide a further update on individual allocations by February 13.

Angela Joyce, chief executive of Capital City College, said the issue of pay in colleges is “becoming increasingly complex” in part because the representative bodies are “making different pay award recommendations alongside different associated actions” and because colleges were reclassified to the public sector in 2022.

“FE colleges have been independent corporations for decades meaning that pay decisions have been made locally; reclassification is taking us as corporations closer to central government but seemingly without a desire to challenge the big issues that we face,” she told FE Week.

Mike Hopkins, principal of South and City College Birmingham, pointed out that colleges are currently in a worse position than last year and not only because they were excluded from the schools £1.2 billion pay deal.

“We are also faced with an additional annual cost of £320,000 for the increase in the living wage” he said, adding that funding for £900,000 of national insurance cost rises for his college have still not been confirmed.

“In addition, as almost half our funding is provided through the West Midlands combined authority, any increase in funding made through the 16 to 19 DfE funding is in effect only 50 per cent for this college.”

Hello Future: How we in FE can shape our own AI revolution

 AI is here, reshaping how we work, teach, lead, and learn. The real question isn’t whether AI belongs in FE, but whether we have the courage to shape it in a way that serves our sector, our students, our employers and our communities.

This week, the government laid out its blueprint to accelerate AI transformation of our economy. I’ve always been a digital optimist. Technology, when used well, has transformed the human condition—we live longer, healthier, better-connected lives because of it. But every industrial revolution has brought both progress and disruption. AI is no different. It will change how we work, how we teach, and how we prepare students for the future. That change is already happening—not next year, not in five years, but now.

And change, especially on this scale, scares people. We’ve seen it in every technological shift. The printing press, the steam engine, the internet—all of them triggered huge social and labour market shifts. But what separates success from failure in these moments is leadership. Those who lean in and shape the change can thrive, those who stand back, waiting for permission, could be left behind.

That’s why we wrote Hello Future – a book with 12 colleges contributing 22 chapters of AI expertise written by the sector, for the sector, and free to the sector.

AI is already reshaping Further Education, and if there’s one thing our sector does well, it’s coming together to tackle challenges head-on. We don’t sit back and wait for change to happen to us—we collaborate, we share, and we build on each other’s successes. That’s the spirit behind Hello Future.

The colleges contributed because they recognised that AI heralds a fundamental shift in how we teach, lead, and operate. Across the country, FE leaders and practitioners are already testing and embedding AI in lesson planning, assessment, governance, student support, and administration. Through this collective effort, we’re showing that AI isn’t about replacing the human elements of education—it’s about strengthening them.

AI is already making life easier for the FE leaders, teachers, and support staff who use it. The real challenge isn’t whether we should use it, it’s how we use it well. Across our sector, AI has the potential to save teachers hours each week by streamlining lesson planning, generating teaching and assessment materials, and reducing admin burdens. It can help leaders make smarter decisions with real-time data insights and can support students with more personalised learning than ever before.

But with opportunity comes responsibility. AI is not a magic fix, it’s a tool, and like any tool, it’s only as good as the hands that guide it. We must be clear-eyed about the risks: bias in AI models, ethical concerns around data privacy, and the very real danger of widening, rather than closing, the digital divide. If we get this wrong, we risk creating a system where AI benefits some but leaves others behind.

That’s why Hello Future is about the practicalities. How do we adopt AI in a way that’s ethical, responsible, and genuinely improves education? How do we make sure AI supports teachers, rather than becoming another layer of complexity? And crucially, how do we ensure that no student, no college, and no educator is left out of the AI conversation?

The best way to understand the power of AI in FE is to see it in action. Just today, I used AI to pull together a clear, concise summary of the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025—something that would have taken hours manually. I worked with our HR team to develop a talent attraction brochure showcasing the Humber region, using AI to refine messaging and highlight the strengths that make it such a great place to work. And later, I was in a discussion with our digital innovation team, using AI-generated concepts to shape the design of a digital avatar that will become the face of our online learning offer.

‘Hello Future’ is full of examples like these, shared by colleges across the country who are already experimenting, adapting, and learning together, because the future won’t wait. It isn’t something to prepare for; it’s something to create.

In true Hullraiser style – Let’s get on with it!

Hello Future can be downloaded from https://www.hull-college.ac.uk/publications from 20th January.

Devolve apprenticeship funding to local leaders, says Wolf

Whitehall should devolve apprenticeship funding powers and ditch an “entirely inappropriate” Amazon-style online market to better attract small and medium-sized employers, an influential peer has said.

Baroness Alison Wolf also wants Labour to divide its proposed growth and skills levy into an apprenticeship levy and a separate workforce training levy, which all businesses, not just those with a £3 million or more payroll, pay into at different rates.

She proposed a series of reforms in a policy paper for the Social Market Foundation which labels the current apprenticeship system a “failure.”

The crossbench peer, who advised Number 10 on skills from 2020 to 2023, highlighted how the apprenticeship levy had diverted money to the training of older workers already in jobs.

Wolf also evidenced how the levy “strongly incentivises a move towards expensive high-level apprenticeships in non-skill-shortage areas, including many which are ‘apprenticeships’ in name only, delivering what is effectively professional development”. 

Trends include how only 23 per cent of apprenticeships now go to people under 19, compared to 41 per cent in 2008, while the proportion of over-25s has ballooned from 24 per cent to 49 per cent.

Only 20 per cent of apprentices are in skill shortage areas, and small and medium enterprises now account for only 29 per cent of apprenticeship spending as they are “squeezed out by bureaucratic and funding barriers”.

Apprenticeships are currently organised as a national, centrally-run, web-based system – the digital apprenticeship service – with no direct involvement of local or mayoral authorities, or employer organisations, a model which Wolf describes as “that of a market, and not just any sort of market either: it is, rather, that of a country-wide online retailer like Amazon”.

She added this “rigid and often impenetrable national system” without local infrastructure is “completely inappropriate, especially for SMEs”.

Apprenticeship funds are also limited for the SME sector, dependent on predicted levy underspends and Treasury controls, and handed out on a short-term basis.

Root of the problem

At the root of apprenticeship “failure” is confusion about what apprenticeships should be, according to Wolf, who argued an apprenticeship “is about learning a new occupation” and not ongoing workplace training, but the UK system “conflates the two”.

There is a “real danger” the government will “simply continue the policy confusion” by relabelling the apprenticeship levy as a growth and skills levy if it continues with a single catch-all pot, she said.

Wolf also fears if the minimum 12-month duration rule is relaxed and shorter foundation apprenticeships are introduced it “could easily reinforce the temptation for employers to distort effective workplace training by squeezing it into an apprenticeship straitjacket”.

The fix: Devolution and two levies

The peer said rather than just renaming the overall levy and periodically changing how the money can be used, the government should split the levy into one for apprenticeships and one for workforce training. 

This division would “greatly simplify future policymaking and the introduction of improvements specific to one or the other”. 

To encourage businesses to hire young apprentices, ministers should impose a freeze on all level 7 apprenticeships, ring-fence a portion of the levy for 16 to 21 year olds, and reduce the proportion of training costs which the government covers for apprentices aged 25 or older to around 50 per cent.

She also supported calls to restrict apprenticeship funding to university graduates and to automatically entitle all 16 to 18 year old apprentices to training paid for in the same demand-driven way as classroom-based learners. 

Wolf said apprenticeships should be locally administered to respond to skill needs and draw on local employer and educational networks – similar to successful systems in France, Switzerland and Germany. 

She proposed funds for apprenticeship training should be distributed to mayoral combined authorities. 

Labour appeared interested in devolving apprenticeships while in opposition but has shown no sign of implementing this idea since entering government.

Wolf said allocations could initially follow current expenditure but areas with buoyant demand would then be eligible for additional funding in future years, and those that fail to spend their allocation would face cuts.

An “alternative local authority grouping” would take on this funding role in non-MCA areas. 

Levy reform is a ‘moral imperative’

Wolf also said apprenticeship training providers should be organised at devolved local level, so there is a “list of providers, and employers can access this locally”.

Meanwhile, there should be a national, government-led programme for occupations where numbers are small.

Wolf said this should lead into a single, integrated system, which brings all employers into the same payment system, rather than running separate ones for large businesses and SMEs.

The levy rate should, over time, be cut for big companies. All employers would then pay, bringing in many thousands of additional contributors, but on a sliding scale. 

At the same time, the “complex business” of offsetting individual levy dues via apprentice training costs should be abolished. 

“The levy should be just that – a general levy which underpins and pays for general access to free training for all apprentices,” Wolf said. “Fixing the levy is not just an economic imperative – it’s a moral one.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Ensuring people have the skills they need for the future is crucial to this government’s number one mission to grow the economy.

“We’ll be asking more employers to step forward and fund level 7 apprenticeships themselves to ensure apprenticeships support those who need them most, while also meeting the needs of individuals, employers, and the economy.

“Further details will follow, informed by Skills England’s recommendations on priority skills needs.”

Ofsted system glitch wiped evidence during almost 200 inspections

A software glitch wiped Ofsted inspectors’ evidence during almost 200 inspections over a three year period, but only resulted in re-visits on four occasions, an internal investigation has revealed.

The report, shared with sister paper Schools Week by the watchdog, found that of 26,431 inspections conducted using the electronic evidence gathering (EEG) system between February 2021 and May 2024, there were 191 where inspectors reported evidence was lost.

Only four of these incidents resulted in inspectors returning to gather extra evidence, while the inspectorate said it was “confident that the judgment…is secure” in the other 187 cases. However, Ofsted has refused to name the providers affected.

Martyn Oliver

The EEG system replaced pen and paper records in 2019. Ofsted said it enabled inspectors to better “review and synthesise their notes” and offered a “notable improvement” in security.

But Schools Week revealed last year that the system had been plagued with long-standing issues with evidence being wiped, prompting chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver to commission a rapid review.

Inspectors described situations in which their screen “froze” and evidence “disappeared” in front of their eyes during visits. Others discovered evidence had been wiped upon returning to their hotel room.

In a submission to the Parliamentary education committee last year, a group of six former inspectors, including former academy trust leader Frank Norris, warned the EEG’s effectiveness had been “hindered by a lack of trialling and an unwillingness to accept its flaws and feedback”.

Evidence wiped for 191 inspections

Ofsted’s review found that “occasionally, a system or human error can result in some of an inspector’s notes not saving in EEG”.

Of the 191 instances where evidence was wiped, four resulted in inspectors returning to gather additional evidence.

Of the remaining 187, Ofsted found inspectors whose notes did not save “shared their findings verbally in the end-of-day team meetings”.

“The inspection team considered these findings, alongside the recorded notes, when making their final evaluation and reaching judgments. This is in line with standard inspection practice.”

Ofsted’s policy states that inspectors who find their evidence has been wiped should “recapture the salient points from memory as soon as possible after they detect that any notes are missing”.

In “most instances, only a small proportion of the evidence base is affected”, meaning the inspector can “recall and record their notes before the end of the inspection”.

This happens “without any disruption to the inspection process”.

“Where the amount of unsaved notes is more extensive, inspectors should record a summary of what is lost as soon as they are able. This review has found that the extent to which inspectors summarise their notes varies.”

Ofsted updates software

The review found that in 182 inspections, the inspectors affected followed Ofsted policy and summarised their missing notes.

In the five cases where this was not done, the “other notes recorded by the inspector or colleagues in the inspection team, and/or the summary drawing together the team’s findings, supported the judgment”. 

“To conclude, we can confirm that in all 187 events, the full range of inspectors’ findings was considered when reaching final judgements. The written notes available in EEG are enough to support these judgments.”

Ofsted said it had reminded all inspectors of the need to summarise notes that do not save and updated guidance.

“EEG has many benefits for individual inspectors, inspection teams, providers and the wider organisation. The integrity of inspections is our priority. Policies are in place to make sure that this is not adversely affected if a technical or human error occurs with EEG.

“EEG is built on a Microsoft platform, which offers security, speed of development and future-proofing. However, there have been issues with the stability, reliability and useability of EEG over time. These have caused uncertainty and additional workload for inspectors.”

The watchdog said it was in the process of moving EEG to a new version of its Microsoft technology which “offers improved offline capability and is expected to perform well with intermittent and low connectivity”.